Do you think that we are moving into a post-American world?

Do you think that we are moving into a post-American world?

  • No doubt

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rather yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe but very slowly

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Position of the USA remains unchanged

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Soon America will rule the World

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/books/06kaku.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In a 2003 article in Newsweek, written on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Fareed Zakaria — a columnist for the magazine and the editor of its international edition — wrote: “It is now clear that the current era can really have only one name, the unipolar world — an age with only one global power. America’s position today is unprecedented.” He went on to declare that “American dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as large as the next three — Japan, Germany and Britain — put together,” adding that “it is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally than any other part of the world.” What worries people around the world above all else, he wrote, “is living in a world shaped and dominated by one country — the United States.”

In his new book, “The Post-American World,” Mr. Zakaria writes that America remains a politico-military superpower, but “in every other dimension — industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural — the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance.” With the rise of China, India and other emerging markets, with economic growth sweeping much of the planet, and the world becoming increasingly decentralized and interconnected, he contends, “we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people.”
How quickly mr.Zakaria has changed his mind. Do you agree with his vision?
 
#2
Yes - next?

Come on Sergey - need to do better than that.
 
#3
Deleted - double entry.......
 
#4
i dont think that their position has changed vastly.

id say that other counties are catching them up, china, russia etc

there is still a loooong way to go though
 
#5
The Cold War was characterised by the US and the Soviet Union's dominance of their respective zones of influence by continuously flexing their muscles: military, political and economic. The Soviet Union's collapse was particularly spectacular due to their inability to back their threats post-1989.

The US has managed to maintain its dominance with a mixture of sticks and carrots. However, more and more states are realising that for every carrot, their is a lengthy string attached. And many have now concluded that those strings are of bigger nuisance than the benefits that the carrots bring. I mean, even though the US may remain as the dominant economic power, others will be less impressed or beholden to the lure of the dollar. Take Venezuela as a prime, but extreme, example.

The US and Russia are thus experiencing the very same problems: political credibility. Russia is having immense problems convincing neighbours and states that it can be a trusted ally and partner. It may have found new riches, but everyone knows their generosity also comes with VERY lengthy strings attached. The US is having immense problems convincing past allies and friends that it has more to offer than just a fleet of bombers to smash up a few cities.
 
#6
No - the issues the US has today - particularly education and social - can and I suspect will be corrected to a large extent. The lack of universal healthcare will inevitably be corrected. In the long run, only India and China have an ability to match the US economically due to their populations, but I doubt they'll ever match US productivity per head of population. I also don't think either can match the sense of purpose the US has as a nation in relation to itself and the rest of the world.

As for today?: In the US the fact that low-wage workers can no longer afford their homes sends the global economy into panic. In China, in a seperate development, the stock market has slipped 50% since October - who cares?
 
#7
KGB_resident said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/books/06kaku.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In a 2003 article in Newsweek, written on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Fareed Zakaria — a columnist for the magazine and the editor of its international edition — wrote: “It is now clear that the current era can really have only one name, the unipolar world — an age with only one global power. America’s position today is unprecedented.” He went on to declare that “American dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as large as the next three — Japan, Germany and Britain — put together,” adding that “it is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally than any other part of the world.” What worries people around the world above all else, he wrote, “is living in a world shaped and dominated by one country — the United States.”

In his new book, “The Post-American World,” Mr. Zakaria writes that America remains a politico-military superpower, but “in every other dimension — industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural — the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance.” With the rise of China, India and other emerging markets, with economic growth sweeping much of the planet, and the world becoming increasingly decentralized and interconnected, he contends, “we are moving into a post-American world, one defined and directed from many places and by many people.”
How quickly mr.Zakaria has changed his mind. Do you agree with his vision?
Quite probably.

The British Empire began to feel the chill winds of competition from Germany, France, Italy and the US back in the late 1800s but it took another 100 years for it to be dismantled.

Life is faster now so US power will ebb away faster - say within 25 years.

The US and EU currently provide most of the world's innovations with the east doing the production. In the fullness of time the east will also be competing on innovations whilst still having vast populations and land to increase production still further. Leaving the US and EU where?
 
#8
Yes China is growing rapidly but we are already seeing signs of how fragile they are. Take the ongoing Olympics controversy over Human Rights and Pollution levels. Their Political intolerance is sure to win few Allies and i think they are over reaching themselves by rapid industrilisation which is creating huge social and environmental problems. In the Long run i am sure that the States and Britain for that matter will still be hugely influential in the world stage. ( Well considering we still have an Armed Forces in the next 15 years.)
 
#9
tommy_cooker said:
Yes China is growing rapidly but we are already seeing signs of how fragile they are. Take the ongoing Olympics controversy over Human Rights and Pollution levels. Their Political intolerance is sure to win few Allies and i think they are over reaching themselves by rapid industrilisation which is creating huge social and environmental problems. In the Long run i am sure that the States and Britain for that matter will still be hugely influential in the world stage. ( Well considering we still have an Armed Forces in the next 15 years.)
I suppose it depends on one’s perspective.

The current growing pains of China might be compared to the American Civil War. 100 years later the US dominated the planet.
 
#10
Balleh said:
tommy_cooker said:
Yes China is growing rapidly but we are already seeing signs of how fragile they are. Take the ongoing Olympics controversy over Human Rights and Pollution levels. Their Political intolerance is sure to win few Allies and i think they are over reaching themselves by rapid industrilisation which is creating huge social and environmental problems. In the Long run i am sure that the States and Britain for that matter will still be hugely influential in the world stage. ( Well considering we still have an Armed Forces in the next 15 years.)
I suppose it depends on one’s perspective.

The current growing pains of China might be compared to the American Civil War. 100 years later the US dominated the planet.
Well id rather sink from Global Warming then the Chinese rule the land!
 
#11
God forbid that America would "rule the world"...a dark day indeed.
however i do agree with some of the previous comments which say Americas power will disintergrate in time (most likely due to there over stretching).

with regards to China; I dont think they need many allies due to their vast numbers (in terms of military brunt).

I dont think America will have the oppurtunity to expand within the next few decades because I feel that another world war is overdue (most likely between the superpowers; Russia,China,America etc) especially due to the increasing competition for natural resources.
 
#13
USA is in a much better demographic position than China or the EU. China will be the first country in world history to get old before it gets rich.
 
#14
American military dominance was built on economic dominance. That economic dominance is currently wilting a bit. I think they're over-stretched and will have to contract. China will push out a bit, maybe a lot, but they have their own huge population to keep in line. Other regional powers will push out a bit in the gap areas.
 
#15
God forbid that America would "rule the world"...a dark day indeed.
So, which credible contender would you prefer?

I'm inclined to think that the US reached it's peak in the early 90's, what with there being no serious opposition at that point, but the decline will be a lot longer than 25 years. Hopefully they'll still be calling the shots when I pop my clogs, they're far from perfect but better them than some autocratic knobsters with tendencies to shoot the opposition.
The US will probably be the sole superpower for a other 20-30 years, after that a multipolar world is likely. With the US, China, possibly EU if they can ever act as one...but unlikely.
I quite agree. I think what we're seeing now is the beginnings of jostling for influence and resources. In 10 years I would guess the power ratio will be:

1st - U.S
2nd - China
3rd - India
4th - EU

In 20 years I'd swap China and India around, and in 30 India and the US. Random guesswork and wishful thinking maybe, but if I were to choose a successor to the United States I'd prefer India over pretty much anyone else.
 
#16
I dont think anyone is suitable to "dominate" the world. But reflecting on that having an ally "in charge" is far better than having someone else.

also- India really? why are they 3rd? I presume you mean they're economies flourishing but i wouldnt imagine them to be a superpower.
 
#17
Well, me old fruit, look at the most peaceful periods of world history- the Pax Britannica and Pax Romana, both due to one unopposable superpower completely dominating the known world of the time. Big wars usually only start in multi-polar worlds-rather an American-dominated world than a return to the total wars and genocide of the multi-polar early 20th century. So, for the sake of world peace, as its first subjects we should do everything possible to prop up the American empire as long as possible. We gave up our own right to be an empire by failing to prepare properly for WW2, so we need to support the ones with the values closest to ours, which are India and the US...
 
#18
Bradstyley said:
so we need to support the ones with the values closest to ours, which are India and the US...
Please tell me you're joking about India? Shared values? Well, if you consider caste-based discrimination and religious hatred to be a particularly 'British' value, I'm glad I don't live where you do! Don't mistake their pragmatic retention of certain institutions of the Raj for similarity. Even the Irish don't think entirely the same way we do and they're a hell of a lot closer to Brits than Indians are.

We're definitely moving away from a world where the US has 'full-spectrum dominance' (if that was ever anything but a neocon wet-dream), but they'll continue to be a major player for a while yet. 20 years as a very extreme minimum by my reckoning, assuming everything goes wrong at once. More likely 70-100 years before there's any chance of them ceasing to matter.
 
#19
smartascarrots said:
Please tell me you're joking about India? Shared values? Well, if you consider caste-based discrimination and religious hatred to be a particularly 'British' value, I'm glad I don't live where you do! Don't mistake their pragmatic retention of certain institutions of the Raj for similarity. Even the Irish don't think entirely the same way we do and they're a hell of a lot closer to Brits than Indians are.
I personally suspect that the Indian intelligentsia has much more in common with Britain than, say, the Ukraine or some of the former Yugoslavian nations...I'd trust the Indians more than those fcuking savages, anyway.

I do tend to agree about the U.S. powers receding somewhat - we're too dependent on overseas production and immigrant labor to generate our own wealth without the good will of other nations, and short of the nuke, we don't seem to be able to inspire much military fear these days.

What we DO have, which in my opinion is the most lasting (and possibly most insidious) form of power, is a global media presence. Coke will succeed where Bush and "Operation Freedoms" may not. And the acronym we ad types use to refer to emerging markets to monitor closely is "the BRIC" (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Their current economic circumstances may vary, but their populations, resources and varying levels of media receptivity will definitely determine how and where American marketers proceed in the future.


Edited to correct ironic misspelling of "intelligentsia."
:D
 
#20
I reckon the US would nuke China if they could. But they need to finish Iraqistan first, then turn Iran to glass (the big prize). That's where the largest strategic powerbase is, however the west has worked hard to ensure that up until now, the middle eastern countries have been unable to exploit it fully. If the US is able to finish the job in the Middle East (which is looking decidedly ropey) then China will be next. I doubt whether a "Rape of Nanking" would arise again, as we really don't like having to send in live bodies to quell the natives if a bomb will do the job, so I reckon a few tactical nukes will probably be deployed in response to some manufactured threat.

Shares in oil companies won't be going down in value any time soon.
 

Latest Threads

Top