A Global Power Shift In The Making - Foreign Affairs

Posted on Wednesday, August 11 at 14:16 by N Say
James F. Hoge, Jr. is Editor of Foreign Affairs. This article is adapted from a lecture given in April at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.

The transfer of power from West to East is gathering pace and soon will dramatically change the context for dealing with international challenges -- as well as the challenges themselves. Many in the West are already aware of Asia's growing strength. This awareness, however, has not yet been translated into preparedness. And therein lies a danger: that Western countries will repeat their past mistakes.

Major shifts of power between states, not to mention regions, occur infrequently and are rarely peaceful. In the early twentieth century, the imperial order and the aspiring states of Germany and Japan failed to adjust to each other. The conflict that resulted devastated large parts of the globe. Today, the transformation of the international system will be even bigger and will require the assimilation of markedly different political and cultural traditions. This time, the populous states of Asia are the aspirants seeking to play a greater role. Like Japan and Germany back then, these rising powers are nationalistic, seek redress of past grievances, and want to claim their place in the sun. Asia's growing economic power is translating into greater political and military power, thus increasing the potential damage of conflicts. Within the region, the flash points for hostilities -- Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, and divided Kashmir -- have defied peaceful resolution. Any of them could explode into large-scale warfare that would make the current Middle East confrontations seem like police operations. In short, the stakes in Asia are huge and will challenge the West's adaptability.

Today, China is the most obvious power on the rise. But it is not alone: India and other Asian states now boast growth rates that could outstrip those of major Western countries for decades to come. China's economy is growing at more than nine percent annually, India's at eight percent, and the Southeast Asian "tigers" have recovered from the 1997 financial crisis and resumed their march forward. China's economy is expected to be double the size of Germany's by 2010 and to overtake Japan's, currently the world's second largest, by 2020. If India sustains a six percent growth rate for 50 years, as some financial analysts think possible, it will equal or overtake China in that time.

Nevertheless, China's own extraordinary economic rise is likely to continue for several decades -- if, that is, it can manage the tremendous disruptions caused by rapid growth, such as internal migration from rural to urban areas, high levels of unemployment, massive bank debt, and pervasive corruption. At the moment, China is facing a crucial test in its transition to a market economy. It is experiencing increased inflation, real-estate bubbles, and growing shortages of key resources such as oil, water, electricity, and steel. Beijing is tightening the money supply and big-bank lending, while continuing efforts to clean up the fragile banking sector. It is also considering raising the value of its dollar-pegged currency, to lower the cost of imports. If such attempts to cool China's economy -- which is much larger and more decentralized than it was ten years ago, when it last overheated -- do not work, it could crash.

Even if temporary, such a massive bust would have dire consequences. China is now such a large player in the global economy that its health is inextricably linked to that of the system at large. China has become the engine driving the recovery of other Asian economies from the setbacks of the 1990s. Japan, for example, has become the largest beneficiary of China's economic growth, and its leading economic indicators, including consumer spending, have improved as a result. The latest official figures indicate that Japan's real GDP rose at the annual rate of 6.4 percent in the last quarter of 2003, the highest growth of any quarter since 1990. Thanks to China, Japan may finally be emerging from a decade of economic malaise. But that trend might not continue if China crashes.

India also looms large on the radar screen. Despite the halting progress of its economic reforms, India has embarked on a sharp upward trajectory, propelled by its thriving software and business-service industries, which support corporations in the United States and other advanced economies. Regulation remains inefficient, but a quarter-century of partial reforms has allowed a dynamic private sector to emerge. Economic success is also starting to change basic attitudes: after 50 years, many Indians are finally discarding their colonial-era sense of victimization.

Other Southeast Asian states are steadily integrating their economies into a large web through trade and investment treaties. Unlike in the past, however, China -- not Japan or the United States -- is at the hub.

The members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), finally, are seriously considering a monetary union. The result could be an enormous trade bloc, which would account for much of Asia's -- and the world's -- economic growth.

that's only 1 page, click here for the rest:
from Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal

[comment: I can't imagine that all that stuff could happen without WWIII. Whatever happens, there's never been a better time than now for Canada to cut itself loose from the USA, or any other country.]

Note: from Foreign Affairs, t...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:17 am
    Interesting article, also agree with last comment and for many reasons. I think that Canada should return to it's self sufficient ways of the past, certainly trade with other countries but make certain we are able to sustain ourselves at all times. We have the technology, we have the people, we need to increase our population and encourage families, educate our people, rebuild our rail, so that we can trade within Canada primarily and also since the rail also goes to the coast, we have a better access to other markets.

    We must stop exporting all raw materials, we certainly have the ability to manufacture here and then export a finished product, this creates jobs here and keeps us independant.

    We need to get away from the BMD and U.S. military schemes, we need to return to what is important to Canadians.

    It has always amazed me at what we cannot do during peace time and how all that changes during war times, we were able to mobilize this country in record time during WWII, create, manufacture and ship...no problem. Why not implement those same principles now??

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  2. Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:50 am
    I agree, although I'm not sure we ever really were independent. Not since John A. Macdon'ad's plan was being followed. I mean Diefenbaker (aside from Trudeau's brief flirtation with the NEP) was the last politician to seriously talk of making us more independent, but he didn't actually do anything, and that was over 40 years ago now. What independence is there to return to? If we weren't threatened by the Americans, it was Social Credit or the separatists.

  3. by N Say
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:09 am
    I don't think we were ever really independent either. Trudeau & MacDonald are made out (in mainstream history anyway) to be a couple of Nazis they were so nationalist. The truth is that MacDonald played a major role in creating the current branch-plant economy (<B>NOT</B> with the National Policy by itself); and Trudeau's policies were too half-hearted to have really had an effect, except maybe supply-management. The NEP, while it would have made us debt-free by 1990 was still very mild. After all, it only helped the oil go from one corporation to another; it's not like Trudeau nationalized foreign corporations, or more extreme still, expropriated them. There was nothing in there about electricity either, like a national grid or something.<p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

  4. Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:06 am
    Hi N Say. I believe it was Pearson who cancelled Diefenbaker's idea of a national grid, but that's the problem--it was only Diefenbaker's idea, he did nothing.

    As for MacDonald, I think I might know what you are getting at, but I still think we owe him a lot.

    I think we should have many more frank talks on these board about what Canadian politicians actually said, tried to do, failed to do, and managed to do. We also need to know more about the forces that opposed them. Were there deeper conspiracies, or is "Doing what the rich wanted" an honest explanation.

    If you have any more information regarding MacDonald contributing to our branch-plant economy, I'm sure we'd enjoy reading it.

  5. Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:42 am
    Well then if you two are right and we never had independance, then let this generation be the pioneers for independance! I say no more mr/mrs nice guys, let us really be visionaries and incite major action to claim our country. We all need to look at the big picture and really start seeing ourselves as an adult country with adult solutions to our problems. I read this 'funny'(?) quote in my paper, the new conservative who will be running next election says, he will take a wait and see approach if he gets to Edmonton, see who's buttons to push to get results...very telling...how about NO! Wait and see what? If you can't see the problems now, do more research, once you are elected, you are getting paid to do more than wait and see, also why do you need to push somebody's buttons?

    This is a sad attitude, we need people who realize they are elected to do the job they are getting paid for, think, research, pay attention to the decisions being made for the future of this province and this country, and act!

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  6. Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:23 pm
    The best way to ensure that Canadians have a decent standard of living and can live peacefully is more trade with all the regions of the world including the US. International economic inter-connectedness will do more to ensure peaceful relations between nations than the most comprehensive arms treaties, it doesn't make sense to attack a country that's providing your own country essential goods or services - democracies don't wage war on each other, they find better ways of working things out. Trade promotes democracy because statist regimes get left behind due to the lack of innovation and corruption. And Canada can help in this regard through prodding and especially promotion of human rights with a particular emphasis on women's rights and education because that puts the brakes on poverty and the instability it brings.

  7. Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:13 pm
    An increase in trade does not equal an increase in human rights. China is living proof of that.

  8. Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 pm
    An increase in Fair Trade increases human rights. An increase in Trade increases corporate rights.

  9. Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:52 pm
    Increasing trade does not always lead to increased peace. Guess who Germany's largest trading partner was prior to WWII.

  10. by N Say
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:24 pm
    It wasn't just Pearson, but Pearson was the first to kill plans for a national grid. & it wasn't Dief's idea either; it was David Cass-Beggs' idea, he wanted a national grid like Britain, Germany & the USSR had. All the provincial premiers wanted one at the time & Pearson killed it... :-( The idea has been tossed around a bit since then but nobody has done anything with it.

    What I was getting at with MacDonald was a the disastrous railway policies he had, and his change to the Patent Act which let Americans get patents in Canada. Until then only Canadians could get things patented in Canada. The worst PM of all was Laurier though. He was undoubtedly the Mulroney/Harper of his day. It was under his "leadership" that the wheels really came off & got taken over by the USA.

    ---
    "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

  11. Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:28 pm
    Anon, what are you alking about? How is it possible to have more trade with the world if we increase Canada-U.S. trade further? ANd who said a statist regime HAS to lack innovation? The U.S. provides us with essential goods, but it isn't ESSENTIAL we get those goods from the US. We would benefit greatly from R & D jobs, increased tax revenue, and manufacturing jobs never mind pride if we did things for ourselves. They should be dependent on us--we have the resources. It's simply colonialism we're going through right now.

  12. by N Say
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:32 pm
    I don't know that we could get any more trade with the USA, 90% of our exports go there already. & what's with that word 'statist'?? Isn't that same old anti-government Reagan-style nonsense?

    ---
    "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

  13. Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:48 pm
    HEy N Say. Why would MacDonald change the patent act? Wonder is he was under pressures we don't know about.

    As for the railway policies, it's my understanding he changed the gauge of rail on our railways so that the U.S. couldn't send troops into Canada by rail. As for the disastrous rail policies you mention, I'm afrain you'll have to enlighten me, unless you mean the railway scandal.

  14. by N Say
    Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:03 pm
    The CPR was given twice as much land as the US railways that opened the west down there, and the CPR also got to pick what land it got granted. Compare that with what the US did; the US gave the railway companies the land near the tracks & no more. The US also gave settlers land grants, while the CPR SOLD land to whatever settlers could afford it, usually established farmers from Ontario. So it delayed settlement in the west by ~20yrs.

    ---
    "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news