h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I read this very interesting article last week,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth

The general gist is...

"Our gaze might be on the markets melting down, but the upheaval we are experiencing is more than a financial crisis, however large. Here is a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably. The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over."

So what do you all think? Russia's invasion of Georgia, China's display as a confident world power at the Olympics, the rise of Brazil and India's economies all point to a more multi-polar world. I think we can all agree on that.

But is this the point where the US's fall from being the world's only hyperpower stops being in the future and starts being the present? And what are the ramifications?

I think it's safe to say that all indications are that the shift has begun.

All the economic and demographic indicators support this, but moreover, the vibe is there, too. I live in Southeast Asia and visit both China and the West, particularly the US, fairly regularly.

The difference is palpable.

The US has an atmosphere of smug complacency; intellectual improvement is scoffed at, intelligence and industriousnesss is belittled. Lassitude, a need to be entertained, reluctance to exert any effort...all are typically US and western attitudes today.

China (and much of the region outside the borders)is forward looking, ambitious, hardworking and determined. Intellectual and academic achievement is respected, students tend to be energetic and see the future as their time to shine. There is a sense of inquiry and hope. A polar opposite atmosphere from that which prevails in the West.

I think we'll have a multi-polar world for a while, but I'm afraid that the pendulum will just swing back to the East after a thousand years of Western polarity. I don't think that things will be terribly different from the point of view of an alien civilisation observing us, but from our point of view here on Earth? I suspect it will seem very different.

Or maybe it will all be the same. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We ALL get fooled again.

"The US has an atmosphere of smug complacency; intellectual improvement is scoffed at, intelligence and industriousnesss is belittled. Lassitude, a need to be entertained, reluctance to exert any effort...all are typically US and western attitudes today."

I don't think the United States could ever be accused of being "complacent". Indeed, I think part of their national psychology is that they constantly think they're under threat which is why they tend to be so aggressive in their dealings. Certainly, given the economic turmoil that's presently engulfing the country I don't think you could argue that they're being complacent - indeed I can't recall them being *less* complacent since September 2001.

Equally, intelligence and industriousness are hardly belittled (unless you're citing the attitudes of certain groups rather than the body politic as a whole).

"China (and much of the region outside the borders)is forward looking, ambitious, hardworking and determined. Intellectual and academic achievement is respected, students tend to be energetic and see the future as their time to shine. There is a sense of inquiry and hope. A polar opposite atmosphere from that which prevails in the West."

The eastasian countries have, in the past fifty years or so, proved extremely industrious and China has merely joined the pack after being held back by Maoist ideology. I wouldn't describe it as the "polar opposite" of the mentality in the West, though, merely a stronger variant of it.

"So what do you all think? Russia's invasion of Georgia, China's display as a confident world power at the Olympics, the rise of Brazil and India's economies all point to a more multi-polar world. I think we can all agree on that."

Post Cold War US supremacy was always going to be a bit of a blip, to be honest. Great Powers frequently rapidly rise and then slowly decline. Some historians think the US has been in decline since the 1970s and that the end of the Cold War simply made them appear more powerful than they actually were since there was no longer a "counterweight" power. There's a certain amount of triumphalism about that Guardian article (the British left have always been much more uncomfortable with American power than the British right although the British right have become noticably more anti-American after the Iraq war) but I think it's analysis is overall correct, although it's naming a trend that many have noticed for a while.

It's also pointless trying to state at the time what historians will see as a defining moment of a Great Power's decline. Kaiser Wilhelm hailed the Battle of Jutland as "breaking the muth of Trafalgar" by showing that the supposedly-unbeatable British navy wasn't the monolithic force it had been thought to be (even thought Germany lost that encounter) but, in reality, the ebb of British power didn't really become starkly obvious until Suez nearly 40 years later.

I meant "myth of Trafalgar", obviously.

The comments under the CiF article are mostly the usual collection of nuts and ill-informed hysterics but this one stood out for me:

"As for "a historic geopolitical shift, in which the balance of power in the world is being altered irrevocably," I doubt there was ever any such balance to begin with, only a very lopsided Yank Ascendancy after 1945 that no serious analyst ever took to be permanent. Even this analyst adds "Outside the US, most people have long accepted that the development of new economies that goes with globalisation will undermine America's central position in the world," which sounds much more reasonable.

Mr. Gray must be a lover of drama who would rather watch the Heimatland Gottes go out with a bang than a whimper. History and geopolitics are not likely to gratify his taste, though."

Interesting point (although I thought Gray's article was arguing that US power would decline slowly rather than contract suddenly USSR-style so I think he's aiming his argument at the wrong target).

Re sayamalu's post, I think there is a certain difference in attitudes. I just started work with an Indian guy, whose attitude basically marks him out as a geek (he can do maths! he actually wants to learn!). I think a big part of this is because India is a poor country, and education probably makes a bigger difference in the 3rd world than it does here. Which makes me wonder if they'll be like we are in 50 years..

<>

I thought that was the point: that the trend was there, but it's gone from being a trend to being something that's in everyone's face. While still being a trend, of course.

<>

Agreed, but it's fun and interesting to try and discern which of the many factors acting at the moment will be the important ones, and why, and which of them won't. Which is kinda why I started the thread.

<>

I'd disagree with the long-term part, for the following reasons. China was far wealthier than Europe until about the (late?) 18th Century. I think a major reason for this was just the size of the population of SE Asia. In economic terms, the competition involved in such a huge market gave China a head start on Europe. The future market will be a global one, so this won't apply. I know this is hardly a cast-iron piece of thinking, but I think it'll basically hold.

Well, it was only ever a matter of time, wasn't it? Even on the up-curve it was only ever a matter of time, and we've been going slowly round the apogee for a couple of decades now.

I suspect that from the other end of the telescope, 9/11 and this autumn will be seen in the West as the pivot points. 9/11 of course was the *result* of events as much as it was the cause of them, but 9/11 was when the west was forced to sit up and take notice.

For ages the questions were "when?" and "how?" Now the questions are "how fast?" and "how deep?"

Interesting times. Interesting times.

B

>interesting times<

Yes that oh so, ironic, Chinese curse. (I bet they are laughing their socks off).

Ben?!

"May you live in interesting times."

I'm told this is a Western faux-Chinese saying.

TRiG.

As ever was.

I was told by the rabbi who lived next door that "may you live in interesting times2 was a Yiddish curse.

China it would seem is the power now - the West may come to regret its acceptance of slavery in return for cheap goods.

>China it would seem is the power now - the West may come to regret its acceptance of slavery in return for cheap goods.

China is certainly a rising power but right now they're a bit overrated. Their rapidly-growing economy is largely reliable on Western consumers and their military, despite having a huge budget, is technologically underdeveloped.

Economically, all the clout is still in America, Europe and the Pacific Rim. Militarily, I think Russia has more strength than China; they spend less on their military but their equipment is far superior.

>> Their rapidly-growing economy is largely reliable on Western consumers

Is it though? Or isn't it as reliant if not more so on the growing Chinese middle class? All they need to do is achieve a critical mass where it's success if feeding itself and away they go. They aren't there yet, but the momentum is surely building.

B

The Chinese are growing through exports at the moment I think. A western recession certainly would hit them very hard.

This http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/15/economics-china

in the Grauniad suggests China might avert a global recession by spending its £2tn worth of reserves.

The BBC takes the opposite view - can't remember what I was listening to but it specifically said

(1) that China's internal markets were larger than their export markets and

(2) China was no likely to help out the West

I assume that it has no particular need and absolutely no cultural will to do so

Interesting differences of opinion there

B

What external markets do China need ? External markets would only be important if they needed raw materials for their manufacturing base - and I don't think they do.

They're strong on design, and it's only really luxury goods they need. At the end of the day automation can be replaced by cheap labour.