# Ramesh Thakur: Toward a new world order



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright At from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is the first in a four parts series by Prof Ramesh Thakur (Waterloo) based on the premise that _power_, in the broadest sense of that word, is shifting from the West to Asia:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Toward+world+order/2627068/story.html


> Toward a new world order
> 
> *The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore -- global power is shifting to Asia. This is the first in a four-part series of articles examining how the world will manage a shift in power and influence from west to east.*
> 
> ...




I will comment at the end of the series, which is not going to be too popular in some circles for what appears to be an unabashedly anti-American/anti-Western tone.

Those who follow my ramblings here will know that I do not believe Brazil will be able to manage to join America, China, India and, maybe, a very few others, in the top tier or, rather, I believe Brazil will find a way to deny itself that opportunity. I put South Africa in the same boat. Equally, I think China and India “won” whatever was on offer in Copenhagen by ensuring that they left uncommitted to much of anything, as if there was much of anything worth committing to. (I know, I know, a preposition ought not to dangle but remember Churchill and _“This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”_)


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Apr 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29)of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is more from 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/reluctant+giant/2763548/story.html


> The reluctant giant
> *Even China doesn't know how it will play its unaccustomed role as world power This is the second in a four-part series examining how the world will manage a shift in power and influence from west to east.*
> 
> BY RAMESH THAKUR, CITIZEN SPECIAL
> ...




This is all pretty old and tame stuff, and some of it, such as _”China used to believe that the world order of one superpower and several great powers would continue”_, is opinion with a doubtful foundation. But, we, the whole world "we,” need to deal with a new, powerful, assertive China and Thakur is right when he says, _”Treating China as an enemy could turn it into one”_. That would be a _strategic_ miscalculation. So what to do? Do we _reward_ one part rule and so on? The answer might lie in how American presidents dealt and still deal with Russia. How is China different?


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2010)

China is winning over the heart of Africa – at the West’s expense
Doug Saunders From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

While we’ve been busy looking at noisier events elsewhere, a small boom has been taking place in the lands south of the Sahara. Still the poorest place in the world, the heart of Africa is nevertheless catching up fast this year, with huge improvements in infrastructure, industry and most importantly agriculture; it could soon become the world’s major food producer.

We North Americans and Europeans haven’t been paying much attention to this huge expansion for the simple reason that we’ve had little to do with it.

This week was a prime example. The jet traffic between Beijing and the capitals of sub-Saharan Africa these past few days has been tremendous. On Monday, Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping finished a two-day visit to Botswana in which he signed financing deals worth millions in infrastructure and energy development. Two days earlier, he’d made major deals in oil-rich Angola. On Wednesday in Ethiopia, Chinese private and state investors opened a $27-million leather-goods factory that will employ 500 Ethiopians; the same investment fund is also building cement plants and an airport hotel nearby. On Thursday, Sudan, which imports 80 per cent of its food, announced plans to quintuple its current wheat cultivation with backing from Chinese and Persian Gulf investors, increasing its acres under cultivation by 25 per cent a year for a decade.

And this is not an atypical week. The Chinese claim to have more than $1.5-billion invested in Africa now, up from $210-million; they employ at least 300,000 Africans in their own countries (and, increasingly, import African workers to the cities of the Pearl River Delta) and have built 60,000 kilometres of roads and 3.5 million kilowatts worth of power stations there – far more than any other country. Last year, China replaced the United States as the largest trading partner of South Africa, the continent’s biggest economy, and annual China-Africa trade topped $100-billion for the first time this year.

There are good reasons why African leaders are turning to China. The Chinese are often the only ones willing to pay for the stuff that Africans really need. Western aid spending has increasingly moved away from big infrastructure and industrial projects, or abandoned the continent more or less completely.

And “emerging market” investment funds, despite all their hype about seeking the best returns and untapped investments around the world, have never really gone near the world’s largest investment opportunity in sub-Saharan Africa. Our capitalists are too timid to go there. And our investment strategies are rarely more than short-term: While transforming Africa’s agriculture into a commercial success may be one of the biggest business stories of the century, Westerners are unwilling to tie up their money there for 20 years before seeing a good return. For China, with its huge current-account surpluses, this time scale is ideal.

And there’s a huge need for investment. According to the World Bank, Africa will need $93-billion a year in infrastructure investments in roads, electricity and telecommunications through the next decade; at least $31-billion of this will have to come from outside Africa. A study this week concluded that Africa could become a larger producer of rice than all of Asia – at a time when the world desperately needs more food output – with the right investments.

If China and other non-democratic states are left to fill this huge investment gap, it could come at a political cost. This week, we saw a warning written by Medard Mulangala Lwakabwanga, an MP from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who is watching his government turn to China for investment – in large part because they see Western countries as more interested in war-crimes tribunals and truth and reconciliation commissions than in building road links and irrigation networks. The Chinese don’t care if Congo’s government contains war criminals.

“China does not call on anyone to be sent to The Hague – it is not a signatory to the ICC treaty,” Mr. Lwakabwanga wrote. “Nor does it call on African nations to respect international conventions on corporate contracts, rights for workers, defend free speech or hold free and fair elections. So many African nations now have a choice: Why listen to the West, with its rules and regulations and demands, if you don’t have to?”

Mr. Lwakabwanga, like many freedom-seeking Africans, does not want growth at the price of tyranny. “The West can raise its game in the continent,” he writes, “meet the Chinese challenge and help to build a more transparent and content Africa.” If we want to do good on the continent, we’re going to have to start doing more business. 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2010)

The _Golden Rule_ (Do unto others, etc) is well established in Chinese thought and politics.

The Chinese demand that the outside world not interfere with China's internal affairs. Generally, but certainly not always, the Chinese do the same.

If you were unfortunate enough to get most of your information from the Chinese English language media you would probably believe that _most_ countries in the world do not 'harass' China with complaints about civil rights and currency manipulation. In fact, you would read/see/hear, it is only a small minority of China's major economic competitors - led by America and Europe - who try to interfere in China's internal affairs.

China is, also, _investing_ in Africa rather than just sending aid to corrupt dictators. Most All of those _investments_ benefit China more than they serve the needs of Africa and Africans but they are steps in the right a better direction; they represent cooperation rather than colonialism's holdovers.

So, yes, China is 'eating our lunch' in Africa, but they need Africa's resources more than we do.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2010)

The Economist suggests who is following behind the BRIC nations. Edward has suggested that Brazil will be able to pull defeat from the jaws of victory, and I see little reason to disagree. Most of the nations being promoted here are (in my opinion) suffering from the same cultural defects, and I don't see them as being political and economic powerhouses in the near or mid future:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/12/emerging-countries-after-brazil-india.html#more



> *Emerging Countries after Brazil, India and China*
> 
> There are suggestions for emerging countries after the BRICs. (Brazil, Russia, India and China). There have been several attempts to identify the next emerging countries. They have been CIVETS, VISTA, NEXT-11 and attempts to expand or alter countries in the BRIC group.
> 
> ...


----------

