The U.S. may be the world's only superpower today, but Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria says it won't last. In his new book, "The Post-American World," Zakaria says the U.S. ignores the rise of nations like China and India and a developing global marketplace at its own risk.
This week, Word for Word features a May 27 speech by Fareed Zakaria, where he examined what he calls "the rise of the rest" at the Commonwealth Club of California.
"We have grown in Washington fat and dumb and happy and arrogant. We believe as Americans that competition helps with everything; everybody is bettered by competition. Well, the United States has had the field to itself for the last 20 years and it has made us very smug and very arrogant."
Is Zakaria accurate in his assessment of American attitudes toward the rest of the world? Have American politicians taken for granted our nation's long-time status as a super-power? What policies should the United States adapt in order to have better relationships with countries it may have either clashed with or taken for granted in the past?
________________________________________
Suzanne Pekow
Word for Word
MPR|APM
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 28
It is they fear the sacrifice that is necessary and since they won;t make it, they won't let others make the sacrifice.
They whine about cheap labor we must compete with, but they won't hold our education accountable so our people can only coplete with the cheap labor.
They cry about our inablility to compete and yet they reward those that can't compete and punish those that succeed.
They trumpet they are the leaders for success and they cater to those who won't strive to succeed.
Just as in past societies it isn't they have nothing to offer, it those that are willing prevent the willing from succeeding.
Bent and others maybe preoccupied with history books, but those that lead the world don't care about history books. There is much to learn from the past, but future is made by those looking ahead.
If we are to have the leadership taken from US it will be from a peoples that is "hungrier" and will allow people to fail and to succeed. My candidate is Brazil, they have a very new history and are not bound by it.
Overall I agree with his perspective, which will come as no surprise to those of you who have read some of my comments on other posts. The US has gotten comfortable with our "superpower" status, but more importantly, we have a US-centric view of the world. This isn't surprising, as people in general see the world from their own perspective. But for the US to see ourselves as some sort of ideal that the rest of the world aspires to is beyond patronizing, it is hubris.
In recent years the world has learned that it doesn't necessarily need to rely on the US for guidance. They see that China (and India) have grown not only more economically powerful, but more willing to seek mutual benefit.
In the end, while we have been sitting on our perch gazing down upon the rest of the world walking by, we missed the point that those people are actually not just walking by, they are passing us by.
The truth is that we are now a global world (which I admit sounds redundant, but I think you understand). The US needs to be a world leader, but must understand it is not the only world leader, and some day may not even be the most important world leader. But the issues are now global. As Zakaria says, the solutions must now be global. We must work together to find a path forward.
I think that the rise of China and India, while presenting many problems is a very good thing. I agree that Brazil and also other parts of South America are moving forward quickly. But I would not count the US our yet. We have had a tremendous setback due to the worst administration since Hoover, but I am hopeful that we can recover after the election.
I'm not sure if this was the impression I left or not, but just to clarify...I have no problem with the rise of China and India or the other countries, nor with the EU not becoming a superpower if they don't want (though perhaps I disagree that the EU isn't becoming a superpower in at least some ways). As Zakaria correctly points out, the US went around the world encouraging countries to open up markets (i.e., globalize) but forgot that water runs downhill. With huge amounts of cheaper labor and lax environmental and worker safety rules, it was a given that many US companies would shift workforces overseas. These countries are beginning to raise environmental and worker standards, but they will likely never be in a position where the US can compete any more for basic manufacturing. A case in point is that China is complaining that they are now losing manufacturing jobs to Malaysia and Vietnam.
The US, China, India, UK, EU and everywhere need to make wise choices and encourage adequate training to provide services on a level that allows us to compete.
Is it monetary impact? Is it innovate ideas? Is is military power? Is it a source of social and political ideals? Is it based on the abi;ity to provide the desires of the writer? Is it determined on percapita basis or a gross basis?
From a raw finacial impact those countries with an extremely large poor financial population have the biggest potenital to become a world power.
If it is on innovation it is the one that has the least restrains on the individuals (not the masses with the better education).
If it is based military power then it is split bwtween those that can create the greatest deveistation (and are precieved willing to use it) and those that can put the most people into the fight (willing to use it for self benefit).
If it is the source of new social and political ideas it is where there is the most open experiementing adn freedom of choice in which to use.
If it is to satisfy the writers desires/preception of better it is the totatiarian (they have the less discussion and choice).
As for the basis to use, I lean toward the percapita since iit incorparates a greater effciency and qaulity. The gross can simply overwhelm the system by unfeterred population growth.
Some have pointed to the one child policy as a terrible tragedy. Having your child die is a terrible thing, but the problem was not the one child policy. The one child policy has prevented helped end starvation in china. The problem was the poor school construction, not the one child policy.
Bush has been quick to yammer about the terrible impact of China's modernization on global warming. Not willing to do a thing about the USA contribution to the problem, so ignore what he says. But it is critical for China to SKIP the period of dirty industrialization that we had in the West between 1900 and 2000. They show some signs of willingness to push solar energy as a possible way to do this, but they still view pollution as just the cost of making money. Hey, so do we. If we want to be seen as world leaders, we have to lead. Green energy is the place where we should be leading instead of following.
Domestically Americans have devoled into a series of overlapping hostile camps, which is the issue to which Barack Obama's campaign tries to speak to. Whether the two camps be Democrat and Republican, Christian and Secular, Red States and Blue States, East Coast and West Coast, Haves and Have-nots, America does not think homogenously nor speak with one voice on almost anything anymore. In the immediate wake of 9/11 there was a sense of togetherness, of "we're all in this together". The massive support behind the Bush administration, the rallying 'round the flag, seemed to indicate that Americans were about to put their incidental differences aside and act collectively. Bush squandered that feeling and divided the nation into two camps: those who supported him no matter what evidence arose to cast his policies into doubt and those who felt he was a catastrophe as president. Even though the former group has steadily dwindled as Bush's various chickens have come home to roost, those abandoning their former support for his presidency tend not to join those opposed to it, but rather blame incompetence for the failure of his policies, clinging to the notion that the policies themselves were not the problem. This problem, current politics aside, is bred into the American psyche by the religious fervor with which the "free market" doctrine is embraced. It is all about individual responsibility, individual competitiveness, individual rights. That mantra of the nation has become: "What's in it for me?" And when the personal benefit is not altogether evident, then far too many choose not to contribute to the larger societal goals. This is again evident in regards to the current wars going on. Enrollment in the army on a massive scale would be the only active way that Americans could demonstrate their commitment to the effort, and it has not happened. Quite the contrary.
Internationally Americans have been sleep walking. For far too long Americans have mostly ignored what goes on outside their own borders, even those things done by their own government in foreign lands. I think the attitude common in the American psyche is demonstrated quite well by watching an American news broadcast weather report. Almost all of them show a map of the 48 contiguous states of the USA as though they are an island, rather than a portion of a larger continent. On American weather maps there is no Canada shown above the US and no Mexico shown below it. It is rather bizarre, actually. Americans have not only ignored the rise of China and India as emerging global economic, political and military powers, not to mention the European Union whose currency is currently pummeling the US dollar on foreign exchange markets, but they have ignored much that has gone on in the global community. The interference of the CIA in the affairs of many foreign nations (Iran, Iraq, Chile to name but a few) has led to not only instability in many trouble spots in the world, but also to a deep resentment of Americans. When the attacks of 9/11 happened many Americans asked "Why do they hate us?" Most of the rest of the world thought: "Well, duh?" But instead of facing up to the answer, Americans were content to accept a meaningless answer from their president: "They hate our freedoms." In what version of reality this might make sense I do not know, but I cannot imagine the skies are blue there.
Now America is overtaxed militarily, undertaxed domestically, over-indebted and under-invested, and has no plan for changing any of this. While 50 million languish without health care in the richest country in the world, the public debate still focuses on the misguided notion of being over-taxed. While the public, private and corporate debt levels threaten the viability of the entire financial system, the plan is to give cash to people in the hopes they will spend their way out of the mess. While China and India are developing their own capacity to explore space, the USA is continuing to allow what has been the world's leading space exploration institute, NASA, to slowly atrophy.
What amazes me is how far America's decline has gone before the matter became a public topic of conversation.
The Achilles heel for America is certainly it's lack of competent foreign politics and the lack of interest in anything that goes on outside it's borders. Beyond that, giving up the gold standard and losing major ground against the Euro is of concern as these are indicators of our standing in the global market place.
The U.S. will no longer be the only game in town and will have to accept that the American way of life is not the be all and end all. At his point I believe the U.S. will remain a major player and hope that we will be smart enough to hold our own against China and India.
The EU may well play a part in the future, but is not aspiring to leadership as such.
I don't recall the Canda of America, or the MExico of America, or Brazil of America, but there has been a United States of America. It is a nickname that predates even me.
Chris,
You can condemn the dirty industialization, but as best I can tell the people of the time didn't know any better. It seems that China has all of the available current technology (even that developed in the US) and yet they aren;t thumping the table to implement the technology over growth.
What world power relied only on money? Spending the trillions isn;t the problem. Where we are spending the trillions is the problem?
Rory,
When haven't we been in at least two camps? What are the larger social goals? And not eveyone has to join the military, there are many ways individuals and groups can contribute to a safer US. Everything can have something in it for me but it is the desire for power without a plan of how it should be used is the problem. Obama has got a clue to what he wants the US to look like in 4 years, for that matter neither does Hillary or John.
I begin to qonder about you perspective when you use TV as a telltale about our internal perception. I haven't trusted the media for infomration or a fair indicator for anything of consequeunce for over 40 years.
Tell which world leader wasn;t hated or feared.
On the other hand we may be moving to a world system of a few haves and many have-nots where wealth and education are more important than what country one belongs to.