Chapter 5 - The Ally

Taj Mahal

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Taj_Mahal_in_March_2004.jpg

In this chapter Fareed mostly focuses on India, and its rise to power and stability. In the early 1980s, India was a mess. There were many political protests, and the economy was not doing too well. The growth was slow and most of the Indian graduates left India for better opportunities.
The past decade, however, could not have been more different. India transformed itself into a very peaceful and prosperous nation. Relations with Pakistan are better and they managed to maintain a high rate of economic growth. The world is now courting India as never before. Foreign delegations are flocking to India to form deeper relations with the nation.
With this growth comes many questions and concern from other nations. Will India become the next China? Will they look at the United States as an ally?
The short answer to that is that no one knows yet. Indians are now mostly focused on advertising their country to foreign investors. They portray themselves a very friendly nation, not only to the west, but to everyone else also. Over the past fifteen years, India has been the second-fastest growing country in the world, behind only China.

Indian apartment buildings
http://ecofriend.org/images/growing_buildings_in_munbai_.jpg

The key concept Fareed wants the readers to understand is that in spite of such fast growth, India still remains a very poor nation. The per capita GDP is still below $1000. The size of the economy is large and is growing very fast, however the large growing population of over a billion people is dragging the per capita figure down.

A very crowded Indian passenger train
http://moronland.net/media/pictures/pic01950.jpg

India has a very large youth population and the experts are making the assumption that the youth can speed up India's growth. Unlike China, who was very successful with the "child-policy", India faces a youth bulge because the past family planning policies had mostly failed. Fareed concludes his argument by going back to India's growth. The poverty rate is half of what it was two decades ago, which is very impressive. The private sector is thriving and they are posting double-digit gains. India has more billionaires than any Asian country, mostly self-made, and according to the author: " if demography is destiny, India's future is secure."

Mumbai Downtown.jpgDowntown Mumbai from Nariman Point
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Mumbai_Downtown.jpg

India owes much of its political system to what the British left behind. Unlike the other Asian countries, the British stayed in India for centuries and built lasting institutions and agencies there. India has a very modern administrative structure. India did not need to invent a central bank or independent courts because they already had them. However, the main inference is that even though India has succeeded in some dimensions, it has failed on many others. During the 1950s, India tried to modernize by mixing economic models between capitalism and communism. The results were disastrous and kept India back for many decades.
Fareed put emphasis on India's poor score on the United Nations Human Development Index, which ranks countries not just by wealth, but also health.
The implications of India's neglect are quite sever, especially in the long run. India ranks behind Syria, Sri Lanka, and even Vietnam. Female literacy rate is at a shockingly low 48 percent. Despite much rhetoric about helping the less fortunate, the government has done very little for them.

Indian's protesting for their civil rights
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/afp/20090717/capt.photo_1247843427308-1-0.jpg

Can these problems be blamed on democracy? Not quite. Bad policies produce failure, no matter what kind of government is in power. Still, certain aspects of democracy can prove problematic, especially in a country with rampant poverty and illiteracy. Many of the politicians are corrupt and the minorities control most of the country's wealth and they like to keep it that way. At this rate the implications of this distribution of control over power can be catastrophic for the rest of the nation.

Slum dwellers in front of their shacks near the Victoria Memorial in Calcutta, India
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/1645013394_99a92a7771.jpg

The author's point of view is that democracy is India's destiny. Fareed, being an Indian himself, believes that a country so vast and complex can not be governed any other way and the politicians have to use democracy in their advantage. The government has recently started investing in rural India's education and health. Village councils have to give a third of the seats to women, which has led to one million elected women in village councils. This gives them a platform and opportunity from which to demand better health, educations, and equal rights.

Business Today awards for the most powerful women in Indian
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060224/biz2.jpg

Fareed ends this argument by emphasizing that government does matter. Even India's great success, its efficient private companies, could not thrive without a well regulated financial system that has transparency and enforcement. India's central paradox today, according to Fareed, is that its society is open, eager and ready to take on the world, where its state is hesitant, cautious, and suspicious of the change that is happening.

After gaining independence, Indians were eager to play a role on the world stage. They inherited this from the British. The British controlled the Middle East during WWI from India, and Indian soldiers fought and carried out Britain's wars. They learned from that tradition and were quite comfortable with it. India's first prime minister, Nehru, had been educated like an English Gentleman at Cambridge and Harrow and his grasp on history was extraordinary. Nehru became a towering figure in Indian politics, and because of his extensive knowledge, even during his own term in the office, he was his own foreign minister. He was an idealist , " An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and his mentor Ghandi used to say, " and soon the world will be blind and toothless." Ghandi was revered in India like a god, and his nonviolent style, brought down the British empire.

Nehru was determined to bring new courses in international affairs and lived up to his ideals. He did not want military personnel to serve in the ministry and if they did, they wanted them to dress like civilians. He placed hope over calculation in some cases, and his foreign policy was full of rhetoric about peace and goodwill. This policy backfired when China invaded India in 1962, settling the of border dispute in their favor. This shattered his idealistic view of the world and he realized he is getting out of touch with reality, and he was not the same after that.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, pictured in the 1930s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Portrait_Gandhi.jpg

Standing (L to R) Jawaharlal Nehru, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Krishna Hutheesing, Indira GandhiRanjit Pandit; Seated: Swaroop Rani, Motilal Nehru and Kamala Nehru (circa 1927). and

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Nehru_family.jpg

India by some measure is the most pro-American country in the world. One reason could be that for decades, the Indian government had tried to blame India's misery on the CIA and the Americans. They also tried to spread anti-Americanism in India, which today has backfired for the most part.

The Indian American community has been bridging the two cultures. Americans and Indians understand each other. The Americans may be puzzled by how the Chinese government conducts its business, or the Iranian Guardian Council, but has understood India. Their relationship is not only between the governments like many countries, but there is also a bond between the societies.

The Indian government is also changing its policies. They are moving from Nehru's self-righteous and Ghandi's hostile approach, to one that benefits the Indian people. Manmahon Singh's policy is that peace and stability can develop a market as well as its society.

Also similar to the Chinese, Indian Hindu's do not believe in a god. The have many gods and each branch of it has its own gods and goddesses. Because there are no core set of beliefs or doctrines you can do what you like and follow whichever one of the teachings that you desire.
This ease has allowed them to flourish and be an easy going nation. Even though India has a very large Muslim population, the Indian identity has always stopped them from joining the fundamental terrorist groups, and no Indian has ever been affiliated with Al-Qaida or other such groups.

Indian Flag
http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/nuclear_case_15017.jpg

India is the only country that has nuclear arsenal and is not a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Fareed has also talked about this issue on his CNN program, GPS. The United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been trying hard to get India to join the treaty. It may be a difficult task considering the United States still have over two thousand nuclear warhead of his own, argues Fareed. Sanctions have proved fruitless in almost every case. India, even though it was a much poorer country back then, their growth went on for three decades and finally developed an active nuclear weapons program under U.S. sanctions. Iran also has been developing peaceful nuclear program and the U.S. sanctions seem to have hardly done anything to stop it. I believe as long as there are greedy businessmen and arms dealers, such sanctions are completely useless because the regimes can continue to purchase the needed parts and technology only at a higher cost.

Fareed argues that India's nuclear plans, however, are for national pride. Many Indians resent the fact that India will always have second class status compared to Russia, China, and other major countries. None of those countries are supervised by IAEA as much as Indian facilities are. India's argument is that they are surrounded by Pakistan and China, whom have nuclear weapons and have been in wars with India before. Neither have accepted a mandatory cap on their productions, and India sees that as only a one sided freeze on India's developments.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/toons/2000/03/23/lang/lang.jpg

India is a growing country. Povery rates are down, and they have sustained an eight percent growth for the past three years. India's diversity is four thousand years old and deeply rooted in their culture, language, and traditions. It's a country so vast and diverse that when the British were leaving, in 1947, the new government had to negotiate individual agreements with almost 500 rulers. The Hindu-Muslim divide may be important in one state, but not the other. This diversity and division has many advantages for India. It adds to India's variety and prevents the country from giving in to a dictator. Because of this diversity, usually only coalition governments success and even Ghandi with his popularity could not form an authoritarian and centralized government.

This is similar to the U.S. in the late 1800s, when they were trying to get rid of the British in America. They slowly fought them off, then civil wars, and slowly led to centralizing the government, large domestic changes, and deep international crises, which transferred America from a weak state in the late 19 century, to America as a super power now.
Fareed ends his argument by mentioning "This tension between society and the state persists in American to this day. In fact, it's worth keeping in mind as we turn to the single most important player in the twenty-first century and ask how America itself will react to the post-American world."

The USS Constitution defeats the HMS Guerriere, a significant event during the war.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/USS_Constitution_vs_Guerriere.jpg


Sakawarton (Smoke Johnson), John Tutela, and Young Warner, 3 Six Nations veterans of the War of 1812.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Six_Nations_survivors_of_War_of_1812.jpg

Chapter 4 - The Challenger

From top: Tiananmen, the Bird's Nest stadium, the Temple of Heaven, and the Beijing CBD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_montage.png

The beginning of this chapter focuses on China and its rapid growth in the past three decades. During the industrialization of Europe, China went backwards in terms of growth, mostly due to poor government policies. After WWII, China was slowly becoming a Western ally and even obtained a seat in the security council until Mao Zedong proclaimed China as a communist state with close ties to the Soviet Union in 1949. That decision, once again put a damper on the Chinese growth and retarded its pace.

On October 1, 1949 at grand ceremony in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, Mao Zedong, chairman of the Central People's Government, solemnly proclaimed the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/PRCFounding.jpg

Mao Zedong pulled China through a series of catastrophic events, which eventually destroyed its economy, technology and intellectual capital. Finally in 1979 globalization reached China. They slowly started launching economic reforms and realizing the communist ideologies and models can not feed and shelter 1.3 billion Chinese people. Data shows that such reforms led to an astonishing growth of over 9 percent a year, for over three decades. In that same time line, this growth lifted nearly 400 million Chinese people out of poverty. Fareed explains that the magnitude of change in China is unimaginable. He uses Shanghai and Beijing as examples of the urban growth. The financial district in Shanghai, and the growth of public transit in Beijing are just a few examples of how fast China is growing. He identifies this concept of growth by giving us an example that involves most of his readers. Almost everyone living in North America is familiar with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the biggest company in North America and it employs more than 1.4 million people. The company imports about $18 billions worth of goods from China each year (2006 figures). This figure shows us how our biggest corporation's global supply chain is basically a Chinese supply chain.

Fareed believes that China was able to achieve this rate of growth because they pursued a distinctly open trade and investment policy, unlike Japan or South Korea. They opened their markets to foreign goods and China has become one of the most open economies in the world. In spite of the rapid growth, Fareed concludes his argument by stating that China is not going to replace the United States as the world super power. China has become the second-most-important country in the world, but it is unlikely to surpass the U.S. on any dimension for many decades.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/communist-china.jpg

China is considered to be a communist regime, however they accept capitalism with open arms. They believe in the concept of letting the markets do their work of balance the economy. The Chinese worked slowly in fixing the economy and rather than getting rid of the inefficient industries, they let the markets wipe them out. They use central planning which has its advantages and disadvantages. One big disadvantage is the government share of tax receipts (around 50% in China) shows a lack of coordination between the center and the regions. Fareed's point of view is that the problem of spiraling decentralization will be China's greatest challenge. I point out one advantage of this centralization, which is that the government can go ahead with developments and need not to worry about the voters. They do not have to spend billions of dollars on useless or inefficient projects only to satisfy their voters to assure their seat. That is one problem that can really slow down a countries growth.

The following link is a video from you tube on the growth of India and China

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z9yap8ml54

Indian officials like that their Chinese counterparts do not need to worry about voters. In India the politicians have to conduct certain projects that are popular but foolish to ensure their re-election, where the Chinese are able to make many decisions that are far-sighted. Although that is mostly the case in China, people are slowly rising up against the leaders. Globalization brings awareness with it and connects people all over the world. They learn from other country's struggles for freedom and change the model to suit their purpose. In China, regional differences are rising and inequality is skyrocketing. This may also be due to the fact that China compressed their growth into three decades, whereas an equivalent growth in the West took two centuries. It is hardly a surprise that the Chinese state is struggling to keep up with this social upheaval. The most famous was Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

Tank Man — This famous photo, taken on 5 June 1989 by photographer Jeff Widener
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg

Fareed also brings up the concept of pollution. There is a high environmental consequence to China's growth. Over a quarter of water in Chinese rivers are completely polluted. Air pollution is widespread and according to Fareed, only about 1% of the urban population breathe air considered safe by the EU standards.

Fareed states that the Marx model of economy explains how when an economy becomes market oriented, they tend to turn to democracy, and by looking at a few countries over decades of development, the pattern is obvious. China is still controlled by a communist party, however many of the leaders understand that dilemma.

He concludes this arguement by stating that China is hungry for success, which is the most likely reason for its rapid rise. They have overcome war, poverty, and isolation and are now finally moving forward. Today, China's leader, the elites, and everyone else in the country have one common desire to move forward and they are unlikely to cast aside three decades of growth and prosperity.

China's growth internally also affects its international relations. Countries with such capacity are not born everyday so this event grabed everyone's attention. The first step, Fareed argues, was to get closer to America and guarantee an entrance to the world's largest consumer market. They archived that by going along with America in the 1980s and for the most part, supported the American agenda in the UN council.

The Chinese have a relatively similar approach to dealing with the rest of the world. The one notable difference is existence of god. The Chinese, along with many East Asian countries, do not believe that one needs god, to be moral in dealings with others. They do not believe in a creator and his set of moral laws that must be followed. The Chinese have their own ways of spirituality such as Confucianism. They celebrate Confucianism for its reliance on reason rather than on divinity as a guide to human affairs.

Statue of Confucius on Chongming Island in Shanghai
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Confuciusstatue.jpg

In the early days when Europe was far ahead in technological advancments, China had more advanced ethics and a better civil organization. Fareed explains that the concept of god and religion in the East, is hard for Westerners to understand. One example was the Portugese missionary, Matteo Ricci, who traveled to China in the 1580s. He shaved his head and dressed in the traditional buddist ropes to present himself as an honored fugure, not realizing that holy men were not held high in East Asia. His assumption of a universal respect for religious figures was far misguided and Fareed point that out well.

Historically god has been quite involved with foreign policy looking back at the Muslims and Christian conqurers. To this date, the missionary spirit is very present in the foriegn policy of many countries. China in contrast may never acquire such sense of destiny. Fareed argues that the Chinese see such issues differently, not with an abstract set of rights and wrongs, but with a sense of practicality that serves as a guiding philosophy.

China views itself as a nation intent on rising peacefully, its behaviour marked by humility, non-interference, and friendly relations with all. Fareed then explains that the peaceful rise of China will be determined by a combination of Chinese actions, and the other coutries' reactions. China is too big of a nation and economy to slip onto the world stage unnoticed. They operate on such a large scale that it cannot help changing the nature of the game. The new generation of the Chinese diplomats are well aware of China's new power.

The question is, will that power go to their head? For now the Chinese foreign policy remains entirely commercially focused. But as mentioned above, China is growing very rapidly. They have economic ties all over the world, invested in some of the biggest American corporations, and have plants and refinaries all over Africa and the Middle East and growing in numbers everyday. One might ask, what could be wrong with building such ties? The answer is nothing for now. Except that when China moves into these countries, it is taking up economic, political, and military space that was occupied by Britain, France or the United States, which has the possibility of causing friction in the future.

Absence of political strings makes Chinese investment attractive for African governments
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/images/africa_china.jpg

The Chinese deal directly with the governments because they always control the natural resources that the Chinese need. The transactions are much easier with one centralized authority, especially if it is an outcast regime. An example of that is Zimbabwe, where China buys their minerals and sell weapons and radio technology in return. Despite a ban, China remains Mugabe's main supporter on the UN Security Council. Some believe that Beijing has been slow to recognize its responsibility in the region, however China has been more responsible in Asia. By 2007, they renewed relations with almost all the Asian countries in the region, which is a big step forward for China. Taiwan remains an issue, where China persists that Taiwan remaining attached to the mainland. They consider this an internal issue for China and do not welcome meddling by other, mostly Western, countries. In recent years they have chosen a smarter way regarding Taiwan. One, Fareed explains, is increasing Taiwan's dependence on the mainland, most significantly the reduction of tariffs on farm roducts that come from the most indepent-minded parts of Taiwan. Fareed concluded by saying that all the economic growth and globalization have made China plan for integration and yet have given it the power for military and political confrontation.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/taiwan/maps/taiwan-location-map.jpg

The importance of China's relation with every country in the world is heavily dependent on its relations with the United States. Historically, when the world's leading power is challenged by a rising power, the two have a very difficult relationship. Even though they might not admit it, they are both worried and plan for the worst. For three decades China has been acting in accordance with the U.S. interest, but increasingly, China's younger elite think that their country should think of itself as a competitor with the United States.

For now both China and the U.S. seem to depend on each other and cooperate on many world issues, but there are also disagreements. Some Pentagon officials have been blowing the whistle for a while, warning of the Chinese threat. Fareed argues that the Chinese understand how lopsided the military balance is. They are not as strong as the Soviet Union, so he thinks China will remain an "asymmetrical superpower."

Fareed concludes his arguement by raising another issue, which we will discuss in the next chapeter: "In thinking through how to approach China, American political elites have fixed their gaze on another rising power, close to, and close on the heels of, China-India."

Chapter 3 - A Non-Western World?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Santa-Maria.jpg

This chapter is mainly about the rise of Asia until the the 16th and 17th century, then because of poor judgment by the leaders they fell behind Western Europe. The above is a picture of a replica of Santa Maria, Christopher Columbus's ship on his journey to the Americas. Fareed explains how before Columbus, a Chinese admiral named Zheng had traveled to the Americas with a better and larger fleet of ships and crew in the early 1400. Unfortunately his travels were oddly axed, because the new Chinese rulers perceived such efforts as costly and pointless. They forbid the construction of large ships that could travel the oceans. This action completely destroyed the Chinese shipping industry for centuries.

Fareed explains how the Asian's lacked interest in newer technologies which led to this gap that exists today between the the two continents in term of GDP. In the beginning when the Portugese and the British took new technologies ( ie. clocks, cannons, farming equipments) to Asia they decided to use them but never learned how to, and later decided to completely reject them. In a letter to King George III, the Qienlong emperor rejectd the request for trade and explains, " We have never set much store on strange and ingenious objects, nor do we need any more of your country's manufactures." This is when the Chinese decided to close their minds to the world.

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/881104/2/istockphoto_881104_asian_farm_worker.jpg


http://www.ilri.org/ILRIPubAware/Uploaded%20Files/HTML%20IMAGES/Crop-Livestock%20Farming%20Systems%20The%20backbone%20of%20small-scale%20Asian%20agriculture.jpg


A German combine harvester.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Claas-lexion-570-1.jpg

In this chapter, Fareed also refers to An Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Malthus. In this paper, Malthus explains how the food production rises at an arithmetic rate, but population rises at a geometric rate. The one flaw in his theory was that, he did not take technological advancements into consideration, so it failed in England. His analysis, however, described Asia and Africa very precisely.

The author's point of view is that, a possible reason they did not advance in so many different fields is because they focused all the energy and effort on a few specific projects. The Chinese put all of their resources together to build the forbidden city and the Indians and Monguls did the same with the Taj Mahal, and neglected some very basic projects for their population. He mentioned the Soviet space program in the 1970s, or Iran's current nuclear and space programs. He refers to this as "Strength is Weakness."

He also talks about productivity and compares the British to the Chinese. The historian Philip Huang makes a comparison between the farmers of the Yangtze Delta and those of England. The Chinese were able to make their land highly productive, but they did this by placing more workers on a given acre. The British on the other hand, looked for ways of make their existing labor more productive, producing more crops. The result of using newer technology was an incredibly higher production of crops. By the eighteenth century, the average farm size in southern England was 150 acres, whereas in Yangtze Delta, it was only about 1 acre.

Another disadvantage for the Chinese in term of shipping was the European discipline and efficiency. The European missions were more productive and used innovative methods to pay for the trips. The Dutch pioneered innovations in finance and taxation, so every trip was intended to return a profit and bring new discoveries. In China, however, the voyages depended on the interests and power of the monarch. The Chinese who used cannons effectively in the 13th century, now needed the Europeans to teach them how. Fareed explains, " this was the tragedy of Asia: even when there was knowledge, there was no learning."

Cultures also played a role in growth of nations. The Europeans grew because of a strong civil society. In countries where the states controlled everything, growth is much lower because of their personal, religious, or even cultural conflicts. Fareed explains that sometimes politics can change a culture a save it from self-destruction. At some point in time, certain attributes seem immutable, but then economics and politics shift, and change those attributes, making space for others. Mesopotamia was the center of science, trade, and knowledge for centuries. Now its main exports are oil and Islamist fundamentalism. This is very hard to bare, considering the first ever cylinder of human rights was made during the reign of the first Persian Empire. After the Arab invasion, brutal centralized government that only demanded taxes and brought no infrastructure in return, left the society weak and unhappy, and caused them to fall behind the rest of the world by every measure of progress.

Europe also benefited from being a geographical haven. With its vast mountains and river, it was divided into many different principalities. If a group of people were mistreated, they would just simply move to a different state. If they flourished others would follow, and if the failed, they would just die off. This landscape also limited use of centralized governments, like those is China. Lack of flatland allowed the population to protect themselves against the aggressors, and no monarch was ever strong enough to be able to control all that land. Water is also plentiful in Europe because of the rivers and its vast coastline. Despite Europe's geographic diversity, it was once conquered by a great land empire, Rome, which tried to keep the empire centralized. Also the Middle East did well at one point under the Persian Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

http://www.thejournal.org/studylibrary/maps/persian-empire-at-its-height-large-map.jpg

Fareed raises the question of what all of this European growth and advancement meant to the rest of the world. With their success Europeans now started to move around more and by the nineteenth century, almost everywhere was marked for use by the Europeans. He answered his own question by explaining that initially the Europeans only focused on finding product they could bring back, whether by trade or force. Soon, however, this involvement became more permanent. They slowly started settling in North and South America, and re-creating the European style societies. They called this the New World. The Portuguese and the Dutch were there first, and their presence was soon eclipsed by the French and the British who brought African slaves for work. This presence, for the most part, changed or destroyed the existing non-Western societies and way of living in those areas. They killed or displaced the native inhabitants of the land and drew new borders, and placed whomever they wanted in power.

The implications of such actions was that the existing native culture were damaged and some some instances completely destryed. In many cases, European influence was regressive, destrying the old ways but creating very little to replace them. America, Asia, and Africa were irreversibly changed by the discovery of the West.
In the Middle East the story was different. European nations did not have as strong a military advantage to rule over them, so they traded with them, whereas in America and Africa they were clearly stronger than the natives and knew it.

American discovery was a mistake, which ended up being a good mistake. It became Europe's great escape for over 400 years. The mostly moved there because of the overcrowding, poverty, and religious persecution in Europe. The easility overcame the native people by better military methods and the European diseases that the natives could not withstand, and destroyed their tribes and cultures.

American Indians
http://www.edgateteam.net/Lessons/Images/native_american.gif

The common assumption people make is that countries always colonized other countries. However, colonization was often done by the corporations, not the countries. The Dutch and British East India companies were licensed monopolies, created to end competition among the businessmen. They also wanted to keep the other countries out, so they started contruction of formal empires, of which Britain proved to be the strongest and the most successful.

Fareed's view of this overall European invasion or "Westernization", is that there were also many positive outcomes. Many countries actually learned from the European's disipline and incorporated it in their own societies. Perhaps these admirations were by Europe's superiority at producing wealth and a strong military existance. As in the case of Peter the Great, where he travelled across Europe and learned a lot from them and used that knowledge for a new reformation in Russia and made matters more Western. Some of the more radical examples were Kemal Ataturk of Turkey and Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran. They both brought the culture of 'forgetting the past and embracing the future'. They built universities, railways, communication means, roads, and modernized their countries as fast as they could. Perhaps the most controversial of these was the banning of the Islamis head cover, which to this day still exists in modern day Turkey.

Reza Shah at the opening ceremony of the University of Tehran's Faculty of Medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Shah


In 1927, during the opening of the State Art and Sculpture Museum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataturk

Fareed then talks about modernization and how it started in the West. He states that now three of the world's four biggest economies will be non-Western (Japan, China, and India). And the fourth, The United States, is increasingly shaped by its non European population. He uses the Japanese example of how their technologies are far more superior than any Western countries, yet inspite of all the wealth, they stay very traditional and foriegn to the rest of a Western visitor. If wealth did not westernize Japan, it will not westernize the rest of the world. In a world where people of different races and cultures are wealthy and confident, this will be a world of enormous cultural diversity and exoticism. Basically Fareed's concept is that westernization is not the same as modernization. Still the West has been around for so long and has spread so far that the line between modernization and Westernization is very clear. A lot of ideas and methods of what we consider modern is Western. Western festivities are becoming more popular in non-Western societies (ie. Christmas, Valentine's day), and even Western style clothing is replacing traditional garments, because they are considered more sophisticated and modern.
Ever since armies began dressing in Western-style uniforms, men around the world emulated that style. The business suit, a descendant of a European army officer's outfit, is now standard for men from Japan to South Africa, with the exception of the Persian Gulf countries.

An example of Westernisation: Meiji era, Japan, Prince Yorihito Higashifushimi in typical Western naval dress uniform with white gloves, medals and hat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIH_Prince_Yorihito_Higashifushimi.jpg

However the readers should not make the assumption that westernization it only about appearances. A very important one is what they call "standard " business practices. Such accounting and book-keeping methods have all originated in the West. Such standards exist in the central banks, educational institutions, as well as parliaments and the list goes on. American consultants (formerly European) are paid large sums of money to go to other countries and teach them how best to appeal to their own countrymen. The American or Western culture is very dominant, maybe because on certain issues, it is very easy going. They crown out older, more distinctive ways of dining, dressing and even music. The implications of this modernization has caused the new culture to become the most important. It is so, because in a democratic age, quantity trumps quality. Fareed explains that, "How many listen, matters more than who listens." To me probably the most bizarre example is the new Japanese Holiday: Halloween!

The world we are entering has been structured and majorly influenced by the West, but will retain elements of the local culture. Persian rock music sounds awfully like its British counterpart, but the theme and lyrics are Persian. The Persian rap, heavily influence from the inner city ghettos of south central Los Angeles, but it address the frustrations of the Persian youths. Local and modern are growing side by side, and the author wants the readers to understand this concept. Many shows, movies, restaurant, etc have originated from the West and many countries were dependent on those product for decades. But they have now been able to put their own spin on the production by incorporating the Western frame of production and adding their own cultural bits and pieces to it. A good example of that is NEWS reporting. It started with CNN, and then BBC. Now we have a handful of major NEWS agencies such as Al-Jazeera, PressTV, NDTV, and Aaj Tak.

Fareed's view of modernity is a profound one. In his opinion, modernity has come with the rise of the West, so it has taken a Western face. Now with the growth of everyone else and the globalization, modernity becomes a melting pot. To Fareed the question of " Will the future be modern or Western?" is more complicated that it sounds. The complex answer is to look at countries individually. He believes we can simply refer all the countries in Asia as Asia. They are many contries with large populations, who harbor differences and suspicions about one another. They are all rising powers and the world looks very differently at each one because of their history, geography, and capabilities. Fareed believes that the great shift taking place in world is more about power than a specific culture.

Chapter 2 - The Cup Runneth Over

Fareed begins this chapter by giving a brief description of the ever changing world and some recent events. He then divides the chapter into a few sections to better explain and relate the following events.

The Islamic Threat:

The main purpose of this section is to explain that the Islamic Threat is not truly as large as the Western governments and their media make it seem. Fareed addresses the question as to how large a threat they are, by giving a background on the Muslim countries and their behavior. He explains that their threat is no where close to the German threat during the Nazi regime, the Soviet threat or even Mao's effort to cause another war.

http://www.adilo.ch/images/middle_east.gif

Before 9/11 almost all Muslim opposition groups such as Al Qaeda, were only considered to be minor annoyances and they roamed relatively freely, hitting very minor military targets. After the 9/11 attacks, governments almost everywhere took a very aggressive approach to destroying the terrorist networks in the west as well as the east. Now wherever we look, Iraq or anywhere else, the attacks have decreased dramatically due to crackdowns and a lack of support by the local people.
Most Sunni terrorist groups have switched from killing Christian invaders and the Jews, to killing Shiite Muslims. This internal fighting is further weakening the Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

What the author wanted us to understand is that the Western government need to stop wasting their time with documents and literature on Jihad and instead focus on the Muslim societies. By understanding the society and culture, they better understand the Muslims' actions and why certain acts are performed. If Western governments did that, they would realize that most Muslims are now drawn to the razzle-dazzle of Dubai and Tehran malls and posh boutiques, rather than the religious madrasas in Medina or Qom.

Even the terrorists are slowly realizing that their violent method of voicing their opinion is proving ineffective. It is taking successively shorter time to recover from a terrorist attack and going back to normal, whether it is the financial markets or the tourism industry. Even if we focus on specific nations as terrorist nations, we see that America outdoes them all in terms of military research, spending, and preparation, so no country stands the slightest chance against the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dubai_Montage.png (picture 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tehran-Montage.png (picture 3)

My understanding of this is that Fareed wants us to open our minds and stop focusing on the nastiness that "might" occur, and instead focus on understanding each other. Respecting and learning about other cultures can connect us and relay our messages in a way that no violent method ever could. Freed wants us to focus on the positive, and realize that the days of military aggression and violence are over, and that this is the era of open communications and cultural relations.


The Three Forces: Politics, Economics, and Technology

In this section Fareed changes the argument to the political and the economical changes of the past century. Even though there has been many conflicts and wars throughout the world, the overall world economical growth was robust. For example Japan, a very traditional and close society, grew to become the second largest market in the world.

Fareed addresses the question as to how this growth happened in spite of wars and population growth. He believes, with which I strongly agree, that better technologies and the dissolution of central planning led to such massive growth. Better technology allowed for a faster rate of globalization and outsourcing which brought lower prices and jobs. A lack of central planning also led to open markets that lowered inflation in many developing countries.

He also wanted us to understand that even though countries like China, India, and Brazil have a much higher rate of growth than almost all the developed countries, they still have a long way to go. For example the GDP per capita in China is still about 15 times less that it is in the United States. There is no doubt that the size of their economy is very large, however they also have a very large population and there are still many poor people living in those countries.
At this high rate of growth, China and India will be right behind the United States in several decades, however their economy, institutions, and politics need to be modernized to make that final leap.

Fareed also put an emphasis on the expansion of communications that has connected the world. This gives us access to real time prices all over the world and conduct business faster and more efficiently. People do not need to go where the jobs are, but now jobs can move to where people are. This mobility brings the costs down significantly, which is then past on to the consumers. Companies can be managed from overseas and they can use many different countries as a part of a chain of production.

Fareed explains his point of view: "Since the 1980s, these three forces -- politics, economics, and technology--have pushed in the same direction to produce a more open, connected, exacting international environment. But they have also given countries everywhere fresh opportunities to start moving up the ladder of growth and prosperity."

http://www.indiadaily.org/images/india-growth-rbi_26.jpg

Nationalism and The Last Superpower

In this section Fareed focuses on the rise of nationalism as well as how America's days as a superpower are slowly coming to an end. In a globalized world, almost all matters spill overseas, whether they are terrorist problems, nuclear, or even a disease outbreak. However while all such matters may become globalized, political power stays firmly tethered to the nation state, and any meddling by other states can cause consequences. The rise of self pride among nations, especially successful ones, is apparent.

Due to a globalization, a young person in Tehran might be very familiar with Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton's scandal, or Brittany Spears' scandalous on stage performance, however, once Iran-Iraq war is mentioned they turn into a completely different person. The picture of them as victims surfaces as soon as events are mentioned such as American meddling, other Arab states funding, or Europeans supplying Iraq with chemical weapons. They raise the issue of the 1953 CIA coup that toppled a democratically elected Mossadegh Government, and say how could America care about our freedom now when 56 years ago they brought a dictator back only to secure their own interests.

When we read what happened during the second World War from Western literature, we only hear about the brave American and British soldiers who fended off the Germans and the Italians where in fact most of the war was fought on the Eastern front. Germany had over 70% of their soldiers fighting the Russians and they incurred heavy casualties. The Western front was considered only a sideshow compared to what was happening in the East. The following link is a video clip about the war in the Eastern Front.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUjdGhGvBuw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reichstag_flag_original.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi-parading-in-elysian-fields-paris-desert-1940.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotterdam.jpg

George H. W. Bush always spoke of a "new world order," which to me is just that same old Western system he hoped to expand worldwide. Fareed's point of view is that Bush's idea must have stemmed from the post WWII experience with Japan and Germany, where both grew to become very accommodating to the U.S. and major economic and political powers.

The American and the British always refer to their invasions and war as freedom triumphs over evil. Fareed tells a great story: "An Indian friend explained to me, 'For Britain and America, World War II is a heroic struggle in which freedom triumphs over evil. For us, it was a battle to which Britain committed India and its armed forces without bothering to consult us. London told us to die for an idea of freedom that it was at that very moment brutally denied to us.'"

Many believe that what happened to Europe is also going to happen to the United States. Globalization is in full gear and there are hundreds of millions of workers in India and China, who can do everything we do here, just as good for a fraction of the pay.The United States has lost many key industries to the developing countries, the government is in a lot of debt to the Asian central banks and most American people have completely stopped saving. In spite of all the above, the U.S. is still in better shape in terms of growth than Europe, but far behind Asia.

Fareed raises the question as to what the Americans should do to stay on point with the rest of the world. He believes that some Americans have become conscious of the changing world and are changing their habits. The businesses are aware that the annual revenue growth is 5 to 6 times higher abroad, and "they know they have to adapt to a post-American-world- or else lose out on it".

Unfortunately this outward orientation is not yet commonly viewed in American societies and they remain very internally focused. This isolation has left Americans unaware of what is going on outside their borders. Relative to other countries, Americans speak fewer languages, know very little about other cultures, and remain unconvinced that they need to address that issue, mostly because of their arrogance that the American way is the better and more advanced way. This has lead to an ever broadening gap between the elite and cosmopolitan on one side, and everyone else on the other.

Fareed explains, " The 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Survey showed a remarkable increase worldwide in positive views about free trade, markets, and democracy. Large majorities in countries from China and Germany to Bangladesh and Nigeria said that growing trade ties between countries were good. Of the forty-seven countries polled, however, the one that came in dead last in terms of support for free trade was the United States. In five years the survey has been done, no country has seen as great a drop-off as the United States."

By reading the above, we can sense Fareed's point of view regarding America. He believes that the rise of the rest is a consequence of American ideas and actions. For years the American diplomats and missionaries traveled abroad to encourage free and open market, and embrace new technologies. They encouraged them not to be afraid of change, exactly what Americans themselves failed to do. "Just as the rest of the world is opening up, America is closing down."