12-26-2007, 02:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>A Conversation Continued: A World Without the West</b>
by Marisa Morrison and Sean R. Singer
08.07.2007
<b>If the United States and Western Europe were erased from the map, what would the world look like?</b> Speaking at The National Interest on August 2, Steven Weber, director of University of CaliforniaâBerkeleyâs Institute of International Studies, offered his thoughts on the shape of such a worldâone whose contours are rapidly emerging.
U.S. and European officials and experts tend to see the rest of the world's policy choices through the distorted lens of U.S. hegemony, so they have failed to give proper consideration to significant developments elsewhere. Westerners believe that non-Western states face two stark choices: integration into the existing international order or defiance of Western global leadership.<b> Yet these countries have avoided this binary bind by taking a third pathâone that avoids interaction with U.S. power and Western-crafted global institutions. </b>A "significant group" of states is in the process of building a parallel international system with the goalâ"if there is one"âof making U.S. power irrelevant, the scholar said.
<b>Weberâs data indicated that the rate of economic and political interconnection is growing much faster within the World without the West than between the West and everyone else. </b>Consequently, a new "bloc" founded upon "modern mercantilist, resource-based notions" has sprung up. This bloc, unlike the one constructed by the Soviets, features "high interconnectivity, but low coordination", Weber noted.
<b>Western ideas have little resonance in this part of the globe. </b>A neo-Westphalian view of state sovereigntyâthat states exercise absolute control over events within their bordersâholds sway over UN-approved notions of universal human rights. Moreover, Western-endorsed concepts of globalization and economic liberalization garner only tepid support, since non-Western populations have benefited little from them. These people perceive that improvements in their material conditions have come not from Western free-market capitalism but from state-directed capital and resource nationalism.
<b>Weber noted that it is convenient for Americans to ignore the burgeoning ties within the non-Western world. </b>While complacency may be comforting, U.S. policymakers must face the reality that the trends Weber describes are not illusory.
The United States has three imperfect options for dealing with these new circumstances, he said. First, the United States can seek to block the growth of the World without the West, a poor choice. <b>Since this region of the world possesses huge reserves of U.S. Treasury bills, any attempt to stymie this emerging bloc's economic development will likely lead to a U.S. financial crisis. </b>A military confrontation with non-Western states would prove similarly reckless. Alternatively, the United States could simply ignore the competing system, engaging it only at unavoidable "points of connection." This is also not a responsible strategy, Weber said.
The best option is to "try to get serious about competing for the allegiance of states in play", Weber said. This strategy would require the United States to immediately take drastic measures, like eliminating agricultural subsidies or allowing generic drug producers to copy patented drug molecules. Certainly, such policy reversals would create an uproar in Washington.
<b>Although the United States is regarded in the rest of the world as a dysfunctional power, many states, including China, benefit from the United States' global pre-eminence.</b> The Chinese and others "free-ride on the U.S. provision of global public goods." Weber suggested that the United States might make "China ante up" if U.S. policymakers proved will to let China share the decision-making responsibilities associated with hegemony. Unfortunately, Weber is "not sure we're willing to face that choice."
Commentary on a World Without the West
Following Steven Weberâs discussion of "A World Without the West", several audience members took the opportunity to question and challenge Weberâs thesis.
Dov Zakheim, vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton and former undersecretary of defense and comptroller, shifted the discussion to the broader West beyond the United States.
"There are alignments that are starting to take place", Zakheim said, referring to Japan, Europe and India. "To what extent does that change things?"
While the United States might be struggling to adapt to a new global order, its allies around the world might not be, rendering the West far less monolithic and unresponsive than Weber and his co-authors suggest.
Devin Stewart, of the Carnegie Council, elaborating on his commentary in National Interest online, emphasized "the growth of ethics in foreign policy" and their absence in A World Without the West.
"What drives norms? Just states?" Stewart asked rhetorically.
As the economies of emerging countries continue to grow, new interests will emerge that shape policy. Foreign direct investment and human rights are interrelated, as investors seek out countries that promise long-term stability and growth opportunities, which depend on human rights.
Furthermore, citing distrust between China and Russia as an example, Stewart spoke of the lack of commonalities between emerging countries such as Russia, India and China, which will limit the emergence of a competitor bloc to the West.
Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group and a contributing editor to The National Interest, did not see "this alternative system coming into being."
Russia fits the model Weber, Barma and Ratner describe, Bremmer said, but Russia is "functionally irrelevant in the world." While Russia might see its future in Asia, Asia does not necessarily see its future in Russia. He cited Latin America as a region where the World Without the West thesis doesnât work before shifting his analysis to China.
"Number one, the notion of hedging China is farcical to me", Bremmer said. "There is a mutually assured economic destruction between the West and China."
"If âTickle Me Elmoâ becomes âPoison Me Elmo", China will suffer the consequences, Bremmer said, referring to Chinaâs export of unsafe products.
Paul Starobin, of The Atlantic and National Journal, questioned the place of the Islamic world in A World Without the West. "What are the fault lines?" he asked.
Starobin also had questions about Chinaâs leadership role in a World Without the West.
"Do they [the Chinese] want to drive the bus, or do they want to make the bus?" he asked. "How can the parallel system develop without a conflict at some point?"
Flynt Leverett, senior fellow at The New America Foundation, stressed the limits of the thesis, suggesting that "there is a certain lack of causality in the analysis."
"Why is this happening? Itâs happening because U.S. hegemony is becoming, in important ways, dysfunctional for their interests", Leverett said. "Most Chinese would like the United States to be behaving as an effective hegemon, as a hegemon that stabilizes this critical region."
But the Bush Administrationâand its predecessorsâhave done the opposite, he said.
"As a vision, it [A World Without the West] is quite compelling", Nixon Center president and National Interest publisher Dimitri Simes said, citing the backlash against American hegemony.
"These nations are not looking for a hegemonic power", he said. "They are not pushing their ideologies."
If the division between the West and the rest worsens, Simes mentioned the risk for military confrontationâbetween the United States and China over Taiwan, and between Russia and Georgia, with the possibility of American intervention, over Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the wake of a final-status agreement on Kosovo.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15112<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
by Marisa Morrison and Sean R. Singer
08.07.2007
<b>If the United States and Western Europe were erased from the map, what would the world look like?</b> Speaking at The National Interest on August 2, Steven Weber, director of University of CaliforniaâBerkeleyâs Institute of International Studies, offered his thoughts on the shape of such a worldâone whose contours are rapidly emerging.
U.S. and European officials and experts tend to see the rest of the world's policy choices through the distorted lens of U.S. hegemony, so they have failed to give proper consideration to significant developments elsewhere. Westerners believe that non-Western states face two stark choices: integration into the existing international order or defiance of Western global leadership.<b> Yet these countries have avoided this binary bind by taking a third pathâone that avoids interaction with U.S. power and Western-crafted global institutions. </b>A "significant group" of states is in the process of building a parallel international system with the goalâ"if there is one"âof making U.S. power irrelevant, the scholar said.
<b>Weberâs data indicated that the rate of economic and political interconnection is growing much faster within the World without the West than between the West and everyone else. </b>Consequently, a new "bloc" founded upon "modern mercantilist, resource-based notions" has sprung up. This bloc, unlike the one constructed by the Soviets, features "high interconnectivity, but low coordination", Weber noted.
<b>Western ideas have little resonance in this part of the globe. </b>A neo-Westphalian view of state sovereigntyâthat states exercise absolute control over events within their bordersâholds sway over UN-approved notions of universal human rights. Moreover, Western-endorsed concepts of globalization and economic liberalization garner only tepid support, since non-Western populations have benefited little from them. These people perceive that improvements in their material conditions have come not from Western free-market capitalism but from state-directed capital and resource nationalism.
<b>Weber noted that it is convenient for Americans to ignore the burgeoning ties within the non-Western world. </b>While complacency may be comforting, U.S. policymakers must face the reality that the trends Weber describes are not illusory.
The United States has three imperfect options for dealing with these new circumstances, he said. First, the United States can seek to block the growth of the World without the West, a poor choice. <b>Since this region of the world possesses huge reserves of U.S. Treasury bills, any attempt to stymie this emerging bloc's economic development will likely lead to a U.S. financial crisis. </b>A military confrontation with non-Western states would prove similarly reckless. Alternatively, the United States could simply ignore the competing system, engaging it only at unavoidable "points of connection." This is also not a responsible strategy, Weber said.
The best option is to "try to get serious about competing for the allegiance of states in play", Weber said. This strategy would require the United States to immediately take drastic measures, like eliminating agricultural subsidies or allowing generic drug producers to copy patented drug molecules. Certainly, such policy reversals would create an uproar in Washington.
<b>Although the United States is regarded in the rest of the world as a dysfunctional power, many states, including China, benefit from the United States' global pre-eminence.</b> The Chinese and others "free-ride on the U.S. provision of global public goods." Weber suggested that the United States might make "China ante up" if U.S. policymakers proved will to let China share the decision-making responsibilities associated with hegemony. Unfortunately, Weber is "not sure we're willing to face that choice."
Commentary on a World Without the West
Following Steven Weberâs discussion of "A World Without the West", several audience members took the opportunity to question and challenge Weberâs thesis.
Dov Zakheim, vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton and former undersecretary of defense and comptroller, shifted the discussion to the broader West beyond the United States.
"There are alignments that are starting to take place", Zakheim said, referring to Japan, Europe and India. "To what extent does that change things?"
While the United States might be struggling to adapt to a new global order, its allies around the world might not be, rendering the West far less monolithic and unresponsive than Weber and his co-authors suggest.
Devin Stewart, of the Carnegie Council, elaborating on his commentary in National Interest online, emphasized "the growth of ethics in foreign policy" and their absence in A World Without the West.
"What drives norms? Just states?" Stewart asked rhetorically.
As the economies of emerging countries continue to grow, new interests will emerge that shape policy. Foreign direct investment and human rights are interrelated, as investors seek out countries that promise long-term stability and growth opportunities, which depend on human rights.
Furthermore, citing distrust between China and Russia as an example, Stewart spoke of the lack of commonalities between emerging countries such as Russia, India and China, which will limit the emergence of a competitor bloc to the West.
Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group and a contributing editor to The National Interest, did not see "this alternative system coming into being."
Russia fits the model Weber, Barma and Ratner describe, Bremmer said, but Russia is "functionally irrelevant in the world." While Russia might see its future in Asia, Asia does not necessarily see its future in Russia. He cited Latin America as a region where the World Without the West thesis doesnât work before shifting his analysis to China.
"Number one, the notion of hedging China is farcical to me", Bremmer said. "There is a mutually assured economic destruction between the West and China."
"If âTickle Me Elmoâ becomes âPoison Me Elmo", China will suffer the consequences, Bremmer said, referring to Chinaâs export of unsafe products.
Paul Starobin, of The Atlantic and National Journal, questioned the place of the Islamic world in A World Without the West. "What are the fault lines?" he asked.
Starobin also had questions about Chinaâs leadership role in a World Without the West.
"Do they [the Chinese] want to drive the bus, or do they want to make the bus?" he asked. "How can the parallel system develop without a conflict at some point?"
Flynt Leverett, senior fellow at The New America Foundation, stressed the limits of the thesis, suggesting that "there is a certain lack of causality in the analysis."
"Why is this happening? Itâs happening because U.S. hegemony is becoming, in important ways, dysfunctional for their interests", Leverett said. "Most Chinese would like the United States to be behaving as an effective hegemon, as a hegemon that stabilizes this critical region."
But the Bush Administrationâand its predecessorsâhave done the opposite, he said.
"As a vision, it [A World Without the West] is quite compelling", Nixon Center president and National Interest publisher Dimitri Simes said, citing the backlash against American hegemony.
"These nations are not looking for a hegemonic power", he said. "They are not pushing their ideologies."
If the division between the West and the rest worsens, Simes mentioned the risk for military confrontationâbetween the United States and China over Taiwan, and between Russia and Georgia, with the possibility of American intervention, over Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the wake of a final-status agreement on Kosovo.
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15112<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->