The Post-American World

So the world is changing and all nations and non-governmental organizations will have new roles to play in the future. Don't we already know that? Isn't that why we take gambles every week in picking up books like this one that, outwardly, appear to offer some enrichment in our understanding? Zakaria, the master of assertions, outdoes himself in this work. He commonly asserts as facts statements of HIS opinion that are questionable. No need to itemize them. Open the book to any page and there'll be 1 or 2. When Zakaria has taken the time to "document" some of his opinions, he uses sources that, when researched, certainly seem unqualified to this reader. Example given: Steven Pinker, a psychologist whose work has been in the area of speech and language, is cited as a reference for the history of world peace. (??) And the list goes on.

Zakaria, never one to sell himself short, tells us in the book's "Acknowledgments" that it is the outgrowth of "...much travel, reading and reflection...". What a worldly guy! I personally think Mr. Zakaria would have better served his prospective readers by taking a few trips to his local library before trying to approach his subject. I, for one, don't frankly care what his personal experiences have been. Given his "Newsweek" mindset, there is no way his experiences are likely to mean the same thing to me as they did to him.

When I want to learn about a topic as important as the world's future, I'd like to get a broad spectrum of perspectives and then let the author, if he/she chooses to do so, take me down whatever narrow path he wants me to follow.

I understand that my comments are mine only. Potential readers of this book likewise need to understand that, given the lack of scholarly work applied to this book, it is also the opinion of only one person also--the author's.

Interesting perspectives on America and its place in the world. I was particularly struck by Fareed's perspective on China and India and how each country's religious background - Confucianism/Buddhism in China, and Hinduism in India - will likely affect each country's respective foreign policy as they play an increasingly significant role in the world. The last chapter is powerfully written, and I couldn't agree more - how ironic it is that the most powerful country on earth has such a fear-laden society. And Fareed is blunt about America's political shortcomings: we get a lot of things right, but our political system (Washington) is ailing if not broken. His final personal note regarding the power and pertinence of having a welcoming and pluralistic society is something all American's need to take to heart.

I recently read Fareed Zakaria's"The Post-American World", and found the book to be most interesting and informative. I have been recommending it in my blogs and through e-mail as one of several books people should read before voting in this most interesting election year. The chapters on China, India, and Great Britain are excellent, and his thoughts on the role of America are valuable. As someone who was born just before FDR was elected, and who has seen the evolution of American politics and governance, I find that "The Post-American World" is an important book for our times.

This book is excellent. One of the best I've ever read. It describes in detail why the United States is slipping in the world economy. I believe that 50 years from now, people who have read this book will say, "I knew this was coming". If your interested in what America's role will be in the next 50 years on the world stage, you HAVE to read this book. It's worth every penny.

This is an extremely insightful book resting on probably most clearheaded appreciation of what's going on around the world that should be read by any and everyone interested in world affairs. On the downside, it contains too many intellectually facile overgeneralizations that well informed cosmopolitans who lack specialized knowledge of specific topics tend to make. Since Zakaria is in fact one of such people and these do no harm to the general insights contained in the book, perhaps I should not overly critical. More important, though, is that this intellectual facile-ness extends into the conclusions that Zakaria draws from his insights: they read too much like irresponsible punditry. Of course, one needs not agree with his conclusions to appreciate the insights, of which there is plenty.

To cut it short, at the heart of Zakaria's insight is that he understands the anonymous White House staffer who famously boasted "we are makers of history" is in fact right, but only halfway. We--the US--are not alone in making history. The "other guys" are making history, too, for their own purposes. The effect of globalization has been that these other actors have been able to gain substantial means and opportunity to affect the course of history. Zakaria understands, too, however, that this history-making is not a zero sum game: while India, China, and other international actors might be looking to remake history to their ends, their aims do not necessarily involve confronting U.S. or upsetting U.S.-defined world order. Indeed, their goals, for the most part, are perfectly achievable within the context of U.S.-defined world order, provided that they can get their rightfully earned "fair share" from playing by its rules.

What Zakaria suggests is that this situation provides the United States with plenty of leverage to exert influence. It can maintain, and where necessary, put forward, an international order that favors its interests on the whole, but also provides opportunities for other actors, as long as they abide by its rules. Zakaria mentions specifically the work of Bismark, who, in 1880s, crafted an international order where Germany stood as an "honest broker" who could exert influence by prescribing rules and solutions that were fair enough that other countries actually wanted to abide by. In principle, I like this vision, but I doubt this has any chance of success. Zakaria's own example of Germany itself provides an example of how such an arrangement can unravel very quickly.

An honest broker cannot be too greedy. He must renounce all his prejudices to be accepted and trusted as being "honest." Historically, Germany could not put up with this renunciation for so long. Germany was strong and many of its leaders and population were not content retreating to the back seat when they felt they could do better--at least in short or medium term--by asserting their strength and doing what they wanted, even at the cost of losing the credibility to act as "honest broker." Merely two decades after the Congress of Berlin that inaugurated this new world order, Bismarck himself was ousted from power and Germany began to poke its nose in businesses that were of little substnatial import to them--often for the sake of short term domestic public opinion. It antagonized the British over the Boer War. It built a battleship navy that had little use other than make the British nervous and angry. It antagonized the Russians over the Near East. The list can go on. The lesson is clear: even if the long term advantages of playing an honest broker are substantial, the temptation of using hard power to gain a short term advantage is difficult to resist, especially when that hard power is right there. I doubt a powerful nation--which United States is bound to remain for the foreseeable future--can so easily become and remain an honest broker. Bismarck was a political genius--and even he could manage it for only two decades. Can lesser politicians do it? I am skeptical.