March
29, 2011
Reading through Fareed Zakaria’s
book, The Post-American World, has
been an interesting view of the future of the United States. The first thing
that stood out was the time that the book was written. It was written before
the financial crisis, although economic issues were starting to emerge. Soon
afterwards his predictions were understood to be somewhat premature because
America took a harder fall than most anticipated. The US at this time was
facing issues, such as the high cost of war, fear of Islam, and fear of the “other”.
Zakaria tries to diminish these fears by saying that war is decreasing,
Islamism is not a major threat, and the “rise of the rest” is not anything to
worry about. For this reason it is obvious that the book is being tailored to
an American audience in order to calm them down and explain that focusing on
these issues will just lead to the disregard of larger problems that arise from
success.
In reading the text, Zakaria’s
central argument is that a “post-American world” is emerging in which there is
a “rise of the rest” and a small decline of the US, although it will remain the
most powerful state. He asks that Americans not worry about the possibility of
a decline but rather the problems of American success. I find it simply ironic
that although everyone works towards success as the ultimate objective, it
often has a destructive effect. The way that he tries to convince the readers
that there will not be a major decline is by first talking about the lack of a
threat by the rest, (India and China most specifically), and then how American
strength will be sustained. He says the rise of the rest does not mean a
significant decline but an end to unilateral action and the need for
cooperation and gaining legitimacy. Zakaria then focuses on China and India to
show their strengths but more importantly a detailed account of their weaknesses
in order to explain how neither will replace the US as the new hegemonic power.
For China he says that its weaknesses lie in its “output without development”
strategy, its fiscal irresponsibility in loaning money to corrupt officials in
the Third World, and the weakness of centralized states. He focuses on
weaknesses of India as well, such as bad infrastructure and management.
Although Zakaria outlines some problems the US is having, he focuses on its strengths,
such as its lead in productivity and profits, the long-term dominance of the
US, its successful higher education, etc. Ultimately Zakaria believes that this
is merely the fourth wave of US worrying about America’s decline. In these
previous cases, the threats did not come to pass and he believes that this same
fate will occur with China and India and the US will maintain its status as the
world’s most powerful state.
There are numerous areas in which I
disagree with Zakaria’s arguments. Firstly, he decides to exclude some areas,
which I think are important to address. At the beginning he says that generally
people focus on the rise of Asia, while overlooking the rise of Brazil but he
goes on and does the same thing when he outlines only India and China. The
second thing he does not explain in detail is the rise of international
organizations and other non-state actors. This may have an enormous effect on
the structure of international politics because the power of states could be
reduced. I also find that Zakaria’s writings are biased in favour of the United
States and his praises far outweigh his critiques. He says that the decline of
the US would have a negative impact on the world because it is “an order that
has been benign and beneficial for the vast majority of humankind;” however,
many other states probably disagree with that assertion. Many states have suffered
at the economic exploitation and imperial actions of the US and it is quite
arrogant to assume that if there is no western influence then there will be
chaos and a lack of order.[2]
The decline of the US would mean an end to unilateralism and a need for
cooperation, which would be a positive thing. For example, Zakaria mentions
that Americans only speak English but if there was a rise of the rest then
Americans would be forced to recognize other cultures, especially because
culture follows power. Other evidence of bias is in how he reflects on history.
He explains that the US was dominant since the 18th century but does
not acknowledge the strength of Eastern entities, such as the Ottoman Empire.
Also, when referring to the East India Company setting up schools in India in
1823, he says that many adopted it willingly. Despite the fact that many were
forced, he mentions this in a single statement but then uses pages to outline
how there were some who willingly accepted western influence, including
letters, sources, etc. His reporting is often biased and disproportionate in
this respect. Another bias is when he explains what the new world will look
like and uses the example of Bollywood. He does not explain the positive
attributes and the cultural significance of this film industry but instead he
characterizes it as depicting “sacrificing mothers, family squabbles, fateful
separations, and superstitions.”[3]
Zakaria then tries to discredit those that criticize the West by saying that
they do so with a ‘Western voice’ and that they are merely borrowing ideas off
the West. Another issue I have is that he contradicts himself when he explains
that modernization and being Western are different, yet he chooses to use these
ideas interchangeably. For example, when Zakaria talks about dancing he says
that they are “modern (that is Western) moves” and that China’s banks are “modern
(and in that sense) Western.”[4]
The trend of focusing merely on the positive aspects of the West continues when
he brags about how English is the most broadly spread language in the world,
how western styles are the standard of men’s work clothing, and how the West
brought champagne, Valentine’s day, Christmas, mass capitalism, and
consumerism. This pattern of what can be perceived as arrogance is apparent in
Zakaria’s text and leads non-Western nations to support the idea of a US
decline so that other nations and their contributions are more respected and
recognized.
Overall this text has been an
interesting read, especially because of Zakaria’s experiences and the fact that
he lived in both India and America, thereby able to offer more insights into
these state systems. As a student in a multicultural society, I have found that
recognizing different states and systems are important in order to have a
comprehensive view of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment