Though I’ve often disagreed with Fareed Zakaria on specific policy questions, I’ve always been challenged and interested by his way of thinking about big issues. Like some of my colleagues here at Sepia Mutiny, I found his book The Future of Freedom stimulating, if imperfect. Zakaria seems to be especially good at synthesizing complex issues under the umbrella of a signature “big idea,” without choking off qualifications or complexities. He still may a little too close to the buzzword-philia of Thomas Friedman for some readers, but in my view Zakaria’s book-length arguments are a cut above Friedman’s “gee whiz” bromides. (Zakaria’s weekly Newsweek columns do not always rise to this bar.)
Zakaria’s latest big concept is The Post-American World, a just-released book whose argument he summarizes in a substantial essay in this week’s Newsweek. The basic idea is, the world is becoming a place where the U.S. is not a solo superpower, but rather a complex competitive environment with multiple sites of power and influence. Even as China and India (“Chindia”?) rise, it’s not clear that the U.S. or Europe will fall; rather, everyone can, potentially, rise together — or at least, compete together. Zakaria argues that despite hysterical anxieties figured in the mass media regarding the threat of terrorism and economic crisis, the world has rarely been more peaceful — and that relative peace and stability has created the opportunity for the unprecedented emergence of independent and rapidly expanding market economies in formerly impoverished “Chindia.”
There’s more to it (read the article), but perhaps that is enough summary for now. There are a couple of passages I thought particularly interesting, which I might put out for discussion. First, on India:
During the 1980s, when I would visit India—where I grew up—most Indians were fascinated by the United States. Their interest, I have to confess, was not in the important power players in Washington or the great intellectuals in Cambridge.
People would often ask me about … Donald Trump. He was the very symbol of the United States—brassy, rich, and modern. He symbolized the feeling that if you wanted to find the biggest and largest anything, you had to look to America. Today, outside of entertainment figures, there is no comparable interest in American personalities. If you wonder why, read India’s newspapers or watch its television. There are dozens of Indian businessmen who are now wealthier than the Donald. Indians are obsessed by their own vulgar real estate billionaires. And that newfound interest in their own story is being replicated across much of the world. (link)
This last insight seems dead-on to me, and it’s the kind of thing I think Zakaria appreciates precisely because he was raised in India (no matter how many times he says “we” when talking about American foreign policy, he still carries that with him). This is one of the spaces where Zakaria’s status as an “Indian-American” is a real asset, as it gives him a simultaneous insider-outsider “double consciousness” — he has the ability to see things from the American/European point of view, but also know (remembers?) how the man on the street in Bombay or Shanghai is likely to see the world. [Note: I did an earlier post on Zakaria’s complex perspective here]
(As a side note — for the academics in the house, isn’t the narrative Zakaria is promoting in the passage above a “pop” version of what postcolonial theorists have been talking about for years — what Ngugi called “The Decolonization of the Mind”?)
Secondly, another passage, which I think addresses what might be the biggest hindrance to the multi-nodal global society Zakaria is interested in:
The rise of China and India is really just the most obvious manifestation of a rising world. In dozens of big countries, one can see the same set of forces at work—a growing economy, a resurgent society, a vibrant culture, and a rising sense of national pride. That pride can morph into something uglier. For me, this was vividly illustrated a few years ago when I was chatting with a young Chinese executive in an Internet café in Shanghai. He wore Western clothes, spoke fluent English, and was immersed in global pop culture. He was a product of globalization and spoke its language of bridge building and cosmopolitan values. At least, he did so until we began talking about Taiwan, Japan, and even the United States. (We did not discuss Tibet, but I’m sure had we done so, I could have added it to this list.) His responses were filled with passion, bellicosity, and intolerance. I felt as if I were in Germany in 1910, speaking to a young German professional, who would have been equally modern and yet also a staunch nationalist.
As economic fortunes rise, so inevitably does nationalism. Imagine that your country has been poor and marginal for centuries. Finally, things turn around and it becomes a symbol of economic progress and success. You would be proud, and anxious that your people win recognition and respect throughout the world. (link)
Will resurgent nationalism turn out to be the biggest hindrance to the “smooth” globalization Zakaria is talking about? How might this play out? Will there be a new generation of wars, or will it be expressed in subtler ways (like, for instance, what happened with the nuclear deal within the Indian political system). In the Newsweek article at least, Zakaria doesn’t really explore the downside of emergent (insurgent?) Chindian nationalisms in depth; perhaps we can do so here.
i think a couple of freidman columns and a few aishwarya rai you tube videos should suffice
still impoverished, still populous – but it translates to a hunger and a desire that’s
scaryawe inspiring, at least to those who’re more accustomed to a non-hindu (sic) rate of growth out here in the west.what would that get you old frooti?
16 · Manju said
just like some righties (Juan) abandoned indentured servitude proposals when it became politically expedient (read: massive Malkin rage blogging), que no?
(i kid. lefties do not =He-Man and conservatives do not = Skeletor. Rather, lefties = dating pool and conservatives = severely limited access dating pool)
Rise of Nationalism Frays Global Ties ,in the WSJ,28Apr by Bob Davis (sub required) but full text is also here:
The “natives” 😉 are also re-colonizing the “world wide web” into their own languages.
Portmanteau,
Your definition of insightful = something you understand. It’s OK. That’s what comes from reading too much of Zakaria. Saeed Naqvi has interviewed more heads of state than all foreign correspondents put together, and the only journalist to have interviewed every head of state of Israel and its neighbours for over 40 years now. Tavleen is great for her reportage and bluntness, and I can’t imagine too many “analyst” airheads being impressed with it. Anyway the recommendation is for Fareed not his camp followers.
Amardeep’s post:
First of all, Amardeep, this is one of your most brilliant posts, and you have had many. Secondly, bilculturalization does not necessarily guarantee a 360-degree perspective. Oftentimes it has quite the opposite effect. The term “screwed up” comes to mind. So it is all the more remarkable when a Zakaria comes along and brings a refreshingly global perspective, albeit abridged for the sake of delivering the “big idea,” on issues many would consider highly local. He has admittedly slipped a few times, the most shameful of which was his early endorsement of Bush’s “shock and awe” in Iraq, a media circus that turned even the most hard-boiled journalists into Washington Redskin cheerleaders. (Sorry, another one of your brilliant posts.) So why blame this less experienced, young journalist?
In spite of his infrequent lapses on policy issues, Zakaria does understand today’s world better than most – a world that is less and less top-down and more bottom-up, a world where power is not a zero-sum game (the rise of others is not a decline of America, as he puts it), a world where a much higher percentage of humanity is getting a piece of the pie. At this point, some of you may be googling the Gini coefficent tables simply to prove the optimists dead wrong, but the Gini, like all metrics, needs a lot of qualification.
Zakaria, for all his fine insight, alienates many Indians. He is sometimes viewed in desi intellectual circles as a panderer to America. But desi intellectual circles are notoriously iconoclastic, and if America was not such a freaking icon, we would have surely found China or someone else. The argumentative Indian, in my humble opinion, is no compliment to our race.
Zakaria’s Achilles heel, to me, is that he is a fine thinker who does not particularly know, or claim to know, economics and business, and it is economics, including its many components such as business and technology, that is the biggest driver of change in the modern world that Zakaria makes his living explaining. His lack of economic education does not necessarily detract from the quality of his assessments. It just makes him an easier target.
I will continue to read him.
56 · jyotsana said
<
blockquote>Portmanteau,
Christ almighty, Jyotsana, get off your high horse. a. We can have differences of opinion regarding journalistic competence. There is no accounting for tastes. b. All my comments have roundly criticized Zakaria (in no uncertain terms), and there no way any sane person can call me a Zakaria’s camp follower after reading those (I realize you might not have read my comments before spouting). c. You can insult me civilly. d. Since you haven’t, my dear, f— off! e. Really, my god, Tavleen Singh. You’re defending Tavleen Singh. I can’t get over it. Her sentimental rhetoric is appalling.
Have any of you read Amy Chua’s ‘World on Fire’? Maybe I’m a rank amateur, but I thought it was among the more eye-opening books, with a rather wide array of events in recent history to back it up, that I’ve read recently. The basic thesis was that the rather wide presence of market-dominant ethnic minorities in many developing countries inevitably puts into conflict free markets and a majoritarian democracy. I find it somewhat unfortunate that the implications of this (having happened all over southeast asia, and many parts of africa) aren’t being dealt with seriously in considerations of America and globalization.. though I suppose Zakaria himself has come around to understanding that promoting unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism and democracy in developing countries with serious social and economic divisions is a recipe for disaster.
58 · portmanteau said
Does India really have a tradition of nose-to-the-ground, investigative journalists or at least commentators who do not write while drawing exclusively from an ideological form book?
27 · jyotsana said
PS: you were completely wrong about this, and did not have the decency to retract. at least, i had the decency just gently directed you to evidence that proves otherwise instead of calling your bs out, but all you did was go ad hominem (a strategy you’ve adopted on several threads, i might add).
ooops, in my righteous rage i made more typos than usual:
I think that investigative journalism has taken off in the past 5 years or so, mainly starting with some pretty impressive exposes on cricket match-fixing and defense deals bribery by Tehelka. I don’t get the sense that Tehelka is driven by political ideology, but I don’t follow them closely, so I could be wrong.
There has been a real explosion of tabloid news channels though, which try to break news about the neighbor’s adulterous affair, to some cinema star saying something about Nepal. As you can imagine, this has mixed effects, with some good results, like a recent hidden cam video of bribery in Indian hockey (although the player whose name was used was completely unaware of this scam, and he was unwittingly dragged into something which is probably fatal to his career), but with a load of sensationalism too.
Related to investigative journalism, I believe India had something like a freedom of information act signed into law about 5 years ago, if I recall correctly.
63 · Rahul said
yes, i imagine it might have been prohibitively difficult to get it done, prior to FOI. And was it really Azharuddin’s downfall that marked the beginning of big-time investigative journalism in India? Sad hallmark for a classy player.
Back to Zakaria, I lobbed the same “unoriginal, not refreshing, not worthy of my time” criticism to a late 30s male cousin of mine and the level of shock at the other end was almost palpable–is there perhaps a generational preference for Zakaria-style neato, wrap-em-up-in-buzzwords, analysis?
This has become a slightly cliched concept, especially after Parag Khanna’s latest book – The Second World. You can also hear Parag Khanna’s interview where he delves into the “rise of the rest” and many things that he says is so similiar to Zakaria’s concept albeit Parag’s style is totally different. Interestingly Parag Khanna dismisses India’s rise as compared to China’s in the book. More on the rise of the rest is on Parag’s website
Actually, there’s a trio of books on this topic, as if to reaffirm Zakaria’s fine instinct for a popular idea. Ian Buruma had a review of all three in the New Yorker, and rated Zakaria’s book highly, but didn’t seem to think much of Parag’s book. The NY Times Magazine had featured a long excerpt from the latter a while ago, btw.
Tehelka captured Manoj Prabhakar on video, and it definitely impacted the investigation into that scandal. I think that entire mess roughly coincided with the emergence, or slight maturity, of many privately owned media channels as a consequence of liberalization.
Indeed. Especially since he consistently generated so much frustration in me every time he managed to close the face of the bat just a tad too early while playing his trademark wristy dab to leg, and lobbed the ball off the back of the bat for a simple catch to the bowler. Little did I realize it was just a finely honed example of his impeccable timing.
27 · jyotsana said
Or Bill’s 😉
I haven’t read it, but heard interviews when the book came out a few years ago. I’ve been meaning to read it, though, because I had heard good things about it. The major criticism of that book, if I recall correctly, is that violence against prominent minorities has been a feature through all of history, and is most simply explained by racism and the idea of the nation-state, not necessarily globalization. (A simple and topical example is the widespread violence against the dominant Kikuyu minority in Kenya, when their hold on power became weak). I have no idea if that criticism is justified based on the exposition in the book though, did you feel that way?
To sell, these books need to emphasize “change” rather than continuity. It’s way too fashionable, I think, to write off Japan these days, but–it’s still the world’s second largest economy (or, third, if you count the EU as a nation). Many will point to the moribund demographic situation, but the robots are coming!!
I will truly believe that “rest have risen” when
(a) security council cease to be the club of ww-2 winners (b) head of world bank and imf is not a privelage of US and Europe respectively (c) npt/ctbt is implemented uniformly and I guess there are many other such real metrics
till then, all these books and talk show are for keeping the the intellegensia and the chattering class in every country occupied or may I say distracted ?
boy, how times have changed. i remember the old days, when the intellingensia was beginning to realize Reagan was right, and the only solace they could take was to say: “the cold war is over and japan won.”
I think she paints a pretty nuanced picture, and certainly acknowledges latent racism etc. I think her argument is about how certain features of contemporary globalization exacerbate existing tensions, and introduce new ones (specifically free markets+democracy). She’s not anti-globalization at all, but basically argues for heavy redistribution and other things to soften rough edges. Her examples, particularly the case of the chinese in Indonesia and the Phillippines are pretty convincing. For example, in Indonesia you had Suharto, an authoritarian member of the ethnic majority, collude with Indonesian Chinese businessmen (who passed on lots of kickbacks of course) to such an extent that something like 1-3% of the population utterly dominated the economy. The riots that followed the crisis in 1998 basically turned into a pogrom against the chinese there.. who subsequently fled (though some later returned) causing even more economic chaos.
Her argument is that free markets in such societies, if completely laissez-faire, will largely benefit the existing economically dominant ethnic minority.. and a democracy would cause the majority to resent this and retaliate legislatively or otherwise. You could even view Rwanda through this lens, or the Indians in Kenya, the Lebanese in Sierra Leone..
One of her larger arguments is that, in a sense, America is an ‘economically dominant minority’ in the world.. and that you can at least understand some anti-americanism through that lens. I thought her work was convincing because she didn’t necessarily claim that this was a problem everywhere, or the only source of instability in these countries, but rather an important thing to consider. Briefly: the world’s complex and reductionist prescriptions and statements usually fail to see the reality of the country you’re trying to “help”.
Fareed Zakaria is a journeyman. He’ll continue to be around for a long time because he knows which way the wind turns.
Check out TPMCafe for a pretty dialogue amongst him and a few other people.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/
71 · Bridget Jones said
why would brazil, russia, india or china want to be a part of this declining international arrangement? perhaps there are other arrangements that reflect their society and its aspirations better?
Seriously, after Friedman’s book and McKinsey/CIA report I am kind if overstuffed seeing these books on the bookshelf –
Elephant and the Dragon, Robin Meredith Elephant, Tiger and Cellphone, Shashi Tharoor Planet India, Mira Kamdar Inspite of Gods, Edward Luce India Arriving,Rafiq Dossani Chindia, Engardio India Unbound, Gurcharan Das India’s century, Kamal nath
and now FZ book touching the nose from behind the head !
75 · No von Mises said
No new arrangement will arise without first shaking up the exisiting management/monopoly structure . In the intervening period the existing structure will have to morph/acomodate before it gives to a radically new order.
Great point! Yeah, I remember Paul Tsongas saying that. It’s the perfect illustration of how this line of analysis for some reason falls into herd behavior/trendiness/fashion-like swings up and down.
66 · Rahul said
And one more latest one by Nina & Mona – Next American century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise, Seriously if these people were in academia then under the rules of citation they would be referencing such similar stuff that their works would probably be rejected as “more of the same”. And then CFR organizes a debate between Parag and Mona !!
the point i was trying to make was that the “rest can rise” with or without the institutions you mentioned, whether they morph or not, thereby expediting their path to irrelevance. if you’re an asean country and 5-10 years into the future, you find yourself in sudden financial trouble, why wait for austere IMF/WB conditionalities when your chief trading partner has copious cash and does not want to see you fail?
btw, DC residents, zakaria is going to be at politics and prose on may 15, so go there, and ask him some uncomfortable questions. if you hear a diminutive short-haired brown shiksa cheering, that’ll be me. also, matt taibbi, journalist and author of this brilliant friedman parody is going to be there tomorrow. looks like taibbi will be in business a long time because friedman appears to be unstoppable in his prolific waste of newsprint.
Portmanteau said :
Incidentally in the movie “Vastav”, the madam of the brothel is called “Akka” by the other vaishyas.
The brothel is in Bombay, so one would expect “didi” or “chachi” instead.
Anybody care to comment about this cultural anomaly. Sorry to low-brow this intensely technical discussion, But Namrata Shirodkar was a total babe in this movie and far easier on the eyes than Zak.
the only donald I remember is Donald Duck. FZ moves in elitist circles – so maybe his circle was into Trumpmania. India is in love with itself – more so now than even 5 years ago.
Welcome to the ‘Ugly’ Indian – a worthy competitior to the ‘Ugly’ American.
80 · No von Mises said
I mentioned those “institutions” just as an indicator of there being real metrics of rise and monopoly in the international order and not just some rosy cliches that probably keeps the normal layman and media pundits distracted. And it would be interesting if FZ discusses those monopolies in high-end trade & technological restictions instead of harping on something like now everybody is “consuming products” from all the over the world and producing many “cheap low end stuff” that I can go buy in Walmart or outsource their production to another country as a cause celebere of decline of US. And what about social and infrastructural developments in those other competitors ?
If Basra was occupied with a foreign power no amount of regular job and good economic prospects would stop him from being a jihadist.
‘No people exists that would not think itself happier even under its own bad government than it might really be under the good governance of an alien power…’ – M K Gandhi.
27 · jyotsana said
Yeah the dlf guy is the wealthiest real estate mogul in the world but there are a few Indian real estate players who are wealthier than Donald Trumph, most don’t have the high profile. Also lot of them have diversified portfolios. Godrej is one of the largest land owners in Bombay but when you think of Godrej you think of Locks, Soaps, Cupboards etc. The Ruias of Essar are big real estate players but again you think of them as Telecom, Shipping and Steel guys. Palonji Mistry (He became an Irish citizen last year) is a major real estate construction tycoon, but when you think of him you think of Vacuum Cleaners, Water Purifiers and Tata Group. There are very few pure real estate players in the country.
6 · Purush said
It’s interesting that the very globalization you celebrate helps deprive that very resistance fighter in Basra of a job rebuilding her/his country because that very globalization makes it cheaper for the American-taxpayer-funded construction firms to hire labor from India and the Philippines than “those jihadists in Basra.”
I’d also like to take issue with your painting anti-occupation resistance fighters with the dismissive and reductive “jihadist” brush. Don’t believe the hype. Iraqi resistance does not equal Al Qaeda.
8 · desiriksha said
Define “western” and “non-western.” Do you think that English/US/Japanese/whatever-you-call-western culture developed in a vacuum, free from the corruptive influence of “eastern” cultures? When you’re done with that, can we talk about all of the “west’s” peaceful methods of colonization over the past 500 years and how colonial apologists like to blame their own brutality on those uppity natives’ tendency to resist exploitation.
I have not read a lot of Fareed Zakaria’s opinion pieces. From what I have read, he sounds more like Thomas Friedman. He picks up a few pieces here and there and then tries to paint a picture that is not the entire TRUTH.
I don’t know much about the 80s. I knew about Donald Duck and not Donald Trump, just because I was a kid. If he is claiming that people in India used to know and talk about Donald Trump in 80s and not talk about Bill Gates in 200s it’s a lie. Bill Gates is a big hero even now not just for the IT crowd, but the arts / politics crowd too.
60 · Nayagan said
Yes, but not in the regular press. The financial press seems to throw up a lot more such commentators. Sucheta Dalal springs to mind.
its important to note that zakaria is lean. this guarantees an invitation to davos, or more importantly, oprah.
90 · Manju said
Manju, is that you throwing up in the bathroom after lunch? Seriously, I am getting worried that you have an eating/body-image disorder. And contrary to what Rush says, self-medication is not a great idea. I know real conservatives have the self-reliant-marlboro-man thing going, but really, get some help if you think something’s wrong.
I’m saying this only because my heart bleeds for you. And the earth. And post-modernists.
Manju said :
You may have something there Manju. I remember that Oprah was the spring-board for another desi : Dr. Deepak Chopra.
I think we need to cool off the “Zak Attack”. I am sure a lot of his colleagues think that the only reason he gets invited to CNN etc. is because of the color of his skin. Maybe he appears superficial, but remember TV is the medium of the sound byte, and how erudite can you be in 30 seconds.
Brilliant and very true. I studied at a school in Kolkata that was akin to Cathedral. Same rules applied. There was one guy on the debate team who would always start by saying….The great Chinese Sun Tzu said “blah blah blah”. We all knew he was making it all up.
It is amazing that you brought this up. Now that I re-read FZ’s column, it reminds me of the college application essays that were floating around in high school.
I just finished this book. Pretty same ol’ Zakaria, but it still was a great read. I don’t agree with his soft power ideals (such as not wiretapping Muslim mosques in America because it will alientate American Muslims), but otherwise, he was practical in all other notions.