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

[JCSkinner]

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.

You just don't see the logic.
The EU as an entity functioning in unison carries with it all the imperial sins of its constituents. Things like the Irish peacekeeping missions in the Lebanon functioned well because the Irish, as opposed to the French, British etc, were seen as genuinely honest intermediaries with no axe to grind. The strength of the EU is its diversity. If France can't cut a deal in a dispute, we have dozens of others we can send in to do it better, for example.

[jfk2008]

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.

You're the one with the simplistic world view not to mention the dodgy grasp of recent Chinese history.

Has India been developing as successfully as China? No. One of the major reasons is because of the caste system that inhibits any serious attempt at meritocracy taking hold. It may be declining but not fast enough.

Japan utterly westernised!! You're joking right!? It only barely has some of the superficial trappings of a liberal western democracy. At heart the Japanese are still profoundly Asian despite almost 150 years of modernisation. Modernisation doesn't equal westernisation. Adopting western technology doesn't make a society western. Next you'll be arguing that using the internet makes the Taliban pro-American!


The Chinese are getting it right economically at least. They're making things, not 'investing' in asset bubbles. The goods they're making are cheap but of acceptable quality - exactly the type of goods that will continue to sell well in the west even during a recession. Plus they have huge cash reserves and can afford to buy in commodities and technology (even entire factories - remember the relocation of the British car plant's machinery to China?) to fuel their industrial revolution. As their standard of living increases so will domestic demand. With about a fifth of the world's population they'll be less reliant on export markets in the future. A police state can still be a successful power, perhaps even more so than a democracy, however undesirable that may be. I don't see a huge demand for democracy in China right now anyway. Any younger Chinese people I've met recently are deeply apathetic about politics, mainly interested in making money and very nationalistic.

I take your point about Russia but what good are those oil and gas reserves if they can't be developed? Russia has never been able to develop the eastern territories in the way they could have been developed. If you're right about its inability to maintain its territories there in the long-run then guess where the population of those territories is going to come from? Guess which countries are going to be in a position to take these territories over? Even if the Russians do develop these resources where's the long-term vision for its development? Right now it looks like they're banking on the Saudi route to economic 'development'. Sure they'll have prosperity so long as the world needs their oil and gas or as long as they can hang on to it but what happens when they don't have oil and gas anymore? The Saudis are rich but idle and they're f*cked over the very long-run unless they diversify. Relying on their foreign investments isn't safe - they can easily be seized by the countries they're located in and the Saudis would be able to do SFA about it. The Russians look like they're going down the same road.

I also take your point about diversity among the EU states to an extent. But Ireland's peacekeepers weren't acting as the EU's proxy representatives in the Lebanon. They were there as Irish troops serving under a UN mandate. Participation in peacekeeping is only one aspect of foreign policy. The EU will still need to come together to negotiate with other powers over issues like energy supply etc. Individual members, even the ones with big populations/economies, won't have the clout to negotiate better deals than the EU acting as a bloc. It's on issues like that where it'll need to develop common foreign policy positions. The alternative for small countries like Ireland is to go it alone. That's not a realistic alternative and the sooner we face up to that the better.

We no longer live in a world where Euro-American economic and cultural domination can be taken for granted. It's time to start dealing with the future instead of the past.

PS: are you always this angry? Maybe you should relax with a nice cup of tea. Can't bate those Asian herbal remedies.

[TheBear]

<Mod>Moved to Foreign Affairs.</Mod>

[JCSkinner]

You're the one with the simplistic world view not to mention the dodgy grasp of recent Chinese history.

Wrong.

Has India been developing as successfully as China? No.

Wrong again. India has outpaced China in terms of meritocracy, especially in terms of access to education.

One of the major reasons is because of the caste system that inhibits any serious attempt at meritocracy taking hold. It may be declining but not fast enough.

Like I said, the caste system flourishes these days only in rural backwaters, not in the cities where the money is being made.

Japan utterly westernised!! You're joking right!?

Go to Shinjuku. Read some books. No country ever transformed their culture more rapidly.

It only barely has some of the superficial trappings of a liberal western democracy.

As defined how?

At heart the Japanese are still profoundly Asian despite almost 150 years of modernisation.

Are you defining westernisation as them turning White or something???

Modernisation doesn't equal westernisation.

Seriously, go read Mishima. What's he complaining about if Japan isn't Westernised?

Adopting western technology doesn't make a society western. Next you'll be arguing that using the internet makes the Taliban pro-American!

And you'll be arguing that forced sex with the underage should be legal. See? Anyone can offer a straw man argument!

The Chinese are getting it right economically at least. They're making things, not 'investing' in asset bubbles. The goods they're making are cheap but of acceptable quality - exactly the type of goods that will continue to sell well in the west even during a recession.

No asset bubbles in China? Again, I think you need to examine the recent path of their stock markets.

Plus they have huge cash reserves

in plummetting dollars, as I already said.

and can afford to buy in commodities and technology (even entire factories - remember the relocation of the British car plant's machinery to China?) to fuel their industrial revolution. As their standard of living increases so will domestic demand. With about a fifth of the world's population they'll be less reliant on export markets in the future.

And there's the problem - China's overpopulation cannot be sustained by a bubble economy indefinitely.

A police state can still be a successful power, perhaps even more so than a democracy, however undesirable that may be. I don't see a huge demand for democracy in China right now anyway.

When were you last in China? I've been there repeatedly in recent years. Trust me, they want their freedom.

Any younger Chinese people I've met recently are deeply apathetic about politics, mainly interested in making money and very nationalistic.

They'd be in the West, presumably? They're not apathetic, they're afraid of saying the wrong thing, having their approval of studying abroad removed and finding themselves on the next plane back to Beijing. And when was nationalism ever contradictory to democracy? Contradictory to communism obviously, but democracy?

I take your point about Russia but what good are those oil and gas reserves if they can't be developed?

They can be developed much easier than Alaska or the Canadian oil sands.

Russia has never been able to develop the eastern territories in the way they could have been developed. If you're right about its inability to maintain its territories there in the long-run then guess where the population of those territories is going to come from? Guess which countries are going to be in a position to take these territories over? Even if the Russians do develop these resources where's the long-term vision for its development? Right now it looks like they're banking on the Saudi route to economic 'development'. Sure they'll have prosperity so long as the world needs their oil and gas or as long as they can hang on to it but what happens when they don't have oil and gas anymore? The Saudis are rich but idle and they're f*cked over the very long-run unless they diversify. Relying on their foreign investments isn't safe - they can easily be seized by the countries they're located in and the Saudis would be able to do SFA about it. The Russians look like they're going down the same road.

And of course, the Russian and Saudi military capacities are SO comparable.

I also take your point about diversity among the EU states to an extent. But Ireland's peacekeepers weren't acting as the EU's proxy representatives in the Lebanon.

I never said they were. I offered it as an example of honest brokership.

They were there as Irish troops serving under a UN mandate. Participation in peacekeeping is only one aspect of foreign policy. The EU will still need to come together to negotiate with other powers over issues like energy supply etc. Individual members, even the ones with big populations/economies, won't have the clout to negotiate better deals than the EU acting as a bloc. It's on issues like that where it'll need to develop common foreign policy positions. The alternative for small countries like Ireland is to go it alone. That's not a realistic alternative and the sooner we face up to that the better.

That's more unsubstantiated steaming nonsense.

We no longer live in a world where Euro-American economic and cultural domination can be taken for granted. It's time to start dealing with the future instead of the past.

Maybe we should all borrow your crystal ball then, since you're so sure of where the world is headed despite being so patchy on recent global history and culture. Got next week's lotto numbers?

PS: are you always this angry? Maybe you should relax with a nice cup of tea. Can't bate those Asian herbal remedies.

You'd be a fool to trust Asian remedies.

http://skinflicks.blogspot.com/2006/11/ ... icine.html

[Thac0man]

What the US has is trust. There is Washington and Wall Street, two seperate entities. Russia only has the Kremlin and a proven track record of shafting investors. China has an equally dodgey economy in terms of regulation. Both have a looooong way to go before they would let the other take the lead (or even trust each other). China especially sees it economic prosperity tied to US well being. Russia... does not have an economy to speak of and neither has it a clue about how to build one. It has oil, raw materials and sub-par aerospace, thats about it.

The big soverign wealth funds will not be sinking their core money into China or Russia any time soon, thats for sure. The US economy could be wiped out tomorrow, but the attitude that the US fosters and the Yanks have will mean it can rebuild to the same or better level quickly. The inequality inherant in the capilotist system has always favoured the entrepeneurial nature of the Americans.

Doomsday wishers seem never to understand that, the US or the rest fo the world.

[Fr. Hank Tree]

In the eyes of the U.S.'s major competitors, the invasion of Iraq legitimized a might-makes-right policy that sidesteps international law.

Too true. If you're going to f*ck over the rule of law to sort out today's problems, prepare for the consequences tomorrow.

[generick]

What the US has is trust. There is Washington and Wall Street, two seperate entities. Russia only has the Kremlin and a proven track record of shafting investors. China has an equally dodgey economy in terms of regulation. Both have a looooong way to go before they would let the other take the lead (or even trust each other). China especially sees it economic prosperity tied to US well being. Russia... does not have an economy to speak of and neither has it a clue about how to build one. It has oil, raw materials and sub-par aerospace, thats about it.

The big soverign wealth funds will not be sinking their core money into China or Russia any time soon, thats for sure. The US economy could be wiped out tomorrow, but the attitude that the US fosters and the Yanks have will mean it can rebuild to the same or better level quickly. The inequality inherant in the capilotist system has always favoured the entrepeneurial nature of the Americans.

Doomsday wishers seem never to understand that, the US or the rest fo the world.

You know, you're first statement would make sense if we weren't in the final years of the Bush presidency and if investment banks weren't collapsing left right and centre. In that case, i call foul on that first statement.

And hmmm, these soveregin wealith funds....they wouldnt be american based and owned would they? Heaven forfend that they would show a preference for their own country. I will take your point on the dodginess of Russian regulation at the moment, but China seems to be operating quite well with the major corporations and capitalist strcuture.

The big problem though is Birth rates, the EU and Russia aren't replacing their population, while China and India are growing. Couple this to those countries relative overabundace of men, and I'll be surprised if we dont see a war b etween them in the next 50 years. Personally, if western hegemony has to end, then i think i would prefer India to come out on top. While both India and China have old and valuable cultures, the Indians haven't gutted theirs for progress (which i regard as a good thing).

And apart from the birthrates, i wouldnt knock out the Russians just yet. Whatever about Putin's authoritarianism, he's not stupid and i think that Russia will indeed diversify its economy. Lets not forget that the USSR was an economic powerhouse, and a lot of the skills that made it that way still exist within Russia.

[jfk2008]

You're the one with the simplistic world view not to mention the dodgy grasp of recent Chinese history.

Wrong.

So when exactly did the Gang of Four get kicked out of power and when did the Chinese adopt free-market economic policies? Hint - it was in the late 1970s like I posted. A post to which you replied '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?' Dodgy grasp of history there.

Sure there's money being made in Indian cities. But not by the slum dwellers or those who live and die on the streets. Are those people enjoying the fruits of the Indian meritocracy? Anyway what we're arguing about here is which is the more meritocratic - India or China. In other words, we're arguing about which Asian country is going to be more successful in the long-run. So we both seem to accept that Asia has a bright future!

Chinese students or other people living abroad are a lot more free to speak out against the Chinese government than you think - there's no overseas Stasi monitoring their every movement or utterance. The Chinese have vast currency reserves and linking the yuan to the dollar makes their exports cheaper - not a bad strategy. China is now the world's leading manufacturing centre - that's not a bubble economy. China makes stuff that the rest of the world wants to buy. If that's a bubble economy then I suppose 19th and early 20th century Europe and American must have been bubble economies too?

Nationalism certainly isn't contrary to communism, not the Cuban version and certainly not the Chinese version which now bears about as much relationship to Marxism-Leninism or Maoism as 19th century capitalism. Sure the Chinese want greater freedom but are they willing to risk it for greater instability? The bulk of the population don't seem to be willing to make that trade-off just yet. Maybe it'll end up like Singapore - paternalistic authoritarianism rather than fully fledged democracy.

A Japanese author complaining about westernisation isn't evidence that westernisation is taking hold - every society has its traditionalists. Do the Japanese still put a greater emphasis on the collective or the individual? It's still the collective despite 150 years of modernisation. If you think that haji is no longer an extremely important force in Japanese society then you don't know Japan.

Are the Russians going to be able to maintain their military capability indefinitely? Not if their population is falling and not if their ability to innovate technologically continues to fall behind. They lost the Cold War partly because they couldn't afford to keep up with the US in the arms race. I'm pretty sure that they'll lose a second one. As you said they won't have the population to take full advantage of their eastern resources and this population decline will leave those territories vulnerable to invasion by neighbouring powers.

If you really think that Ireland is ever going to be in a better position to negotiate energy and trade treaties etc. on its own rather than as part of the EU then you really are being wilfully blind.

Obviously we disagree and will continue to do so. I'm still going to insist that, in the very long-run (by which I mean over the rest of this century and further into the future), the west will no longer continue its dominance and will eventually fall behind Asia in economic and cultural influence. Even if the west continues to be as economically successful in the future as it has been in the past it'll still have to deal with Asian countries and cultures as equals. That alone will be a huge shift from the situation where Europeans and their descendants have been top dog for centuries.

[jfk2008]

Lets not forget that the USSR was an economic powerhouse, and a lot of the skills that made it that way still exist within Russia.

I agree with some of what you've said but that's nonsense. The USSR was an economic mess and most of the truly skilled have left Russia long ago to take advantage of better salaries. Take a look at this BBC story from 2002. Between 500,000 and 800,000 scientists left Russia between 1991 and 2002. The Russians are going to have a hell of a job enticing them back!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2055571.stm

[Thac0man]

And hmmm, these soveregin wealith funds....they wouldnt be american based and owned would they? Heaven forfend that they would show a preference for their own country. I will take your point on the dodginess of Russian regulation at the moment, but China seems to be operating quite well with the major corporations and capitalist strcuture.

The big problem though is Birth rates, the EU and Russia aren't replacing their population, while China and India are growing. Couple this to those countries relative overabundace of men, and I'll be surprised if we dont see a war b etween them in the next 50 years. Personally, if western hegemony has to end, then i think i would prefer India to come out on top. While both India and China have old and valuable cultures, the Indians haven't gutted theirs for progress (which i regard as a good thing).

And apart from the birthrates, i wouldnt knock out the Russians just yet. Whatever about Putin's authoritarianism, he's not stupid and i think that Russia will indeed diversify its economy. Lets not forget that the USSR was an economic powerhouse, and a lot of the skills that made it that way still exist within Russia.

The USSR was not an economic powerhouse, only compared to 3rd world countries maybe. It has never been even close to it. Curently its vaste wealth amounts to something like 1/14th of the EUs.

Soverign wealth funds are operated mostly by the oil economies and in many cases investment is traded for US protection, as in the case of Saudi Arabia and other Mid East states. No nation is going to sink its hard earned Dollars into an ecomonic black hole like Russia. China is better, but no one is queing up to transfer their huge wealth into Yen, and won't be for a very long time. In both countries and even further afield a financial agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. Russia track record is woeful and Chinas' is still uncertain.