Bloomberg: "New World Order" yielding to "Post American" Era

[JCSkinner]

Not just a post-American era, but the end of the domination of world affairs by Europeans or people of European descent. 1492 marked the start of this domination. 2008 marks its end. It'll be a long, slow, uneven process but it's begun...

Really? With three of the four main power blocs (US, Russia, EU) all of European descent, I think you're banking a lot on the Chinese there...

Three of the current four main powers, if you can even count the European Disunion as a power...

It may take decades before it begins to become clear who the new dominant global powers will be, but I think that the Americans and Europeans have had their day and it's just a matter of time before that becomes clearer. Perhaps it'll take a century or more but happen it will.

You'd need to provide a lot more support for your assertion than baldly stating that 'happen it will.' Europeans, if we use your definition to include the US, are still very much in the hegemony, especially with Russia resurgent. India is itself heavily Europeanised in the ways that matter in geopolitics (democratic government, federalised, subsidiarity in terms of local government, military subservient to the elected government, free market but not to the point of ignoring social provision, etc). Outside of the potential power blocs I mentioned (ie the current four, plus potentially India and a Bolivarian South America), I really don't see much likelihood of anyone else coming to the table in the short or medium term. Pan-Arabia? You'll see Ireland running the world first.

[JCSkinner]

The EU in all of this is critical. Apart from being itself a potential axis of influence and power, it also offers a significant template for co-operation between nation states. How Europe proceeds is important, and it should proceed in unison. But that's still no argument for nonsense like Lisbon, obviously.

The alternative being?

The alternative to Lisbon? That's up to the EU to quit pining after their failed powergrab from the European peoples and construct a deal that does not exacerbate the current democratic deficit further.
Come, come. I can't believe there are still people out there so keen to deny the democratic voice of the Irish people. Lisbon's gone, kaputt. It's time to think differently.

[jfk2008]

You're looking at it from a very short-term perspective in comparison to the time period I'm looking at. I'm trying to predict, in vain though it may be, what happens over several decades or even over a longer period.

The Russian resurgence is only temporary IMO. It's based on high commodity prices which aren't going to last forever. What happens to Russia when the commodities run out? Again, it may take several decades or even more than a century, but its oil, gas and other mineral reserves won't last forever. Russia's economy is currently more akin to the Arabian oil-producing economies and some African economies. Unless Russia and other commodity-based economies start diversifying their economic base they're screwed in the very long-term.

It may appear that the Indians and even the Chinese are 'Europeanised' or westernised. But this adoption of western technology and some aspects of western culture is very superficial. Look at the Japanese. They adopted western-style capitalism and industrial technology in the 1860s and had a western-style democracy implanted (imposed?) after WWII. But Japan is only superficially westernised. India is the same - the caste system is still very strong there. You can't compare it to the western class system because it's rigid unlike the class system which at least allows for the possibility that people can move between classes.

That's just one example of how deeply unwestern India remains.

European and American domination came about because they took commodities and turned them into manufactured goods that were sold at a huge profit. That's what the Chinese and Indians are starting to do. The West's 'post-industrial' model is already in serious trouble after less than 25 years. China only turned to capitalism in 1978 and is already dominant in global manufacturing. The West made huge strategic mistakes in the late 1970s at more or less the same time as the Chinese started getting things right. We're starting to pay for those mistakes now and we might end up playing second fiddle to the Asians for several centuries because of them.

[JCSkinner]

You're looking at it from a very short-term perspective in comparison to the time period I'm looking at. I'm trying to predict, in vain though it may be, what happens over several decades or even over a longer period.

The Russian resurgence is only temporary IMO. It's based on high commodity prices which aren't going to last forever. What happens to Russia when the commodities run out? Again, it may take several decades or even more than a century, but its oil, gas and other mineral reserves won't last forever. Russia's economy is currently more akin to the Arabian oil-producing economies and some African economies. Unless Russia and other commodity-based economies start diversifying their economic base they're screwed in the very long-term.

It may appear that the Indians and even the Chinese are 'Europeanised' or westernised. But this adoption of western technology and some aspects of western culture is very superficial. Look at the Japanese. They adopted western-style capitalism and industrial technology in the 1860s and had a western-style democracy implanted (imposed?) after WWII. But Japan is only superficially westernised. India is the same - the caste system is still very strong there. You can't compare it to the western class system because it's rigid unlike the class system which at least allows for the possibility that people can move between classes.

That's just one example of how deeply unwestern India remains.

European and American domination came about because they took commodities and turned them into manufactured goods that were sold at a huge profit. That's what the Chinese and Indians are starting to do. The West's 'post-industrial' model is already in serious trouble after less than 25 years. China only turned to capitalism in 1978 and is already dominant in global manufacturing. The West made huge strategic mistakes in the late 1970s at more or less the same time as the Chinese started getting things right. We're starting to pay for those mistakes now and we might end up playing second fiddle to the Asians for several centuries because of them.

Your understanding of history and world culture appears to me to be profoundly unsound.
China started getting things right in the late Seventies? During the Gang of Four era? Are you mad?
Japan is only superficially Westernised? You clearly haven't been to Shinjuku.
Russia's resources running out? Have you seen the oil and gas reserves in Siberia that they haven't even started to tap yet?
The caste system? I mean, possibly of relevance in the rice paddies of Uttar Pradesh, but not really relevant in the geopolitical terms we're discussing, is it?

[jfk2008]

The EU in all of this is critical. Apart from being itself a potential axis of influence and power, it also offers a significant template for co-operation between nation states. How Europe proceeds is important, and it should proceed in unison. But that's still no argument for nonsense like Lisbon, obviously.

The alternative being?

The alternative to Lisbon? That's up to the EU to quit pining after their failed powergrab from the European peoples and construct a deal that does not exacerbate the current democratic deficit further.
Come, come. I can't believe there are still people out there so keen to deny the democratic voice of the Irish people. Lisbon's gone, kaputt. It's time to think differently.

Fair enough. But repeating cliches about democratic deficits doesn't really tell me how you're proposing that the EU becomes a serious power bloc. As a trading bloc it's clearly a serious player but it's not at the races when it comes to diplomatic clout. The EU is half a power. If it's to become a full power then it needs to proceed in unison as you say. But how? How does the EU pursue a common foreign policy without further integration which it appears much of its population doesn't want?

[JCSkinner]

Rather than common foreign policies, Europe should play to its strengths. It can function well as an honest broker in disputes between third parties, and foreign policy should remain at the national level. How it can function in unison is by keeping any foreign policy disputes internal, rather than seeking to impose majority decisions upon the whole union.

[Cael]

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...AAw&refer=home

Interesting choice of words, quoting George (senior) Bush. What is going to come out of this? Certainly the time is right and obviously sensed by many countries: Russia flexing it's post-Soviet military muscle, Euro climbing every year as the second world reserve currency, and China becoming the manufacturing centre of the world as GM, Ford and Chrysler scramble for $50 billion to help them through.

So, the next ten years: a time of chaos? Or will order quickly be restored, with someone else or a group "in charge"?

I found it interesting that the Iraqi regime has signed a massive oil contract with China, but have not granted a single major oil contract to a US company. Looks like the US put itself in hoc to the Chinese to invade Iraq, and now they cant block China's ambitions there. The EU have slipped out of the loop of US foreign policy in central Asia. Germany depends on Russia for 60% of its gas.

[jfk2008]

You're looking at it from a very short-term perspective in comparison to the time period I'm looking at. I'm trying to predict, in vain though it may be, what happens over several decades or even over a longer period.

The Russian resurgence is only temporary IMO. It's based on high commodity prices which aren't going to last forever. What happens to Russia when the commodities run out? Again, it may take several decades or even more than a century, but its oil, gas and other mineral reserves won't last forever. Russia's economy is currently more akin to the Arabian oil-producing economies and some African economies. Unless Russia and other commodity-based economies start diversifying their economic base they're screwed in the very long-term.

It may appear that the Indians and even the Chinese are 'Europeanised' or westernised. But this adoption of western technology and some aspects of western culture is very superficial. Look at the Japanese. They adopted western-style capitalism and industrial technology in the 1860s and had a western-style democracy implanted (imposed?) after WWII. But Japan is only superficially westernised. India is the same - the caste system is still very strong there. You can't compare it to the western class system because it's rigid unlike the class system which at least allows for the possibility that people can move between classes.

That's just one example of how deeply unwestern India remains.

European and American domination came about because they took commodities and turned them into manufactured goods that were sold at a huge profit. That's what the Chinese and Indians are starting to do. The West's 'post-industrial' model is already in serious trouble after less than 25 years. China only turned to capitalism in 1978 and is already dominant in global manufacturing. The West made huge strategic mistakes in the late 1970s at more or less the same time as the Chinese started getting things right. We're starting to pay for those mistakes now and we might end up playing second fiddle to the Asians for several centuries because of them.

Your understanding of history and world culture appears to me to be profoundly unsound.
China started getting things right in the late Seventies? During the Gang of Four era? Are you mad?
Japan is only superficially Westernised? You clearly haven't been to Shinjuku.
Russia's resources running out? Have you seen the oil and gas reserves in Siberia that they haven't even started to tap yet?
The caste system? I mean, possibly of relevance in the rice paddies of Uttar Pradesh, but not really relevant in the geopolitical terms we're discussing, is it?

The Gang of Four were turfed out in 1976 and Deng Xiaoping and three colleagues took over the running of China. The Four Modernisations were officially launched in 1978 by Deng and included the opening of Chinese markets to international trade and its economic development along basically capitalist lines.

Japan is only superficially westernised. It's still a country where the collective matters more than the individual, the most profound difference between Asian and Western cultures.

I said it might take decades or even more than a century for Russia's oil and gas reserves to run out. Anyway, if Russia becomes just another commodity economy it'll end up like some of the Arabian countries, rich but idle.

The caste system is very relevant in geopolitical terms. If India doesn't get rid of the caste system it'll never develop into a fully fledged capitalist economy and never become as wealthy and powerful as China.

[jfk2008]

Rather than common foreign policies, Europe should play to its strengths. It can function well as an honest broker in disputes between third parties, and foreign policy should remain at the national level. How it can function in unison is by keeping any foreign policy disputes internal, rather than seeking to impose majority decisions upon the whole union.

How can the EU function as an honest broker if it doesn't have a common foreign policy? Your position doesn't have any logic. The EU can't have each member going off on solo runs and then present itself as some sort of world player, not even as a mediator. I don't see a problem with a common foreign policy so long as it's agreed unanimously. A common foreign policy would have prevented the British from invading Iraq which would have put a halt to the US neo-con plans too!

For what it's worth I don't see a common foreign policy emerging any time soon. The Dutch vetoed a decision to start developing closer trade links with Serbia (presumably as a preliminary to future EU membership). It just shows that EU members can't even agree on issues in their own back yard, let alone on a global level.

[JCSkinner]

It's too late in the evening to take you up on all the many simplistic and erroneous assumptions in that little post of yours.
But your primary colours view of world history could definitely benefit from a grounding in detailed factual analysis of the issues you raise so flippantly.
India's booming right now, despite the ever-decreasing influence of the caste system, or perhaps you hadn't noticed. Oh, but once again your magic ball tells you it won't develop if it doesn't address the caste issue. Just as well that they have been doing so successfully for decades then, isn't it?
And Russia's resources - seriously, you need to inform yourself about the scale of which you speak. Russia's problem is population vis-a-vis territory. It simply doesn't have the birthrate to maintain its territory in the East long-term.
There are no end of books that could inform you about the profound transformation of Japan from the Imperial to the post-occupation era in terms of its utter Westernisation. If that simple transformation eludes you, the rest of your analysis lacks all credibility.
As for China 'getting it right', they still haven't. It's a police state currently held together by a bubble boom of affluence which will fall with the dollar its predicated on.