Laurent is correct in warning the US to bind the emerging powers into multilateral institutions, rely on soft power to lead, and help maintain Western strategic edge via democracy. It is a given that BRIC countries will wield strong influence with time: there have been very few economic powers in history that didn't exercise commensurate political and military power. Regarding US and EU, it is a pity that only external events (eg. financial crisis) engender greater cooperation.
Despite the increasing challenges of a multi-polar world going foward, the US is better placed than Europe to deal with them: (a) it has a younger and growing population; (b) it has as strong focus on innovation and has the best universities; (c) English will continue to be the dominant business and cultural language; (d) it is a Continental nation (while Europe is a continental power). Its weakness, of course, is difficulty (unlike Europe) in sharing power and sovereignty.
I fully agree that: (a) multi-polar world will be less predictable and more dangerous than the bi-polar world of Cold War or uni-polar world after fall of Soviet Union; (b) US didn't anticipate a multi-polar world as it was too self-centered after Communism's collapse and later focused its attention on terrorism; (c) rise of India and China will have momentous consequences for the world as it is the first time in history there is a coincidence of population and economic growth.
BRIC countries are changing current economic and political hierarchy of nations. However, despite their grouping via BRIC acronym, Brazil, Russia, India, and China are different from each other. Still, each one of them has potential to be a major power on account of its continental size, illustrious history, and strong nation status. In addition, rise of India and China is a "return to norm" as before industrialization in 19th century, they accounted for a third of global GDP.
I agree that radical Islam is a potential destablizing factor in world affairs. Islamists have a "globalization" strategy of their own to accentuate and perpetuate an East/West ideological divide. Islamists are also growing in power and influence; major Islamic parties exist in most of Arab world and have taken advantage of democratic reforms to build a political base. In Middle East, Iran has been strengthened via collapse of Baathist regime in Iraq and can play the spoiler.
Paradoxically, globalization has brought about peace and prosperity while simultaneously generating conflicts and fragmentation. For instance, globalization - upon being viewed as an American economic and cultural phenomenon - has helped rise of Islamization. Similarly, rise of India and China due to globalization has created competition - including geopolitical tensions - for energy and mineral resources; witness China's forays into Africa, Middle East, and South America.
I agree that 9/11 marked a turning point for the world and a reversal of America's thinking. At the time of Soviet Union's collapse, US firmly believed: (a) geopolitics was practically over and globalization would put the final nail in its coffin, and (2) economics was disconnected from politics (ie. free-market economy would reign supreme everywhere). The events of past several years have proven that geopolitics is not dead and economics is still very much tied to politics.
PART 7:
Laurent is correct in warning the US to bind the emerging powers into multilateral institutions, rely on soft power to lead, and help maintain Western strategic edge via democracy. It is a given that BRIC countries will wield strong influence with time: there have been very few economic powers in history that didn't exercise commensurate political and military power. Regarding US and EU, it is a pity that only external events (eg. financial crisis) engender greater cooperation.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago
PART 6:
Despite the increasing challenges of a multi-polar world going foward, the US is better placed than Europe to deal with them: (a) it has a younger and growing population; (b) it has as strong focus on innovation and has the best universities; (c) English will continue to be the dominant business and cultural language; (d) it is a Continental nation (while Europe is a continental power). Its weakness, of course, is difficulty (unlike Europe) in sharing power and sovereignty.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago
PART 5:
I fully agree that: (a) multi-polar world will be less predictable and more dangerous than the bi-polar world of Cold War or uni-polar world after fall of Soviet Union; (b) US didn't anticipate a multi-polar world as it was too self-centered after Communism's collapse and later focused its attention on terrorism; (c) rise of India and China will have momentous consequences for the world as it is the first time in history there is a coincidence of population and economic growth.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago
PART 4:
BRIC countries are changing current economic and political hierarchy of nations. However, despite their grouping via BRIC acronym, Brazil, Russia, India, and China are different from each other. Still, each one of them has potential to be a major power on account of its continental size, illustrious history, and strong nation status. In addition, rise of India and China is a "return to norm" as before industrialization in 19th century, they accounted for a third of global GDP.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago
PART 3:
I agree that radical Islam is a potential destablizing factor in world affairs. Islamists have a "globalization" strategy of their own to accentuate and perpetuate an East/West ideological divide. Islamists are also growing in power and influence; major Islamic parties exist in most of Arab world and have taken advantage of democratic reforms to build a political base. In Middle East, Iran has been strengthened via collapse of Baathist regime in Iraq and can play the spoiler.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago
PART 2:
Paradoxically, globalization has brought about peace and prosperity while simultaneously generating conflicts and fragmentation. For instance, globalization - upon being viewed as an American economic and cultural phenomenon - has helped rise of Islamization. Similarly, rise of India and China due to globalization has created competition - including geopolitical tensions - for energy and mineral resources; witness China's forays into Africa, Middle East, and South America.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago
PART 1:
I agree that 9/11 marked a turning point for the world and a reversal of America's thinking. At the time of Soviet Union's collapse, US firmly believed: (a) geopolitics was practically over and globalization would put the final nail in its coffin, and (2) economics was disconnected from politics (ie. free-market economy would reign supreme everywhere). The events of past several years have proven that geopolitics is not dead and economics is still very much tied to politics.
-Kashif
KashifHKhan 2 years ago