A fifth point of criticism: in setting up his challengers to American unipolarity, he seems to me to be focusing on strengths and ignoring weaknesses. I can't speak to the case of Europe, since it's not an area I've studied much, but it seems to me China's has many system internal challenges that could potentially derail things. He seems to take it as an established fact that their development model will in fact continue to be judged as an uninterrupted success. Personally, I'm not so convinced that that will be the case, but I guess it's too early to say for sure.
He is, arguably, too dismissive of India's potential to be a fourth 'pole' or 'spider' (or whatever word you want to use to designate one of the main geopolitical players). Also, to say that his Big Three have to solve the big problems among themselves, and to denigrate or dismiss large multilateral orgs with their "cacophonously irrelevant" voices, is probably to engage in some overstatement, even in a work intended for a broad audience. I seem to recall that the Law of the Sea conference, one of those big multilateral things with lots of cacophonous voices, did manage, admittedly over a number of years, to produce an agreement,which even the Bush admin now wants the US to (finally!!) ratify. (Of course this may be one of the exceptions that proves the rule about big organizations' unwieldiness....)
I agree with MC Masterchef. We have to wait for the book, but the essay does skim over China's profound challenges, as well as puts too much stock in the EU's power projection capacity. [For instance, will the EU of the future be more like today's Japan or today's America?]
Demographics is important: Khanna uses it to discount Russia, but ignores it for Europe, China, India and the US. I think that's where a big story is.
Umm, the essay is a collection of bad buzzwords and sweeping generic assertions. Are you serious? I wonder if "Frenemies and their Discontents" will be the title of a week in your grad seminar. . . .
"Frenemies and their Discontents"
That's week 10, right after "Europe, the meterosexual power."
I'm not going to disagree that Khanna tries way too hard to be hip with some of his buzzwords, but as someone who writes mostly unreadable prose, I'm not one to judge.
One thing which Khanna seems to ignore is military power, something that Europe doesn't have in comparison to either China, or the United States.Even if China succeeds in modernizing its military, it will not have the capability to project that power around the world, for some time to come. The same is even more true for Europe. In this respect the United States is going to remain in a class by itself for awhile. Military power can't be discounted. It's the only thing that makes North Korea of any importance to anyone.
Henry, I agree, but I think we need to tread carefully. Many dismiss Russian military capabilities because they can't go toe-to-toe with the US, but that doesn't really matter for their southern and eastern neighbors.
And Chinese military modernization will put a significant damper on US force projection capabilities, while creating very severe challenges for their neighbors to the south and west.
So, yes, while I agree that military power can't be discounted I also worry about the converse: to reduce *power* to military capabilities and ignore the complicated tools of influence.
I would note that India and China are concerned about their respective military modernization(s), not because they will fight a major war (*extremely* unlikely) but b/c, among other things, longstanding border disputes between the 2 have not been completely resolved, and Chinese investment in the Pakistani port of Gwadar and in Burmese ports facing the Andaman Sea and Indian Ocean are concerning the Indians, whether for good reason or not (see J.T. Dreyer's short paper on China-India relations at http://www.strategycenter.net).
Since China is a major power ('great power', if you prefer) and India is on the verge of being one, the state of their relations matters for any overall evaluation of the global geopolitical picture, *irrespective* of whether China is capable of the same force-projection as the US.
Is that the point that Khanna was making though? What I took from the article was that he thought that there would be some countries that would be players in any sort of future multilateral world order, and others that would not, and that this would be based on size and economic strength rather than military power. If this is the standard it seems odd that he would cite Saudia Arabia as a pivotal second-level country in comparison to Russia. By the way I agree with you about Russia. It's interesting in this context that the Russian government recently announced that they were planning to spend about $200 billion over the next 8 years to upgrade their military with new weapons. In ten years from now we may all be worrying less about the Chinese than about the Russians.
Khanna's analysis does seem simplistic but any work aiming at reducing anything as complex as geopolitcal gaming for a popular audience perhaps necessarily has to be.
Some questions to ponder upon. What would the EU be w/o the NATO security umbrella? And what would NATO be w/o the US? Now, one enticing possibility is that the EU dump its moralizing about 'democratic human rights' etc and accept Russia into its fold..... I know, that sounds crazy but how better for the EU to fill it military void?
Similarly, perhaps, the US could consider merging with japan to fillup its savings void....perhapos. Just a suggestion. Seems outlandish now, but in 20 yrs, who knows?
China meanwhile has shown amazing myopia in its dealings with the only other billion+ peopled state (and the only such successful democracy) in the world. They created an enemy where there wouldn't necessarily be one. By proliferating nuke and missile tech to rogue states like pakistan and North Korea, Beijing has spurred otherwise passive (post war) countries like India and Japan to finally wake up and develop their own militaries.
Case in the point, by attacking an unprepared India in 1962, they started the process of India's break with Gandian nonviolence bromides and a serious focus on developing its military capabilities. With its ICBM program and its nuke sub program racing towards fruitition by the middle of the next decade, India will not be a pushover. It will be a mistake to mess with them in their backyard after that scenario develops. So yes, a major Indo-China war is a possibility given the limited window PRC has in dealing with India's leapfrog capabilities. It is another reason why a US-India axis gives Beijing the creeps. But thats another story.
Post's gotten overlong already.
Shall stop now.
/Have a nice day, all.
If anything it is the Indians that are myopic and dare I say delusional.
One cannot throw a stone in the dark without hitting an Indian running off a litany of every real and imagined sleight China has delivered India not to mention how India will overtake China in x,y,or z years (In some instances they already have!). Their compensatory chauvinism towards China forged by their newfound inferiority complex coupled with their vast over-estimate of capabilities both current and potential will not serve them well in any future relationship with China.
Howard,
I wish part of what you write were true. Esp the 'reeling off long lists of litanies of sleights real or imagined' part. Too many folk in India have short memories. Many dont remember past crises and mistakes and history repeats. Finally, the Indians are breaking out of widespread poverty and poor social indicators (though there's a very long way to go). Their economy is finally starting to do well (though it could do much better). Their history, written by their conquerors is finallybeing revisited and reinterpreted (and it reads like a horror story). I doubt anyone would want to grudge them their travails or their long delayed successes.
If Indians in general are deluded and insecure, they'll pay the price (as admittedly, they have in the past)- law of Karma and all that. As long as India doesn't get trampled and crushed again - like by the Muslims, then the Brits and then the Chinese- I'd say they're doing well enough.
IMO the India story is interesting and optimistic. It is now a story of millions of folk improving their living conditions, among other things. And it is also now a story of not allowing foreign powers to run free reign over the country like in the past. Build enough military capability to deter that. Its a paradigm shift in perspective that Indians now think in these terms. But yes, it may be another century before India becomes serious enough to project power anywhere outside its borders. Perhaps, not even then, who knows.
For the foreseeable future, Indians can enjoy the rise because having hit rock bottom, the only way to go is up.
/Have a nice day.
More on Khanna at LGM today (2/1) (post 'a momentary lapse of hegemony,' plus comments).
Commenting by HaloScan.com
