The end of 'the end of history'
By Nathan Gardels
TAKING OFF: Customers in a Beijing department store. Some analysts believe the emerging economies, China in particular, can become the 'locomotive of the global economy the US once was'. -- PHOTO: REUTERS
IN DAVOS (SWITZERLAND) - AS THE global elite gather here to ponder how 'Collaborative Innovation' - this year's theme - might bring the world closer together, there is a set of deep and broad challenges that suggests the trend is moving in a very different, if not opposite, direction.
First, we are witnessing the end of 'the end of history' as a distinct pattern of 'non-Western modernisation' is beginning to take shape. Second, two decades after the defrosting of the Cold War order, the world is once again dividing into democratic and non-democratic camps. Third, it is increasingly clear that export-oriented emerging markets such as China and Brazil are achieving a sufficient level of domestic consumption that they can 'decouple' from the rich economies, continuing to grow even as the United States teeters towards recession.
The most prominent chronicler of non-Western modernisation is Professor Kishore Mahbubani, the irascible former envoy of Singapore to the United Nations and now dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
In his just-published book, The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift Of Global Power To The East, Prof Mahbubani writes: 'Many in the West want to believe that this current bout of anti-Americanism is just a passing phase caused by the harsh and insensitive policies of one administration. When Bush leaves, all will change and the world will go back to loving America. The West will be revered again. All will be well. This is a mirage.'
Where once the Chinese, the Muslims and the Indians 'happily borrowed Western lenses and Western cultural perspectives' to see the world, now 'with growing cultural self-confidence, their perceptions are growing further and further apart'.
As evidence of this shift, Prof Mahbubani not only marshals the well-known economic statistics about growth in India and China, but also cites the increasing quality and number of world-class Asian universities and the credible rise of the 'Chinese dream' as a model for the developing world. He notes as well the eclipse of the once-ubiquitous American I Love Lucy or Dallas-type TV entertainment by Qing dynasty dramas, wildly popular modern-day Korean soaps or Bollywood epics, which are attractive in the Muslim world because of 'the spirit of inclusiveness and tolerance' that pervades the Indian mindset.
While the West sees the world in black-and- white 'evil empire and axis of evil' terms, he writes, 'the Indian mind is able to see the world in many different colours', making Easterners more properly 'the custodians of human civilisation' than Westerners.
The road to this new East may well have been through the West, but now that the East has arrived at its destination, the future will be built on its own terms. In one of his most insightful passages, Prof Mahbubani writes: 'The great paradox about failed Western attempts to export democracy to other societies is that, in the broadest sense of the term, the West has actually succeeded in democratising the world.'
For this Singaporean diplomat, even China, which the West considers undemocratic, has empowered its citizens and made them 'masters of their own destiny' thanks to new economic liberties. Yet, instead of celebrating this 'democratisation of the human spirit', the West berates them 'for imperfect voting practices' because it fears the inevitable: Real democracy on a global scale would topple the West from its reigning perch.
Obviously, much turns here on the differences between liberal and illiberal democracy, but Prof Mahbubani is certainly right on the broader historical shift taking place.
Closely related to the new cultural self-assertion of the East is what former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright sees as 'the hardening of the cement between democratic and non-democratic worlds'.
'The phony democracies or autocracies of Putin and Chavez,' she lamented in a recent conversation, 'may point the way to the future rather than the likes of a Walesa, Havel or Mandela, who were harbingers of democracy in their time'.
For now, oil is the ingredient that is hardening the cement, but one wonders, as the futurist and writer Alvin Toffler did a few weeks ago on a visit to Moscow, how Russia can advance through centralising the state and restoring the nomenklatura in an information age where distributed power and decentralisation are the keys to success.
In any case, Mrs Albright's answer to stemming this new global rift is to reinvigorate US-European alliances in promoting democracy 'because we have the most in common'. For Russia and China, the whole point of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which now ties them together, is to stand firm against such initiatives by the fading hegemon and its formerly colonialist allies trying to hold on as power moves east.
Finally, anyone crying over his sorry portfolio returns from US versus international markets cannot but note the growing differential between slowdown and takeoff. The World Bank forecasts that growth in the high-income countries this year will be 2.2 per cent. Developing countries will grow by 7.1 per cent, South Asia by 7.9 per cent, East Asia by 9.7 per cent and China by 10.8 per cent.
Based on this data, several Hong Kong investment analysts argue that China has passed a critical threshold where it can 'decouple' its economic fate from the West's financial tribulations, sustaining its pace of growth and investment despite a looming recession in the United States.
Some go further, believing the emerging economies, China in particular, can become the 'locomotive of the global economy the US once was'. This new reality describes yet another tectonic plate shift as the 21st century unfolds.
None of this means globalisation is coming apart at the seams, though the seams are becoming ever more apparent culturally and politically as well as economically. Certainly, common action on global warming, which affects everyone, would not be precluded. But the world order we see emerging is a lot different than the one Davos Man, as Harvard's Sam Huntington famously labelled the globalising elite who attend the World Economic Forum each year, has been used to envisioning.
Nathan Gardels is the editor-in-chief of NPQ and Global Services of Tribune Media Services. His forthcoming book with Mike Medavoy is entitled The Global Battle For Hearts And Minds: Hollywood, Public Diplomacy And America's Image.
COPYRIGHT: GLOBAL VIEWPOINT
Interesting. Perhaps "real democracy" is not about an ideal political template but practical economic framework which which empower individuals and hence, the nation
ReplyDeleteseeing "Democracy" in purely political methodology is a little too narrow a definition. Empowering the individual is perhaps a better definition and economic means seems to work. Happiness is after all, liberating.
ReplyDeleteI find this funny.
"While the West sees the world in black-and- white 'evil empire and axis of evil' terms, he writes, 'the Indian mind is able to see the world in many different colours', making Easterners more properly 'the custodians of human civilisation' than Westerners."
But there has always been many a western standpoint, hasn't it? Basically they are doing it 'right' and while Eastern cultures might be quaint and interesting we are obviously wrong.
ReplyDeleteI leave you with 2 quotes, one from unremembered science fiction author:
'The greatest form of dictatorship is democracy from without."
The other from Mahatma Gandhi when he was asked, what does he think of western civilisation?
"I think it would be a very good idea.'
The issue here is that Asians have always been more goal oriented than westerners. Whatever gets the job done. Black cat, white cat, so long as they catch mice. The West on the other hand, tend to lean to form over function. It's not a cat unless it was made in the correct process that deems it is a cat... no matter how catty the darn feline is.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. if you look at the events that lead up the independence of the United States of America, they are certainly very goal-oriented. There are other examples, and at risk of offending Americans who frequent this site, isn't that the current US policy as well? Defeat the 'enemy' by whatever means necessary. Let's not even talk about the Israelis. We can find many more examples of the 'ends justifying the means' in western history.
ReplyDeleteI think the bigger issue is many (not all) westerners because of their education have on various levels believe that their form of government and civilisation is better and one that if only Asians were given a chance would want and embrace as well. They believe they are justified when they see hordes of Asians migrating to live in their countries. Obviously it is for their superior system and culture, no? Talk to just about any American and you will see how most believe they have the best system in the world and one that others given a chance will want as well. Very often they talk about multi-cultural-ism but if you dig down deeper what they really want is for everyone to be like them. There is really no room for other cultures. They cannot comprehend the concept. (I am speaking of culture as a way of life here)
Compared to Asian societies where for various reasons we have always understood multicultural-ism better than others. We understand we have our way, and others have their ways, our ways may be different but I do not ask you to adopt mine.
In fact the western mindset I stated above can be very crudely, and almost certainly unfairly applied to how western culture, which is also made up of their religions, have evolved over the course of the history of Western civilisation. When when (as they like to trace) the Greeks with their inter-state wars due to conflicting ideologies to the 'romanisation' of the known world, their conversion of pagans to their religion, to the later expansion of the colonial powers.
Unfortunately mono-culturalism does seem to have certain advantages. One, a certain efficiency in mobilising the people to act in certain ways often in acts of agression. Two, mono-culturalism is more resilient to outside influences.
sneaked in.. too deep for moon... sneaked out...
ReplyDelete*sorry* ;-P
Should contrast this with what Kishore Mahbubani himself mentioned in quoting, "An Indian academic, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, once said that the difference between India and China was that while India was an open society with a closed mind, China was a closed society with an open mind."
ReplyDeleteSo what does he really mean? Indian mind can see many but a fixed number and shade of colours instead of the endless ranges of colours in the ever changing spectrum?
Arise the new Chinese Empire!
ReplyDeleteIndia can never fight China... .China wud eat it for lunch... .India is a lightweight society... .
ReplyDeleteWhile most western countries have been dismissing Tata's Nano, the Nano is to India what Ford Motors was to the US. India is quietly building its technological prowess. India is showing that it has the ability to take a simple everyday object and rethink, retool, reengineer into something no other motorcar manufacturer either could do, or thought of doing. China needs to sit up and take notice.
ReplyDeleteChina is too busy laughing... .
ReplyDeletewith the rest of the world... .India shud stick to making movies and food and let the MEN do the other work!
ReplyDeleteAnd for a while, they were right. In the 1950s, the remnants of a colonial mindset was to learn from the superior Western ideology. After all, technologically and economically, they were superior.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this sense of superiority is quite passe.
The fact is, half a century on, the West is living in the past "mentally". And this is not surprising. Because never have seen such rapid change through history as in the past decades. The almost "sudden" shift in economic relevance happened only in the last twenty years. Hardly a generation.
Interestingly, the Asian mindset, remains unique, oriental and relevant because we have not linked ideology to the economic realities. And in that way, we have manage to embrace and adapt change. It is paradoxically, somewhat inward looking. Keeping her "identity" while keeping her feet grounded.
The Western approach however, has always been outward looking, exploring, educating and through the active influence of trade.
I think that's a clever way to put it.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it means that the Chinese are ever practical but with a sense of protocol - think guan1 xi4
And India, though seemingly open and ever ready to accept new visitors, are not easily persuaded. Don't really know how to put it across but think of the interactions with your Indian friends :)
Jan 25, 2008
ReplyDeleteHot debate over shape of new world order: Davos forum participants can agree only that current state of flux in the world carries strong threat of instability and conflict
The spectacular rise of China and India coupled with a decline in US influence has prompted heated debate in Davos this year over possible scenarios for a new world order.
While the United States remains the undisputed military superpower, experts participating in the annual gathering of the world's political and business elite have highlighted its waning ability to set the global agenda on its own.
And with the US Security Council struggling to provide a consensus on just about any major issue, the question of what nation, group of nations or international institution could command a leading role on the future world stage was floated to a widely varying response.
The only real point of agreement was that the current fluidity in the balance of world power carries a serious threat of instability and conflict as well as concerns over how to build an effective international response to extreme abuses of power such as acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing.
"We don't live in a multi-polar world, we live in a non-polar world," said Mr John Chipman, director general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
While the US is clearly too strong to stay on the sidelines of world affairs, Mr Chipman argued that it was also too weak to implement an agenda without wide international support.
Similarly China, while too strong to be seen as just a developing nation, is unable to shape its regional environment alone, and India, while certainly a rising power, remains "diffident" about breaking with its non-aligned principles.
At the same time, Russia has accumulated great economic power but "wields it in away that weakens its reputation and causes immense mistrust", Mr Chipman said.
"The real question is whether the rising powers see themselves as the custodians of an international system and are wiling to advance interests that go beyond their national ones," he added.
Mr Wu Jianmin, president of the China Foreign Affairs University, argued that China's reticence to try to set a global agenda should be viewed against the tarnished history of Western interference in the sovereign affairs of other nations.
"You Western countries like to divide the world," said Mr. Wu. "You got into the habit of lecturing others. You want people to believe exactly like you. It's impossible."
Some delegates in Davos have predicted the development of a so-called "Chindia" power bloc that would see the two giant Asian neighbours taking a joint role in world affairs.
Professor Brahma Chellaney, of India's Centre for Police Research, said the idea was an understandable one, but flawed.
"Everyone is talking about the rise of China and India, two nations rising at such an unprecedented speed at the same time in history - one third of the global population," Prof Chellaney said.
"And it is true to say that how this situation evolves will very much shape security in Asia and beyond.
"But we tend to forget these two countries are new neighbours," he said, pointing back to China's 1951 invasion of Tibet, which had previously provided a buffer zone between the two countries.
"So they have been on a sharp learning curve. Both sides are trying to de-emphasise competition, but reality cannot be ignored. This relationship will be defined by managed competition for years to come,."
If the threat of US intervention overseas no longer carries the same weight it did in the past, some voiced concern that a contrary policy of strict non-interference in the sovereign affairs of another state - often espoused by China - opens the door to a repeat of such horrors as the genocide in Rwanda.
- AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Jan 24, 2008
ReplyDeleteSoros Warns 'Systemic Failure' May Be Upon US
by Sean O'Grady
Davos 2008. Interview with George Soros.
"This is not a normal crisis". George Soros, the doyen of international finance, the man who made billions from sterling's expulsion from the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, and who now spends much of his time on philanthropic activities, is listened to in Davos respectfully. Yesterday he had something important to say about the state of the world's financial system: "central banks have lost control"; a "global sheriff" to patrol international markets should help them out.
Mr Soros offered the proceedings a deep historical perspective. To his mind, he told participants at the World Economic Forum, we are "at the end of an era". The 60-year economic supremacy of the US and the dollar's status as the international reserve currency of choice is drawing to a close, fundamentally weakened by the shift in economic power eastwards with the rise of China. A more recent era is also over: that of "superleverage". Regulators, the financier said, have not yet fully appreciated the portent of these developments. "Systemic failure" may be upon us.
Mr Soros said he supported fiscal and monetary action to boost the US economy, but was concerned about the limits to monetary easing. Referring to the 25 per cent deprecation of the dollar in the last couple of years, he added: "I question how far the Fed can go, given the reluctance of people to hold dollars".
Eventually, he said, there will have to be more regulation of financial institutions, including of the hedge funds he once pioneered, possibly limiting financial products and encouraging more disclosure of where risks lie. What is needed is "assurance that the main market makers will not be allowed to fail," he said. "We need a new sheriff, not Washington consensus."
From the World Economic Forum 2008 in Davos, Switzerland: Interview with George Soros
Jan 24, 2008
ReplyDeleteBillionaire investor George Soros said on Wednesday the world is no longer willing to accumulate dollars.
DAVOS, Switzerland
"Financial markets do need a sheriff ... The rest of the world is unwilling to accumulate dollars," he told a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
"The present crisis is the end of an era based on the dollar as the international currency. We need a new sheriff, not Washington consensus."
Unfortunately it is still quite prevalent and even quite a few Asians who will voice the same opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe way it is written seems potentially dire..
ReplyDeleteBut I do not think that they are too intermingled at present to be potentially dangerous. Is $3, 5, 7.5 billion a lot of money? I don't think so unless it's indicative of an ongoing trend and I don't think that would be happening either 'cos it seems more lucrative for the Middle East, China or India to invest in their own economies, at least for the next 10 years or so. I'm more inclined to think there is a de-linking between them and the American domestic economy/companies/"global" economy.
I believe diversity and multiple trade relations with the entire world is the way to go.You don't want to be tied to any one particular economy. And while this might be counter-intuitive, you actually want everybody to do well, this isn't necessarily a win-lose situation, everybody can stand to profit from greater economy integration and free trade. Yes, those who are ahead now may suffer a little, but the long term benefits for everybody far outweighs that.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Singapore is pushing so hard for a ASEAN economic grouping similar to the EU, there will be some adjustments but in the long term it makes a lot of sense for the region. A happy neighbour is a good neighbour.
I agree that greater economy integration and free trade is an ideal way but still a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteYour observation in the quote above proves that. Instead of greater integration, economies of scale and competition is causing countries to align themselves in economic blocs. Some in ASEAN wants to be economic (though personally I don't see it happening), following in the steps of the EU.
(I don't necessarily agree that economic blocs are the way to go either but may be a short-term measure?)
Unfortunately the reality is blocs are unavoidable and if your 'competitors' are doing it, then you have do something similar to compete. There are some countries where economically they are blocs onto themselves like China, India, US and very soon Russia. The EU understands by banding their smaller countries together they can compete on a similar level. Of course the EU is not just an economical but political bloc; the same reasoning applies there.
ReplyDeleteSE Asia is very fractious, more so than Europe. Jealousy, ethnic chauvinism and misguided nationalism means we often see each other as competitors rather than partners. People easily forget friendship and help but always remember old wounds and fresh barbs. Part of the reason for these is because of the poor economies and poor political situations in the region, countries run by people more interested in getting elected or re-elected than in improving the economy of the country and its people. So a bloc can also help the whole region progress economically as well, and hopefully with greater mobility of the workforce throughout the region, people can see the Singapore system is not a bad one (with equality of opportunities and meritocracy) and ones they will come to agree with ideologically as well.
not forgetting that SEA is also religiously divided. That in itself is a chasm not many people let along countries can bridge.
ReplyDeleteIt's strange how in a self-professed secular world, religion rules over practicality. Guess it's hard to cross the chasm between head and heart.
ReplyDeleteI really doubt religious division is a stumbling block to any form of economic unions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, considering the regions around the world which are religiously more or less homogenous, I don't see much striving for economic unions or corporations, historically or in modern times.
For examples - the Muslim world in Middle East and Central Asia, the predominantly Buddhist countries of IndoChina.
Basically, I believe money talks the loudest here. If there is benefit, few would object.
IMO, a religiously diverse SE Asian bloc is a boon rather than a bane, enabling the bloc to have connections to a variety of regions around the world without prejudice. It's like having a wide range of representatives to increase chances of compatibility with other partners around the world.
I think you are both right, religious/philosophical diversity can be a boon... or a bane. Singapore is an example of a country that has made use of its ties to different ethnicity and religions to further itself economically by adopting an open policy engaging India, China, Middle East, Europe etc. Some other SE Asian countries who shall not be named have allowed their prejudice and racism to hinder their economic and political ties to countries they considered at odds either in terms of ethnicity and/or religion.
ReplyDeleteEven the EU could not escape this problem. Look at Turkey.
Which is why I hope Snowy is right and money does indeed talk the loudest and the other countries will see sense in adopting Singapore's lead and stance. in any case it is not something Singapore can be too forthright with (for various reasons) to the rest of ASEAN, not least because we are just not very popular and I have a suspicion some would rather 'do their own thing' than agree to any initiative advocated by Singapore (yet again). They had enough of playing second fiddle to a tiny island of folks no better than themselves.
I'm not sure if the problem with Turkey is really about ethnicity/religion.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the money angle again, Turkey joining EU does not seem to offer much prospects of economic benefits to Europe.
While there are also many small countries in recent years joining the EU, I perceive the benefits has been in the prospects of:
1. Allowing existing EU to tap into cheap labour in countries which will conform to the EU's standards of operations, relocate factories there etc, and gain market foothold.
2. Preventing the rise of a rival bloc led by Russia.
Unfortunately, Turkey does not offer these benefits.
It is not as attractive a region for EU companies to relocate manufacturing base there.
Due to cultural differences and religious restrictions, some EU products might just not sell well in Turkey, or be allowed to sell at all.
I might be mistaken, but at this time, I cannot imagine Eurovision, LIVE from Ankara ...
You might be right but what i have read suggested the greatest hindrance is ethnicity/religion. In fact there are many EU politicians are pushing for Turkey full membership. They certainly see the benefits of having Turkey as part of the EU. They are hindered because the populace at large do not like the idea.
ReplyDeleteIn fact I would argue from purely economic and to some extent political point of view EU certainly wants Turkey in, so you can't show Eurovision or some other products but there are certainly many things you can sell. Turkey being richer than the East European nations you mention also means they have a better consumer base. Folks who have been to Turkey will agree parts of it are very modern and the young folks on the streets can be easily transplanted to any other first world city with similar consumerist lifestyle. Politically you want to have certainly formality that says you are on our side (more or less).
The greater resistance appears to be at the people level, NGOs and populist politicians.
I don't know enough to say for sure and perhaps some Europeans reading this may want comment.