The new world order that threatens Uncle Sam

[Flashermac]

[color:blue]The new world order that threatens Uncle Sam[/color]

 

America's next President faces the daunting task of countering Russia and China as they aggressively challenge struggling Western liberal democracies

 

Henry Porter

Sunday December 23, 2007

The Observer

 

 

Two events last week make me wish I could have just a few words with American thinker Francis Fukuyama. The first was Time magazine giving Vladimir Putin the accolade of person of the year. The second was the purchase by the China Investment Corp of nearly 10 per cent of American bank Morgan Stanley as it announced the write-off of $9.4bn in bad debts

 

In 1992, I met Francis Fukuyama when he was touring his book The End of History and the Last Man and explaining to anyone who would listen that the world had reached a point where there was no longer any meaningful dispute between Marxism and the market. More particularly, he said, it looked as though Western liberal democracy was becoming 'the final form of human government'.

 

It was such an alluring and hopeful phrase, as though a process of evolution was about to reach its happy conclusion. The rest would be simply a matter of management and education. I wonder how he accounts for the state of affairs at the end of the 2007 in which Russia and China appear to be doing rather well without following the example of Western liberal democracy and, indeed, challenge the model with disdain. The Russians, for instance, rather than becoming more democratically inclined have become less so. In a recent poll, just 20 per cent of Russians said they favoured democracy and a market economy.

 

For a vast number of the world's people, democracy is an aspiration that comes some way after security and prosperity. The two great powers of the communist era end this year more confident than at any moment since the fall of the Wall. And what is interesting is that their sense of purpose and defiance is accompanied by doubts in the West about the strength of our economies and uncertainty about the direction of our democracies. Forget Islam and Islamism: these are the important undercurrents of 2007.

 

 

Link

[Fidel]

Heavy stuff, comming from Harry Potter.

[ozpharlap]

Unfortunately, IMO, communism grows in larger populations to quell the rise of an unhappy population, which unhappiness grows from the growing divide between the have and the have nots

[Flashermac]

And ends up with the communist leaders living like kings and the proles still living like proles, only now having some slogans to shout like robots.

[Julian2]

That's when it stops becoming Communism Flash, the USSR was Communist for very few years of it's existence.

[Redbaron]

... everyone equal, but some more equal than others.

[Steve]

China may not go all the way to civil war but it will probably have serious internal strife between the poor rural south and the richer north. Also, class warfare of the growing gap between rich and poor. They won't be able to live in a vaccumn and keep out the outside world as well. The electronic media won't be kept out forever. China will be dominant. I'm not saying that but it won't be a smooth ride to the top. Just like we did and everyone before us, there will be problems domestically (and internationally) that will test them.

 

As for Russia, abundently rich in natural resources but not sure how much growth can happen with so much corruption. They also have a terrorist issue in Chechnya that has to be addressed.

 

To be fair, our politicians bought and paid for by special interest is corruption in a different suit.

 

If China and to a lesser extent Russia are going to be powerful and the premier powers (India may have something to say about that as well), they will also inherit the Middle East problems, Africa, etc.

[Bangkoktraveler]

I would say the future world power will be a toss up between India and China.

[robaus]

The USA could make itself great again by truly being the honest broker for freedom and democracy, and stop propping up repressive regimes such as

 

Israel

Bahrein

Saudi Arabia

 

Apart from a few notable exceptions such as WW2, the USA has a long history of backing the wrong horse out of what they thought was their self interest, but only emerged with egg on their face and a loss of credibility

 

just off the top of my head...

 

Shah of Iran

Mubarak in Egypt

Diem in Vietnam

Pinochet in Chile

Somoza and Contras in Nicaragua

Various Guatemalan, Honduran, and Cuban dictators

 

USA could be a world champion of human rights... something Russia, China, and India don't give a hoot about.

[Guest lazyphil]