Chapter 6: Prerequisties for Global Leadership, Principles, Parthnerships, and Pragmatism

Wow, I have to admit that Mahbubani last chapter was very intriguing. After discussing the rise of Asia, criticizing the Western nations, he then ask "who will lead the world now? The West or Asia?"

Mahbubani presented four candidates that have the potential to provide global leadership: the United States, European Union, China, and India. Every country has their strengths, but also a weakness.

The 1945 United States would have been a better candidate. How Mahbubani described the 1945 US, they were more comfortable thinking in global terms. In some ways, it's like how China is today.

The 1945 United States wouldn't hesitate to improve its relationships with other nations. Perhaps that is why so many nations felt the West was the most civilized nation before. However, the present United States is apparently a lot less confident compare to the 1945 United States. I feel that maybe because so many nations turned to the United States, looked up to them, seek advice from them, the US felt like a leader. Its' ego ballooned enormously that the nation started to think in black and white.

Europe have been powerful for over two centuries. Their countries have learned to live among each other peacefully and have created a strong relationship. The problem is that they're quite self-absorbed. They're more interested in their own affairs than the rest of the world.

From Mahbubani's description, China seems like the most perfect candidate. It has build relationships with the world and it seem like they are more supportive to developing countries compare to the Western countries. It almost seems like China is saying "let's modernize together! No one will be left behind." As perfect as China may seem, they're not interested in leading the world. "Be good at keeping a low profile."

India's role is a meeting point for the great civilizations. From Mahbubani's description, they are more cosmopolitan compare to the other four nations. However, in terms for national strength, India is the weakest one. They have a lot of domestic problems, similar to the Chinese. They are not ready to lead the world when they are still struggling with their own nation.

So while reading Mahbubani's explanation, I kept wondering- "why does it have to be an individual country? Why can't it several powerful nations leading the world instead?" Thankfully he wasn't suggesting that only one nation should lead the world.

New Principles of the Global Order
I'm relieved that Mahbubani wasn't suggesting a global government to respond to the need for a world leadership. Personally, I think that the government would be too bias in its decision-making. Instead, Mahbubani is suggesting global governance. It's not surprising that he suggested the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).

Although the UNGA seems like the best candidate, there are a few major problems with. One is that the Americans are trying to weaken the UNGA while trying to strengthen the UNSC. The problem with that is that they're trying to take away the non-Western's power. Because the Americans are one of the five permanent members of the UNSC, they're trying to strength the UNSC so they can maintain global dominance. Non-permanent members of the UNSC learned that standing up against the Americans is futile. In an economic/political sense, the United States would threaten any members who would stand up against the US.

Another problem is that the UN was formed by the winners of the world wars. They continue to have the most power in the United Nations, which does causes a problem. Mahbubani proposed three suggestions to solve the problem(s) of the UN, such that the UN can be considered as a candidate for the leadership of the world.
1.) End of perpetual rule for the UNSC.
2.) Making the UNSC accountable for its actions
3.) Strengthening the legitimacy of the council by strengthening the legitimacy of the UN from which it gains its authority.

After Mahbubani's proposal, he then continues to criticize the Western nations about its power-hunger. I found the criticism repetitive and unnecessary in this chapter because I was given the impression that this chapter is suppose to present suggestions/ideas on global leadership and how the nations can work together. Instead, Mahbubani ended this section with: "stop trying to be so controlling with the IMF and the World Bank! You're pushing nations away," similar to what he had already discussed in a previous chapter.

Rule of Law
Ironically the Western nations are trying to force other nations to follow the global laws, while itself is breaking/ignoring the global laws. It bothers me how some Western nations, such as the United States, would play the victim role in certain events (eg. 9/11) to justify their actions. For instance, human torture. The easiest way to solve problems it to throw away all your responsibilities and allow yourself to get the most "satisfying" revenge- claiming it's to justify for all the pain you had to endure. But by doing so, you become pitiful and disgraceful - that is how I see the United States with its excuses with violating the laws.

Partnerships and Pragmatism
In order for the West and the East to work together, they must build a strong partnership. Although it would be difficult to build a partnership between the West and Asia, it is already occurring. The disappointing news is that the European Union is putting little effort in building a good relationship with the Asians. For instance, when the Asian Financial Crisis occurred, the European Union was given a chance to improve its relationship with East Asia. Instead, the EU ditched East Asia at the first sign of trouble. Why?

From Mahbubani's explanation, the EU views all Asians as second-class citizens. Surprisingly enough, despite the fact the EU no longer follow by the feudal system, their attitudes towards the Asian speaks differently.

The European Union should try to learn from China. Despite its cultural difference, it has been able to develop strong relationships with other nations around the world. Even Japan, whom the Chinese are still feeling resentful towards, strengthened their relationship with the Japanese.

Pragmatism
In my perspective, the Western nations became idealistic after the downfall of the Soviet Union. Because democracy triumphs over communism, it seemed like the West could/would prevail over any other countries.

However, because of these idealistic dreams, I think that's what caused the de-westernization. If the West could throw away their ideological baggage and return back to being pragmatic approaches, then the West can understand why the Asians are so optimistic about the future.
Also, instead of feeling like the West is the only nation that can help developing countries, the West should turn to other Asian nations for help. For instance, the situation with the Iraq. Its neighboring country, the Iran, can help the Iraq modernize. They may not seem like the most idealistic ally but like Deng Xiaoping had once said:

"it does not matter whether a cat is black or white; if it catches mice, it is a good cat."

Chapter 5: Western Incompetence, Asian Competence?

This is another chapter full of Mahbubani's criticism towards the West. I'm do not feel resentful towards Mahbubani for his criticism. In fact, I find it enlightening to see how the others view the Western nations. Nevertheless, the criticism has also left me feeling pessimistic toward the Western nations.

In this chapter, Mahbubani presents four challenges that the West must overcome and how they deal with them. Sadly, the West's choices on how to deal with these challenges are not impressive.

The West and the Middle East
Basing off Mahbubani's explanation - if I had to describe how the West is handling its problem with the Middle East, I would say it's like an elephant tamer trying to tame a lion. The Western nations lack knowledge and vision for the Middle East. They run blindly into the Middle East with the expectation that the Middle East would welcome the West with open arms.

Unfortunately, that would not happen. Because of the West's ignorance, the West has caused more troubles and resentment from the Middle East.

The West on Free Trade and Global Warming
After China had entered into the global market, especially after its admission to the WTO; it seems as if the Western nations have falling into a mental depression. They began to see East Asia as competitors rather than allies. The Asian countries are becoming more powerful and successful. When the West recognized that, it almost seem like the West was falling to depression, mentally.

Economically, they lost their motivation and drive to push for trade liberalization. When it comes to global warming, it's as if the West is neglecting the fact that they have also contributed in this crisis. Naturally, the West should have been more responsible for global warming- but instead they are pushing the blame onto China and India! Of course China and India has contributed in global warming and have accepted the fact that they are also responsible for this crisis. At least they are making a great effort to reduce green house emissions, unlike the West.

The West and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
I have never heard about the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) until I read this chapter. During 1945, the Western nations seemed a lot more optimistic. They created the NPT to prevent/reduce nuclear development in order to bring peace to the world. However there were no policies to punish the states that weren't following its regulation. I assume it is because the world had just left a horrific war that all nations believe that no one would oppose the NPT.

Unfortunately, the NPT is spiritually dead. Nations ignored the NPT's regulations and developed/increase their supply of nuclear weapons. Ironically, some of those nations are the five official nuclear weapon states- who are suppose to punish those who have also violated the NPT's policy. They neglected the "rule of law", so countries, like India, laugh bitterly at the five nuclear weapon states for its hypocrisy and double standards.

The West and Iran
I found this section of the chapter quite interesting. Several times Mahbubani describe that any Western government officials that suggests the idea of the West to rebuilding its relationship with Iran would be "crucified." Maybe it's because I have a weak background about history, but why is it impossible for the West to rebuild its' relationship with Iran?

The "standard American response" is that Iran held fifty-two American diplomats and embassy staff in Tehran hostage for 444 days. On a side note, I know this completely unrelated but when I read "444 days" I was reminded of the fact that the Chinese believe that the number 4 is an unluck number.

But, anyway, returning back to the main subject- I believe that it's unreasonable for the West to completely disregard the idea that it should rebuild its relationship with the Iran. The West have always encourages other nations to have more diplomatic dialogues with other nations in order to strive for a peaceful nation. So why can it not practice what it's preaching? Every nation has caused some sort of troubles with one another- the Japanese with the Chinese, South Korea with North Korea. But somehow they manage to find a way to be diplomatic with one another.

The truth is that the West is too self-righteous. When President Ahmadinejad offered to rebuild the West and Iran's relationship, the West was too ignorant to reciprocate the Iran's offer. In fact, any government officials who expressed positively to President Ahmadinejad would be "crucified." The Bush administration seemed more like a tyrant to me: "you're either with us or against us!"

Learning from Asian Competence
So what can the West learn from the Asian countries? Well, first off China has made a major effort to learn from the mistakes of other major powers.

The West's attitude is: "either you're with us or you're not." Because of this ideology, the West has many enemies. They did not attempt to understand that Asians. Unlike the Western countries, China has made an effort to build a strong relationship with all the nations in the world. They did not let their relationships with other nations affect one another- such as their relationship with the Islam and the US.

Rather than making decisions based on short-term interest, the Chinese have also constructed long term relationship with the ASEAN. They view the world in its complex form, which enables China to become very successful.

If the Western nations could follow the Chinese's example, then the economic gap between the East and the West would shrink.

Chapter 4: De- Westernization: The Return of History

Every part of the world is somehow influenced by the West. However, although the West had influence every part of the world, many are starting to question whether the West is actually the most civilized part of the world. They are starting to see the flaws and the greediness of the West. As a result, parts of Asia, such as the Chinese, Muslims and the Indians, are moving away from the West's ideology and becoming more self-confident of their own culture.

China
China had created many myths about the West- almost like they're the most superior human beings compared to the rest of the world. Within two thousand years the West have achieved freedom, democracy, science, humanity, truth and God. Whilst China was still trying to develop its own nation. However, as China is becoming more modernized, they are beginning to question those myths: "is the West truly the most civilized, while the non-Westerners are savages?"
China began to increase their cultural confidence every year since it began its modernization. The West, however, could not really see/accept the fact that the Chinese are truly happy with their country.

I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical as well. I realized that I believed it was either you were completely free or you were not free at all. My idea of confinement was to the extreme. I realized the West is not completely free as well. There are rules and regulations which each citizen must follow otherwise they would be punished- similar to the Chinese.

Luckily the Chinese are free from the remorse of not being able to feed their family. Because the government has adopted free-marketing, the Chinese are free to earn enough money to support their own family. They are no longer tied down with remorse, jealousy that they cannot enjoy a comfortable life, and a repetitive life that was handed down to them. They have a choice to change occupations, which Westerners have taken for granted.

I think that the main problem is that the West does not truly understand the Chinese culture. To the West, there's only one form of happines: you can be only be happy if you're a clone of the Western nations, or else you'll never experience true happiness.

The Islamic World
Unlike the Chinese, the Islamic doesn't seem like they are developing. In fact, it seems like they're moving backwards. However, the Islamic has a diversity of cultures. Many of the Islamic blames the West for its poor economic performance. Nonetheless, many Muslim intellectuals have also accepted that they are also responsible for their own failures. However, they are still very anti-Western.

It is disturbing to read how resentful the Muslims feel towards the West. The fact that that many celebrated that the Americans lost three thousand civilians on 9/11 is like their way of saying: "you deserve it! This is what you get for not caring about us!" A grudge that extreme is very frightening but also depressing. To grow up and hate someone for the rest of your life prevents you from truly enjoying what life have to offer.

The West isn't the victim in this case though. Although the Islamic have done horrible things to the West, the West has also done the same. While the Islamic was under the Europeans colonial rule, they did not try to understand the Muslims. Instead, the West criticized the Islamic societies about their religion and their discrimination. When the Europeans ended their colonial rule, they literally threw the Islamic into the wild. "We are no longer responsible for you. We're not going to take care of you anymore." It's similar to the situation where parents neglect their own child because the child did not live up to the parent's expectation.

The West cannot understand the hatred it has generated in the Islamic world. They cannot/ will not be held responsible for their mistakes to the Islamic, which does make the world more violent and more dangerous.

India
Although the Chinese and the Islamic civilizations seem so strange and distance to the West, they are very optimistic about India. The British has successfully portrayed as "benevolent and civilized rules" to the Indians. Despite the belief that India would soon join the Western nations, the Indians are also de-westernizing.

Unlike China and Islam, India is very unbias. It acts as a meeting point for several civilizations and attempts to mend broken relationships- such as the Muslims and the Hindus. For instance, Bollywood consist of both Hindus and Muslim actors, whom have learnt to work together and overcome their differences.

Hopefully India would be able to mend the broken relationship between the West and Islam one day as well.

Chapter 3: Why is the West Not Celebrating?

So I notice that this chapter is when Mahbubani's criticism towards the West intensifies. The main reason that the West isn't celebrating the Asian's success is because the West is power hungry. In the first two chapters, Mahbubani explained the rise of Asia, while giving the impression that the Asians are not interested in world domination. So why is the West so threatened still?

Mahbubani did not really explain why the West is so threatened about the Asian nations. Instead, he mainly provided explanations of how the West uses its power to control the world - which I am not too surprised.

The Post - 1945 World Order

The two most powerful international economic institutions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has an unspoken rule: The IMF should be ruled by the Europeans while the World Bank is ruled by the Americans. Ironically, in Europe and America, the country is run by majority. However for global issues, the Europeans and the Americans are actually the minority- and yet they are dictating how two most powerful international institutes are ran.

So why is the minority of the world ruling the majority? Military and political domination.

Despite the fact that America is less than five percent of the world's population, it accounts for 46% of all military spending in the world. Using its power, it helps ensure that all nations would observe, respect and follow the fundamental rules. However, the power is also abused by the Americans. They use their military power to buy real influence.

As for political power, the West has been in power for several decades. Mahbubani claims that America is quite clumsy in exercising its political power overseas and I'm assuming that it's because America is quite narrow-minded. In some sense, Mahbubani described the West as "it's either you're with us or you're against us." For instance human torture, which is carried out by President Karimov of Uzbekistan, is ignored by the West. Because he is an ally to the Americans, they overlook his horrific actions. As for Saddam Hussein, since he's not an ally of the Americans, they pursue after him.

Western Dominance of International Organizations
It's quite frightening to read how the West uses its power to influence its international organizations. It's more frightening how Mahbubani describes the West's attitudes towards the United Nations (UN): "...we can do what we like with the United Nations." As I continue to read about the examples that Mahbubani had presented in this chapter, I started to imagine the middle ages where kings ruled their countries. In a way, that's what it seems to be happening in the United Nations. When the Americans felt strongly about an issue, it would force the council to accept its point of view. But how would they FORCE other nations to change their opinions? Mahbubani didn't elaborate any further about it.

Western Dominance of the Global Economy
In this section of the chapter, Mahbubani uses Japan to demonstrate how the West can influence other nation's decisions. The Japanese realizes that in order to be accepted in the Western community, it must be supportive to the West's interest. For instance, in the first Gulf War, the Japanese contributed US$13 billion, while the United States only contributed US$7 billion. The Japanese have also supported Western institutions, especially the Western's universities.

The Role of Western Universities
The Western universities does and doesn't help the Western nations. From chapter two, the Western universities seemed very generous since it opened its doors to everyone around the world. For a moment I was worried that Mahbubani would claim "the Western universities are only doing that because they have a hidden motive!" Thankfully he didn't though.

The West did not limit access to its universities because they valued the importance of education. This showed that despite their power hunger, they are still looking out for the best interest of the world.

Unfortunately the universities also help legitimize Western power. They support the idea that the Western ideas/influences have had a positive influence in the world. In other words, they're somewhat fabricating the truth.

Western Legitimacy and the G-7
The main idea in this section is that the G-7 is all talk, no action. The impression I was left with is that the G-7 is simply trying to keep up the image that the seven most powerful nations cares about the other nations in the world. For instance: "for over twenty years, the G-7 leaders have issued countless pronouncements that they are deeply concerned with the state of Africa and have made countless pledges to help Africa. After two decades of such pronouncements, Africa is not much better off."

The West is still in denial about its dominance and control over the world. "If you deny you are in power, you cannot cede power." The West also believe that it is the most civilized nation, while the rest are savages.

Chapter 2: Why is Asia Rising Now

So why are the Asian countries becoming successful now? Is it because they discovered a hidden treasure which contains instructions on how Asian countries can become powerful? Of course not! According to Mahbubani, after a long, slow and painful process, Asia finally discovered the "seven pillars of Western wisdom," which enables to the Western societies to become very successful. (Sounds like a fantasy story to me!)

I realized that the seven wisdom are sometimes taken for granted. Free-market economics, science and technology, meritocracy, pragmatism, culture of peace, rule of law, and education.

Free-Market Economics
I'm quite impressed with the changes occurring in China. Before Deng Xiaoping launched the "Four Modernizations" program, China was unmotivated. The experiences that Mahbubani spoke off showed truly showed that the Chinese had a "what's the point of working harder" attitude. No one would cared how fast, or how well they worked. There were no incentives to encourage employees to work harder.
When Deng Xiaoping introduced free-marketing into their economy, it also introduced the idea that the Chinese can become rich. It similar to what my dad use to tell me: "if you work hard, you can become whatever you want to be," and the Chinese must have felt that way too. By working hard, they can increase their annual income. They are finally given a chance to escape their repeated, non-changing life for a better life.

Science and Technology
It's a bit frightening to see how fast the Asian countries are absorbing and implementing science and technology. It's almost as if the Asian have been starving for knowledge for many centuries.
One of the reasons why Asia is catching up now is because they are no longer bounded by their religious mindset that rejected the modernized world.

According to the Asia's Great Science Experiment article, Asian nations have increased their government spending on science. This had led to various changes in the nation. For instance, the creation of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), which is one of the most prestigious school in the world. Because of this school it:
1) Boosted self-confidence to the nation
2) Many successful Indians returned to India, which contributed enormously to the development of India.

One of the sentences that struck me the most in this chapter is "...the level of mathematics taught even in peasant schools is similar to that in my children's own excellent schools in the new York area." I recall several of my friends, who emigrated from China, told me that grade six math is a lot harder than the high school math here. Honestly, I was a bit envious. Although Canada has a very good education system, I believe that our education system isn't challenging enough.

Meritocracy
This is probably one of my favorite wisdom that the Asian countries have adopted. "...Since every individual in a society is a potential resource, all should be given an equal opportunity to develop and to make a contribution to society." I grew up with the belief that everyone should be treated equally while being given an equal chance, so it angers me whenever I read articles based on discrimination.

I am very impressed with the Ramanujan School of Mathematics. Obviously they acknowledge the fact the brightest students do not always come from a wealthy family. By selecting the most talented students from the least privileged communities, the Ramanujan School is providing the an equal opportunity for those students to take the IIT entrance exam.

Another impressive paragraph I read was a quote from Zhu Rongji:
"We should resolutely do away with the promotion system under which a person is good when he is said to be good, even though he is not good; and a person is said to be bad when he is said to be bad when he is not, as perceived by the masses."
In my mind, this statement symbolizes a bright future for China- and hopefully the rest of the Asian nations.

Pragmatism
"It does not matter whether a cat is black or white; if it catches mice, it is a good cat." - Deng Xiaoping
The above quote is quite remarkable. It shouldn't matter where you get your ideas come from, as long as it will improve your country. The only thing that should matter is that it brings prosperity to your nation.
The Japanese recognized it had to adapt and change so it would not be left behind from the Western nations. By doing so, they have achieved a modern Japan. Singapore followed the Japanese and also modernized their nations.
India, however, refused to follow Singapore's example. "Singapore is so small. India is so big. What can big India learn from Singapore?" Well, apparently they could have learned a lot. If they weren't so prideful by the idea that the size of the country also reflects the developments in the nation, they wouldn't have been left behind.

Culture of Peace
I'm not too sure whether I agree with this wisdom or not. Of course culture of peace is the most important result the West have gained from its history. However, "peace" did not help the West become powerful.

In my own perspective, I feel that for the Western countries, war have played a major part in the West. Not only did our science and technology have advanced, but also the human's relationship. For instance, for the first time in history women are giving the rights to be treated equally to men.

I am NOT saying that the Asian countries should engage into a war for power. They should look at the West's history and learn from the West that war is not worth it. By doing so, they would not have to sacrifice so many lives, like how the West had done.

Rule of Law
It bothers me when some people/nations believe that if you're either famous, a government official, or a relative to the government official, the law doesn't apply to you. It's not only the Asian countries that are struggling to treat everyone equally when it comes to the law- even the Western countries are still struggling with it.
For instance, a few years ago, there was news coverage about how Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton's drunk driving incidents. Their punishment was unreasonable. It was less harsher than what they should have received.
However, at least the Asian countries recognize the fact that everyone must follow the law in order to achieve a modern economy. For example, when Jessica Lal was murdered by the son of a former Union minister of the Indian government, it almost seem like the killer was going to escape his punishment. Luckily, the Indian legal system realized that no matter who the killer was, someone had died. Justice must be serve.

Education
Education is definitely a valuable wisdom that the Asian countries have adopted. I am very pleased to know that the Western universities acknowledge the fact that education should not be limited to just the West. Instead, everyone should be given the opportunity to gain an education background. Through the West's generosity, several students are given a chance to pursue a post secondary degree, such as my boyfriend. He came from a small village in China where no one from his school can pursue an post secondary degree. Luckily, he immigrated to Canada, where he and his sister were encouraged and given the chance to earn a post secondary degree.
Fortunately, Asian countries recognize the importance of education and are striving to improve their education systems. Many oversea students are also returning back to their homeland to help their country develop into a better nation.

Chapter 1: The Three Scenarios

On December 2006, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(DMK- a political party in Tamil Nadu) offered free color television sets in order to gain the citizens' votes. They are also producing brilliant and successful people such as Srinivasa Ramanujan, or Subbayya Sivasankaranarayana.


Another interesting fact about the Tamil is that within the past century a resistance group called the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) was also the first ones to practice suicide bombing.

What's so interesting about the fact stated above? I was honestly taken back that a modernizing country like Tamil had such a violent history. But while I was thinking about the Tamils I was reminded that all nations had some sort of bloody history. The Americans were the first ones to practice the atomic bombs on Japan, the Germans almost successfully genocide the Jews.

However, the Western countries continued to modernize and now portray a peaceful civilization. I see the Asian nations as the Western's history. The Asian countries are trying to modernize as well. If the West can become peaceful despite their violent past, then why can't Asia?

In this chapter, Mahbubani proposes three scenarios of how the world can develop into in the next fifty years. The March to Modernization, the retreat to the fortresses, or the triumph

The March to Modernity

I found this scenario was quite interesting. Mahbubani tells the readers that while he was growing up his family did not own a toilet. Instead they used a metal bin, where once a day a group of men would take the bin and replace it with a clean one. When his family received a flushing toilet, Mahbubani felt like his life was forever changed.

Because I grew up in a comfortable lifestyle, I don't think I appreciate things as much as my parents can. I grew up in a society where I was not embarrassed of my home. I was given childhood that was full of laughter.

As for my parents, they started working when they were children so they can help their parents support their family. After my parents to immigrated to Canada and got married, they bought a Ford 1986. It officially retired in 2006-2007. It took my dad 20 years to replace the old Ford car because:
1. My dad is cheap. We're not poor I think because of my dad's childhood, he like to spend money recklessly.
2. There were a lot of happy memories created in our old rusty Ford's car. I think my dad was truly thankful for all the help that the Ford had provide to him and his family.

The point I'm trying to get across is that Asian citizens have suffered for a long time without modernization. Now since there are modernizations in some of the Asian countries, the citizens can appreciate this new change in such a way that the Western citizens have forgotten how to.

Another example Mahbubani presented was the spread of mobile phones in India. The cell phones call rates in India is less than a penny a minute. It's incredible how one technology- the cell phone in this case- can contribute to the a enormous change to a developing country like India.

"Connectivity is productivity. If you connect people, they are more productive."

It obviously shows through the increase of monthly income from each family. As the incomes increase, the gross domestic product (GDP) has increased too. Asian families are starting to live a more comfortable lifestyle and I highly doubt that they're willing to throw away their new lifestyles for their old ones.

Already we're seeing the signs of modernization in the Asian countries. They have tasted the "forbidden fruit" and now they cannot get enough of it.

The Retreat into Fortresses

This scenario is one of my least favorite. History about political decisions is a topic I find boring so most the time I was thinking "if protectionism is so bad, why are Western nations using it?!"

Mahbubani's example presented the fact that protectionism has a negative effect on the West and the whole world. He accused the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act for causing the Depression after WWI. Overall, his message is "protectionism = problems = bad!"How I view protectionism is that the government is babying its own nation. In a long term run, I think protectionism is bad for the nation. It does not promote international competition where each country can compare, compete and improve their companies' products and services. Instead, it's like a "retreat to the fortress" because some citizens refuse to ache-knowledge the international competition.

However during recession, protectionism would be useful to the Western countries. It could create jobs and prevent job lost within the nation. Nevertheless, from world-wide perspective protectionism it will hurt developing countries. But if you can't help yourself then how do you expect to help others?

The Triumph of the West
The impression I gotten from this scenario (and future chapters) is that the Western countries are arrogant. After the cold-war, the only superpowers left were European Union (EU) and the United States. In their mind (from Mahbubani's description) they believed that they would dominate the world, while "...other nations would have to adapt and adjust to their wishes," and "...all they had to do was to become cultural clones of the West."

Obviously this scenario is very unlikely. In the current world there are several nations modernizing in their own way. For instance, China is modernizing quickly and is becoming more powerful.

Mahbubani provided three explanations why this is an unlikely scenario.
1.) The belief that the West triumph over the Soviet Union was because of its values.
2.) Any society at any stage of social/economic development could immediately transform into a liberal democracy.
3.) The belief that differences in culture did not matter because democracy was applicable to all societies.

In my perspective those three reasons are very idealistic. However, while remembering my vague history lessons from junior and senior high school, I cannot blame the West for coming up with those conclusions. In our history there were no countries that were successful in creating a communist nation. Soviet Union had just fallen, China was struggling and there have been nasty stories about North Korea. And look at the West- they were developed and most of the citizens lived a comfortable lifestyle.

However, learning from the Soviet Union's mistake, China is now growing as a communism country. Countries like Croatia and Serbia failed to bring democracy into their world because their leaders and their society was not ready for democracy.

I agree that the West was arrogant to think that democracy would triumph the world and the West would be the world's leaders... However, while nations are continuing to grow I believe that the West are learning from their mistakes and accepting the world as it is.

Introduction

The New Asian Hemisphere - The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East

Kishore Mahbubani
(Published in the United States by PublicAffairs,
ISBN 978-1-58648-466-8)

Introduction

While reading The New Asian Hemisphere I found myself intrigued with Kishore Mahbubani's ideas. Within his first paragraph he states "[t]he rise of Asia will bring about an equally significant transformation." I couldn't help but wonder "will this transformation be bad?" Media, stories my parents told me, and other negative information about Asia made me feel pessimistic towards the future.

My father, born in China, told me stories about his childhood. He said he didn't own any clothes until he was 6 years old. I was also told that in China some children would be kidnapped by other families. Those children's limps would be cut off and the child would be thrown onto the streets so they can beg for money. I was horrified when my parents told me that.

So I was skeptical towards Mahbubani's enthusiasm about Asia's development. However I thought: "if China reduced it's poverty from 6 hundred million to 2 hundred million, that must mean SOMETHING, right?" Mahbubani's book continued to assure me that there's nothing to fear about Asia becoming more powerful. As Spiderman's uncle once said: "with great power, comes with great responsibility." It seems like Asia is following along with that quote.

Mahbubani then looks through the West's prospective about the Asia's development. He points out that through Western's eyes we can only "see dark images" about the future. He states several quotes from the West's government officials such as:

"We have so many challenges to take up at the same time, in this world which is dangerous, unstable, and in disarray."

-Michel Barnier, February 2005 Quoted from page 6 in the New Asian Hemisphere

From how Mahbubani organized and wrote his book so far, it made me wonder "what's so dangerous about Asia?" Even my parents are enthusiastic about the changes in China.

If Asia is so dangerous, why did the West help trigger the Asian March to Modernity? Why is that 88% of the world's population delightedly open their arms to the changes while the other 12% (the West) are having doubts about the future?

Mahbubani quoted a sentence from Clash of Civilizations to explain the West's reaction.

"The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and economic values" (page 7)

That's quite depressing to learn that the West is quite self-centered. What happen to promoting the idea that people are masters of their own destiny?

As Mahbubani continues to elaborate on the West's point of view, I was left with the impression West is frightened that it will no longer be the most powerful nations in the world. Instead, it will find itself in the position that Asia is in now: learning and improving. I am frightened too. Not frightened by the idea that Asia will become more powerful, but by the consequences that may occur due to the West's ignorance.

Mahbubani presented the word "crisis" in Chinese, which is a combination of two Chinese characters: "danger" and "opportunity." I agree with Mahbubani's opinion that too many Western minds are looking at the danger; not enough is looking at the opportunities. I have read several news articles regarding to problems occurring in the Asian countries. But these issues have not prevented Asia from looking at opportunities to improve. So what should it prevent the West?

Although it's just the introduction of the book, I'm quite excited to read what else Mahbubani has written. I'm delighted by the idea of gaining a better understnd about the non-Western's views.