« We all knew this day was coming | Main | Better post on subs »
ARTICLE: Waving Goodbye to Hegemony, By PARAG KHANNA, New York Times Magazine, January 27, 2008
Tom writes to say everyone keeps sending him this article but he's not going to post now because he's reviewing Khanna's book, The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order, for National Review.
| Permalink |
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 28, 2008 11:23 AM.
The previous post in this blog was We all knew this day was coming.
The next post in this blog is Better post on subs.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (7)
I look forward to the review (although I can hardly imagine bringing myself to buy a copy of National Review), since there are interesting similarities and differences between this article and TPMB's analysis. One statement that struck me in the article: More than twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the US. I had not heard this, and I would like to know more about this - what level of study are we talking about, how long has this been the case, has this trend come about as a result of post-9/11 policies, where in Europe do they study and what are they studying, etc. It strikes me as an extremely important fact, as I have always believed that America's colleges and universities represent one of the world's most powerful forces in shaping globalization. I'd be interested in hearing Barnett's views on this.
Posted by stuart abrams | January 28, 2008 1:56 PM
Well, Tom better hurry -- it is the second ranked book in the IR section on Amazon right now.....
Posted by charlie | January 28, 2008 2:01 PM
Wow...writing a review for all those neo-conservatives...Hahaha. Joking. National Review has a wide spectrum of conservatives (aside from crazy paleos). Look forward to reading TPM's review.
Posted by Manny
|
January 29, 2008 1:42 AM
Ultimately, in this three-way contest, one could see the United States and the European Union as natural allies -- thus, making China the odd man out.
And the Second and Third World (with a few exceptions) -- understanding this dynamic -- and acting accordingly.
Posted by Bill C. | January 29, 2008 9:34 AM
Bill C: yes, that's the default viewpoint, one reason why Tom preaches China so passionately, and that we will have more in common with them than the Old Core.
Posted by Anonymous
|
January 29, 2008 2:23 PM
Was going to wait for Barnett's review, but here goes:
Seems to me that the deficiency in this analysis in dividing the world into "great powers" is that it ignores the significance of economic connectivity. The US has just as much, if not more, economic connectivity with China than it does with the EU. It therefore makes no sense to view the US as an "ally" of the EU or a "rival" of China - their fortunes are all largely interconnected. This is the overriding point which I think this analysis misses. In the Cold War, there was virtually zero connectivity between the US and the Soviet Union, so war was not only possible, but in a weird way, logical. Globalization really has changed things, in that we now have largely unfettered economic connectivity among all of the participants in the global economy, therefore making warfare among them absurd. That is why the Core/Gap analysis, to me at least, makes more sense than the analysis presented in this article.
Posted by stuart abrams | January 29, 2008 3:04 PM
I'll take a stab at a review - of course Barnett figures somewhat prominently in it.
http://houseofmarathon.blogspot.com/2008/02/global-multi-civilizational-multi-polar.html
Looking forward to Tom's review!
Cheers
Posted by prescottrjp | February 26, 2008 7:59 PM