Customer Reviews:
 Possibly the Finest Primer on World Affairs in Print December 27, 2008
Rarely does a book manage to cover the sweeping landscape of world affairs so lucidly and deftly. Mr. Zacharia does just that, and in a thoughtful, even-handed manner seldom found in this era of the cultural wars. Were I to teach a survey course in modern world history, diplomacy, international affairs, political science, or intercultural communication, I would immediately make this book a required text. Unlike his sometime mentor Samuel Huntington, his account avoids the binary thinking that marks so much comparative study; it is also nuanced far more than one might expect from such a small volume.
Zakaria comes across as a realist, but with a humanitarian bent, in keeping with the growing concern for human rights in shaping state policy. Although of Indian ancestry and heritage, he is able to rise above cultural chauvanism. As a sinologist, for instance, I greatly appreciated his chapter on China, which is in the main dead on the mark. I especially appreciate his willingness to delve into Confucian influences on the Western Enlightment, which is usually overlooked in studies of East-West relations. He also avoids the tendency of Western observers to paint the Chinese government as a fuming dragon bent on empire and instead delineates rather neatly the quandries Beijing confronts in its drive to modernize and strengthen its regional alliances. He also makes it evident that Chinese leaders are nothing if not pragmatic and, despite their convenient oversight of human rights abuses in their newfound allies, are very much of the mindset of leaving well enough alone, a kind of present day Prime Directive reminiscent of the original Star Trek series, albeit more expedient than ethical. But there is nothing alien or sinister in what the author depicts in terms of the manifold challenges confronting Beijing. That he is able to describe these challenges without resorting to hyperbole and alarmist rhetoric is to his great credit.
I cannot recommend this book enough. Extremely well-written and non-ideological in its outlook, this book ably juxtaposes complicated historical ideas and social sea changes with a far wider range than the typical journalistic tract of today, Zacharia has given us an account that is likely to become a classic in the field, and deservedly so.
The Post American World December 21, 2008
I respect Fareed Zakaria as one of the most intelligent men in America. He brings a world view of politics and economics and doesn't get swayed by any group or organization. He's fair and thoughtful and has the kind of life experiences and connections to see America through unbiased eyes. We are lucky to have this intelligent American with such a broad background to help us see our own country in a more realistic light.
 Another Apologist for Empire December 19, 2008
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
I'll say at the outset that I like Fareed Zakaria. He's articulate, reasonable, moderate, and optimistic. And he is the successor to George Kennan and Zbigniew Brzezinski in the role of theorist for US corporate imperialism. I will not be surprised if he gets an appointment in the upcoming Obama administration as, for example, Assistant Deputy Director of strategic Analysis for the State Department.
Zakaria takes it as an obvious given that the era of US hegemony is drawing to a close. The US will be overtaken as the world's largest market by 2040, according to Goldman Sachs (and we have no reason in this case to believe that they are wrong), and we have already lost our position as the leader in technology and manufacturing. But, don't worry, the US still has a role to play, and can even thrive in the new multipolar world; we just have to make some 'adjustments'.
Zakaria claims that the US has been a liberalizing and modernizing force, striving always to bring the virtues of democracy and liberal market economies to the world. And this is where the fundamental flaws in Zakaria's analysis are most obvious. Zakaria continues the western intellectual tradition of portraying history as the interplay of nations, ignoring the class structure within those nations. To claim that the US strives for democracy is contradicted by the facts - in fact there is a high correlation between US support for foreign states and the incidence of human rights violations in those states. Iran 1954, Chile 1973, Nicaragua 1935, 1950s, and 1980s, South Vietnam in the 1960s, Guatemala and Honduras in the 1980s, ongoing support for Saudi Arabia, financial and military support for Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, the propaganda attacks on Venezuela today - all these are the counter-examples that Zakaria passes silently by. The theory that the US now and in the past has worked for democracy is simply false. An alternative theory, that the US government works at all times and in all ways to advance the interests of US corporations (and now international corporations) fits the facts much more closely and without the obvious and embarrassing counter-examples.
Trade policy, the tail that wags the foreign policy dog, is equally poorly treated by Zakaria's flawed theory of history. He claims, apparently without irony, that the US has worked tirelessly to teach developing countries the virtues of 'free trade'. But to sustain this argument one must ignore the fact that 'free trade' for the US has always meant that developing countries must give up their indigenous farming and industry in order to form a cadre of virtual slave labor for whatever enterprise is desired by US corporations, whether that enterprise is industrial or agricultural in nature. And, of course, it means that whatever natural resources the developing country has must belong to those US corporations. Any country that sees such an arrangement as unjust, Venezuela for example, is attacked bitterly by intellectuals like Zakaria. Nowhere does Zakaria admit the possibility that US trade agreements are not in the interest of US workers or of workers in the other countries. He can't admit this possibility because class plays no part in his analysis or in his thinking.
Sadly, as likable as Zakaria is, he has written a worthless book, another in a long line of theoretical tracts by ruling class intellectuals. If you want to understand the world in a more consistent way, in a way more consistent with reality, read Chomsky.
 "...in the long run, the battle of ideas is close to EVERYTHING." December 17, 2008
The above quote (with emphasis in the original) is part of the concluding arguments from Fareed Zakaria's book which focuses on the dynamic shifts in the distribution of power on a global basis. It is an essential statement, and he supports his contentions with the pitiful sums that are devoted to America's efforts to promote its ideals as opposed to the truly mind-boggling sums that are thrown at military hardware. If the ratio of those expenditures was reduced, the "post" part of the title might be a bit longer in coming.
Zakaria is an immigrant to America from India, and as such, has a broader global perspective than most Americans. He understands the American outlook of the proverbial "Joe Six-Pack", and also understands the outlook of many citizens in other countries. Early in the book he emphasizes that much of the economic progress made in the last two decades is due to the state of peace reigning in the world --at some level this is counterintuitive since, as he says, "A cottage industry of scaremongers has flourished in the West--especially in the United States--since 9/11."(p14) Based upon this peace, and wiser leadership in other countries, Zakaria states that numerous other countries are becoming much more prosperous, and although the book focuses on China and India, he also cites Russia, Brazil and South Africa. China is now the "workshop of the world," making most of what Wal-Mart sells. India is specializing in providing the "services" part of the equation. (yes, the dreaded tele-marketers, as well as the software programmers.)
Zakaria provides numerous anecdotes and examples of a global perspective, and how America is often out of step with other countries. For example, standard American historians, such as Stephen Ambrose and Ken Burns demote Russia to a minor role in the Second World War, but it was on the Eastern Front that the true "War of the Century" was fought, with the Russians taking 20 million dead. America is the only country in the world to issue a "report card" on others, yet is not introspective enough to do one on itself. America's "go it alone" approach is underscored on page 206, where Zakaria says that in addition to America, only Liberia and Myanmar are not on the metric system, and the only other country in the world that has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child is Somalia. In the tradition of numerous other Indians, on nuclear non-proliferation, he rightly condemns America's "do what I say, not what I do," approach. (p 241). And he underscores the irony of Dick Cheney quoting our adversary's in terms of guidance for our own actions. (p 250).
I found numerous other original points worthwhile in terms of the global perspective: on the "what-might-have-beens" of history, he discusses how the Chinese Admiral, Zheng He had more, and larger ships that explored the oceans prior to 1492, but that the Chinese authorities eventually banned large-scale ocean exploration. He points out that numerous non-American leaders, such as Nehru and Nasser liked the West, and sought to emulate many of its characteristics. Another salient point is the belief in God, which is high in the West, but the same concept is not held in China and India. All these issues are important for the oft-too-insular Americans to comprehend in considering our upcoming position in the world.
But like other reviewers, including "Laughingbird," I found Zakaria too optimistic, and like a newly converted zealot, not willing to criticize some of the central tenets of his "American faith." Far too much emphasis is placed on the quantitative number, "GNP," but not on its quality. Growth in population is often considered positive and desirable, and, perhaps naturally given his personal history, immigration is viewed positively, without consideration for the offsetting costs to both countries involved in the transaction. He also sees economic activity through the "competitive" paradigm, as though putting bread on one's table is analogous to a football game. He acknowledges that Americans are borrowing 80% of the world's savings, and using it for consumption, but he does so as an afterthought. An entire chapter should be devoted to the ramifications if those savings were no longer available to borrow.
In particular, I found his comfortable "MAD" analogy concerning the Chinese-American relationship false. Specifically on p 124 he says: "The Chinese-American economic relationship is one of mutual dependence. China needs the American market to sell its goods; the United States needs China to finance its debt--it's globalization's equivalent of the nuclear age's Mutual Assured Destruction." But surely China will grow tired of the "free trade" that involves them working hard to provide real goods only to receive paper promissory notes in return from a generally ungrateful America. They could suddenly stop buying our T-bills, and divert their resources, energy, and now know-how to improving their domestic market. And then where would America be, with its own industrial capacity and know-how gutted? No military action need be taken on their part, and all those fears from the `50's and `60's of "Red China" would come true.
As to his son, Omar, who was concerned about his father writing a book about the future, all so soon the economic events may be proving Omar right. Zakaria deserves kudos for his numerous vignettes that can improve an American's global perspective, but in terms of the competition for ideas, which is paramount, he needs to do a "retake" on the facile and rosy economic concepts.
Great to understand present and future December 16, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Journalist Fareed Zakaria talk us about a new world, where China and India - alongside with other developing countries like Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and the Russia itself - take a more and more expressive social, economic and political place, sharing with USA. The pros and cons of everyone. People, culture, history.
That's a book Barak Obama himself had betwen hands. I recommend!
|
