"I actually went to one of Parag Khanna`s lectures in Waterloo Canada, he doesn't talk a lot about India for some reason. And in hos book as well there is a section about India and he doesn't think India will go very far in Asia. I was a little surprised maybe there is a hidden agenda in downplaying India.
Finally, I am not surprised to hear that the US is the major power most ill prepared for the new era of globalized relationship "marketplace". Its leadership continues to be stuck in Cold War bi-polar "you are with us or against us" mindset. In addition, it is loath to work outside the security, trade, and finance institutions that it set up after WW II. Of course, its hubristic belief of a uni-polar world dominated by an American hyper power also makes it difficult to adapt.
I agree with Parag on four other points: (a) globalization demands that important issues (terrorism, climate etc) be phrased in global terms for impact, (b) communications revolution is playing a major role in forging trans-national identities (eg. pan Arabism due to Al Jazeera), (c) investment in quality infrastructure is key for economic growth (US should take note), and (d) the diaspora of a nation (such as China and India) can be a major factor in growth of mother country.
Geopolitical "marketplace" provides countries with three development models: US, EU, and China. Countries can also experience three distinct styles of working with a major partner: America's "dictatorial" approach, EU's "consensual" style, and China's "consultative" mode. Moreover, China holds deep attraction for most developing nations due to its "gradualist" model (economic growth first, political reform later) and uni-dimensional alliances (investment for resource access).
The "marketplace" for relationships has led to both regionalism (EU, ASEAN, Mercosur, etc.) as well as bi-lateral relationships across continents (China in Africa and South America). Interestingly, these relationships involve working outside centralized systems such as UN and hold the potential of conflict resolution via trade. China and Taiwan, for instance, are already using trade to resolve their dispute while India and Pakistan are exploring similar initiative for Kashmir.
I found Parag Khanna's book "The Second World" to be a very interesting and important read. Globalization has created a "marketplace" for alliances between nations and second world (ie. emerging) countries are making the most of it by forging all sorts of relationships according to their self-interest. This is in sharp contrast to the bi-polar world of Cold War era - or the American expectation of a uni-polar world threafter - where countries were expected to choose one partner.
"I actually went to one of Parag Khanna`s lectures in Waterloo Canada, he doesn't talk a lot about India for some reason. And in hos book as well there is a section about India and he doesn't think India will go very far in Asia. I was a little surprised maybe there is a hidden agenda in downplaying India.
vincentop83 2 years ago
PART V:
Finally, I am not surprised to hear that the US is the major power most ill prepared for the new era of globalized relationship "marketplace". Its leadership continues to be stuck in Cold War bi-polar "you are with us or against us" mindset. In addition, it is loath to work outside the security, trade, and finance institutions that it set up after WW II. Of course, its hubristic belief of a uni-polar world dominated by an American hyper power also makes it difficult to adapt.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART IV:
I agree with Parag on four other points: (a) globalization demands that important issues (terrorism, climate etc) be phrased in global terms for impact, (b) communications revolution is playing a major role in forging trans-national identities (eg. pan Arabism due to Al Jazeera), (c) investment in quality infrastructure is key for economic growth (US should take note), and (d) the diaspora of a nation (such as China and India) can be a major factor in growth of mother country.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART III:
Geopolitical "marketplace" provides countries with three development models: US, EU, and China. Countries can also experience three distinct styles of working with a major partner: America's "dictatorial" approach, EU's "consensual" style, and China's "consultative" mode. Moreover, China holds deep attraction for most developing nations due to its "gradualist" model (economic growth first, political reform later) and uni-dimensional alliances (investment for resource access).
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART II:
The "marketplace" for relationships has led to both regionalism (EU, ASEAN, Mercosur, etc.) as well as bi-lateral relationships across continents (China in Africa and South America). Interestingly, these relationships involve working outside centralized systems such as UN and hold the potential of conflict resolution via trade. China and Taiwan, for instance, are already using trade to resolve their dispute while India and Pakistan are exploring similar initiative for Kashmir.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago
PART I:
I found Parag Khanna's book "The Second World" to be a very interesting and important read. Globalization has created a "marketplace" for alliances between nations and second world (ie. emerging) countries are making the most of it by forging all sorts of relationships according to their self-interest. This is in sharp contrast to the bi-polar world of Cold War era - or the American expectation of a uni-polar world threafter - where countries were expected to choose one partner.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 3 years ago