Voorspellen is heel moeilijk. Vooral als het om de toekomst gaat. De tekst van een bericht op Twitter van eurocommissaris mevrouw Smit-Kroes. Nu is voorspellen natuurlijk geen kwestie van kijken in de bekende glazen bol. Het is veeleer een poging inzicht te krijgen in alle werkzame krachten en vooral in de richting waarin deze krachten werken. Verschillende methoden om de toekomst te onderzoeken zijn: (kwantitatieve) modellen, scenariostudies, delphi-studies en overige participatieve methoden, technologisch aspectenonderzoek en dialectiek (Wikipedia).
Kishore Mahbubani heeft in het eerste hoofdstuk van zijn boek The new Asian Hemisphere, the irresistable shift of global power to the east ( Public Affairs, New York, 2008 ) een drietal scenario’s voor de toekomst van de wereld in de komende vijftig jaar geschetst. Mahbubani is momenteel decaan/professor aan de Lee Kuan Yew National University van Singapore en was van 1971 tot 2004 diplomaat. In die 33 jaar bekleedde hij twee keer het voorzitterschap van de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties.
Het eerste scenario van Mahbubani is de Mars naar Moderniteit. Hij stelt daarin dat het gebruik van een watercloset wel eens de beste indicator zou kunnen zijn voor een antwoord op de vraag hoeveel van de 6,5 miljard wereldburgers nog leven in een premoderne wereld. Hoe groter het aantal mensen dat zijn intrede doet in die moderne wereld, hoe veiliger en stabieler de wereld zal worden. Wat Noord-Amerika en Europa vandaag de dag al bereikt hebben, kan morgen door de rest van de wereld bereikt worden. Zo zal China in 2015 het niveau bereiken waarop de ontwikkelde landen zich in 1960 bevonden. Daarbij veroorzaakt het gebruik van de mobiele telefoon met internet een stille revolutie waarvan de impact te vergelijken valt met de industriële revolutie. Connectiviteit is productiviteit. Als je mensen met elkaar verbindt, worden ze productiever. Met ontwikkelingshulp helpen we vooral regeringen van arme landen in het zadel, die daardoor het contact met hun bevolking verliezen, omdat ze voor het verkrijgen van hun fondsen niet van hen afhankelijk zijn. In een periode van twee decennia zullen 1 tot 1,5 miljard mensen in Azië verbonden worden met de moderne wereld en zichzelf geleidelijk van die foute regimes ontdoen. Dat is de Mars naar Moderniteit.
In het tweede scenario stelt Mahbubani, dat het verdere verloop van de wereldgeschiedenis bepaald zal worden door de manier waarop het westen reageert op deze Aziatische Mars naar Moderniteit. Als het zich terugtrekt in de oude forten. Als protectionisme in de plaats komt van vrije handel, dan berooft alleen al de EU de ontwikkelingslanden van 700 miljard dollar per jaar en dat is 14 keer meer dan de totale ontwikkelingshulp. De politieke steun voor protectionisme is, sinds het einde van de Koude oorlog (1989) , helaas zowel in de verenigde Staten als in Europa toegenomen. En daarmee beroven we ook onszelf van om en nabij de 1 miljard dollar per dag. Met name de manier waarop Europa al jarenlang de landbouwsector subsidieert is een voorbeeld van nauw bemeten eigenbelang zonder oog voor de globale situatie. Het heeft er alle schijn van, dat de westerse landen geleidelijk aan het geloof verliezen dat ze de concurrentie met de opkomende economieën aan kunnen. Dat gebrek aan vertrouwen kan ons opbreken en de wereld de verkeerde kant op sturen.
De triomf van het westen is het derde scenario. Vanaf het einde van de Koude Oorlog waren er voor het westen nog maar twee grootmachten over. Amerika en Europa. De rest van de wereld hoefde niet meer de toen dat zich naar deze voorbeelden om te vormen. De arrogantie was welhaast grenzeloos. Gorbatsjov was, in tegenstelling tot Deng Xiaoping, geen held, maar een idioot. Zijn opstelling heeft ertoe geleid dat de Russische economie in tien jaar tijd 45% van haar ‘output’ verloor en dat de sterfte- en criminaliteitscijfers drastisch toenamen. De westerse arrogantie leidt ook tot de veronderstelling dat culturele verschillen er niet toe doen en dat het mogelijk is om van de ene op de andere dag elke samenleving, waar dan ook in de wereld en in welk stadium van culturele en economische ontwikkeling dan ook, om te vormen tot een liberale democratie. Een misvatting. De voorbije twee eeuwen van westerse dominantie zijn in de wereldgeschiedenis eerder een uitzondering dan de regel.
Het is niet moeilijk te raden welk scenario de voorkeur verdient.
Showing posts with label Mahbubani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mahbubani. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 September 2011
Monday, 15 August 2011
Europa is een geopolitieke dwerg
De Zwitserse vermogensbeheerder Lombard Odier is van mening, dat de opkomende economieën een hogere kredietrating verdienen dan ze van (westerse) kredietbeoordelaars krijgen. Ze staan er immers beter voor dan de ‘ontwikkelde’ landen.
De grootste bedreiging voor het westen is niet het oosten, maar de eigen arrogantie.
Al geruime tijd staan in de marge van ‘gedachten en overpeinzingen’ een aantal links naar interviews met Kishore Mahbubani. In 2009 schreef ik hier, dat zijn ‘The new Asian Hemisphere, the irresistible shift of global power to the east’( Perseus Books Group, 2008), het lezen meer dan waard was. Ik maakte er een Powerpoint presentatie over, die ik voordroeg aan mijn Rotary club. Ik kreeg niet de indruk dat mijn medeleden onder de indruk waren. Dat kan natuurlijk aan mijn presentatie gelegen hebben. Misschien dachten ze ook wel, dat het zo’n vaart niet zou lopen. Ergens in mijn bestanden vond ik nog een artikel uit 2008 van de hand van Mahbubani. Merkel en Sarkozy hadden net gedreigd met een boycot van de Olympische Spelen in China.
Europe is a geopolitical dwarf
By Kishore Mahbubani
The paradox about the European Union's position in the world is that it is both a giant and a dwarf. It stands tall as a giant because it has reached one of the peaks of human civilisation - the achievement of zero prospect of war among European states - and also because of its enormously successful regional co-operation. The world can and does learn lessons from Europe's success after the second world war.
Yet, even though it has an economy comparable with America's, it stands as a political dwarf in responding to the rapidly changing geopolitical environment. The combination of slavishly following the US lead (with the possible exception of the invasion of Iraq), its reluctance to contemplate badly needed strategic initiatives (as in the Middle East) or provide real political leadership to complete the Doha round of global trade talks and other such failures have led to the steady shrinking of Europe's footprint on the world stage.
Another paradox about the EU is how the citizens live in a bubble of security while feeling each day a rising level of psychological insecurity about their future. Millions try to enter the EU, legally and illegally, because they want to partake of the good life that the EU has created for its citizens. If John Rawls, the philosopher, were alive today, he would probably classify several European societies as the most just societies under the criteria spelt out in his famous The Theory of Justice. The world sees the EU as a haven of peace and prosperity. Yes, as I told Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times columnist, life is sweet in Europe.
But the rising tide of insecurity in European hearts and minds also means that Europe cannot continue to be a giant Switzerland, which Mr Rachman suggested in his column this week it has become. The Swiss can feel secure because they are surrounded by Europe. The Europeans can only feel insecure because they are surrounded by an arc of instability, from north Africa to the Middle East, from the Balkans to the Caucasus. To make matters worse, the age-old Christian obsession with the threat of Islam has become far more acute, with Islamophobia rising to new heights in European cultures.
Given Europe's ability to dominate the world for almost 500 years, it is remarkable how poorly it is responding to new geopolitical challenges. The paucity of European strategic thinking is stunning. Most European geopolitical gurus believe that the EU can survive well as a free-rider on US power, counting on it to keep the world safe while Europe tends to its internal gardens. Mr Rachman is right when he says that most Europeans want to keep their heads down. However, he is wrong when he says that Europe's passivity may be neither illogical nor immoral.
One simple unpalatable truth that many Europeans refuse to confront is that, in the short run, free-riding on US power can significantly diminish European security. The one-sided US policy on the Israel-Palestine issue, coupled with the botched invasion and occupation of Iraq, has angered 1.2bn Muslims. But while America is protected by the vast Atlantic ocean, Europe feels this Islamic anger directly because of its geographical proximity to the Middle East and its large domestic Islamic populations. Pure common sense would suggest that Europe should reconsider the strategic costs of only playing Tonto to the American Lone Ranger.
Does the EU have other strategic options? Of course it does. Asia provided one when it offered the union an Asia-Europe meeting (Asem), which could have created a stable triangular balance of power between the US, EU and east Asia. If all three legs of Asem were equally strong, each power could use the triangle for geopolitical leverage. The missing Asia-Europe link gives the US obvious bargaining leverage.
Initially, the EU reacted enthusiastically to Asem in the mid-1990s. I know. I was there. However, when the Asian financial crisis came along, the EU abandoned Asia in its hour of need, leaving behind a bitter residue of distrust, and demonstrated that it was a fair-weather friend. Given Asia's quick rebound and the abundant evidence that this will be Asia's century, this European decision will go down as one of its stupidest strategic decisions.
To make matters worse, Europe has forgotten the lessons of Machiavelli (a child of the Italian Renaissance) and is only pursuing ostensibly "moral" policies in Asia. It tries to impose human rights conditions before agreeing to co-operate with the world's largest democracy, India, thereby incurring Indian umbrage. Its relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations, the crucial diplomatic forum in Asia, is distorted by the single lens of Burma, ignoring the 450m south-east Asians living outside the country. Most recently Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, once again demonstrated Europe's tendency to shoot itself strategically in the foot by signalling that they may boycott the Olympics. In short, whenever the EU gets a chance, it slaps Asia in the face.
The real irony here is that Asia is doing much more to enhance long-term European security than America is. The Asian march to modernity, which began in Japan and is now sweeping through China and India, is poised to enter the Islamic world in west Asia. When this march enters the Islamic world, Europe will be surrounded by modern, middle-class Muslim states.
Hence, Europe should encourage Muslims to look at China, India and Asean as their new development models. The success of the Beijing Olympics could help to ignite new dreams of modernisation among disaffected Islamic youth, who will ask why their societies cannot prosper like China. In short, if Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy could think strategically and long-term, they should enthusiastically participate in and cheer the success of the Olympics. When the Islamic world is finally modernised, Europe can go back to being a giant Switzerland again.
The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. His new book, the New Asian Hemisphere, develops the themes of this article.
De grootste bedreiging voor het westen is niet het oosten, maar de eigen arrogantie.
Al geruime tijd staan in de marge van ‘gedachten en overpeinzingen’ een aantal links naar interviews met Kishore Mahbubani. In 2009 schreef ik hier, dat zijn ‘The new Asian Hemisphere, the irresistible shift of global power to the east’( Perseus Books Group, 2008), het lezen meer dan waard was. Ik maakte er een Powerpoint presentatie over, die ik voordroeg aan mijn Rotary club. Ik kreeg niet de indruk dat mijn medeleden onder de indruk waren. Dat kan natuurlijk aan mijn presentatie gelegen hebben. Misschien dachten ze ook wel, dat het zo’n vaart niet zou lopen. Ergens in mijn bestanden vond ik nog een artikel uit 2008 van de hand van Mahbubani. Merkel en Sarkozy hadden net gedreigd met een boycot van de Olympische Spelen in China.
Europe is a geopolitical dwarf
By Kishore Mahbubani
The paradox about the European Union's position in the world is that it is both a giant and a dwarf. It stands tall as a giant because it has reached one of the peaks of human civilisation - the achievement of zero prospect of war among European states - and also because of its enormously successful regional co-operation. The world can and does learn lessons from Europe's success after the second world war.
Yet, even though it has an economy comparable with America's, it stands as a political dwarf in responding to the rapidly changing geopolitical environment. The combination of slavishly following the US lead (with the possible exception of the invasion of Iraq), its reluctance to contemplate badly needed strategic initiatives (as in the Middle East) or provide real political leadership to complete the Doha round of global trade talks and other such failures have led to the steady shrinking of Europe's footprint on the world stage.
Another paradox about the EU is how the citizens live in a bubble of security while feeling each day a rising level of psychological insecurity about their future. Millions try to enter the EU, legally and illegally, because they want to partake of the good life that the EU has created for its citizens. If John Rawls, the philosopher, were alive today, he would probably classify several European societies as the most just societies under the criteria spelt out in his famous The Theory of Justice. The world sees the EU as a haven of peace and prosperity. Yes, as I told Gideon Rachman, the Financial Times columnist, life is sweet in Europe.
But the rising tide of insecurity in European hearts and minds also means that Europe cannot continue to be a giant Switzerland, which Mr Rachman suggested in his column this week it has become. The Swiss can feel secure because they are surrounded by Europe. The Europeans can only feel insecure because they are surrounded by an arc of instability, from north Africa to the Middle East, from the Balkans to the Caucasus. To make matters worse, the age-old Christian obsession with the threat of Islam has become far more acute, with Islamophobia rising to new heights in European cultures.
Given Europe's ability to dominate the world for almost 500 years, it is remarkable how poorly it is responding to new geopolitical challenges. The paucity of European strategic thinking is stunning. Most European geopolitical gurus believe that the EU can survive well as a free-rider on US power, counting on it to keep the world safe while Europe tends to its internal gardens. Mr Rachman is right when he says that most Europeans want to keep their heads down. However, he is wrong when he says that Europe's passivity may be neither illogical nor immoral.
One simple unpalatable truth that many Europeans refuse to confront is that, in the short run, free-riding on US power can significantly diminish European security. The one-sided US policy on the Israel-Palestine issue, coupled with the botched invasion and occupation of Iraq, has angered 1.2bn Muslims. But while America is protected by the vast Atlantic ocean, Europe feels this Islamic anger directly because of its geographical proximity to the Middle East and its large domestic Islamic populations. Pure common sense would suggest that Europe should reconsider the strategic costs of only playing Tonto to the American Lone Ranger.
Does the EU have other strategic options? Of course it does. Asia provided one when it offered the union an Asia-Europe meeting (Asem), which could have created a stable triangular balance of power between the US, EU and east Asia. If all three legs of Asem were equally strong, each power could use the triangle for geopolitical leverage. The missing Asia-Europe link gives the US obvious bargaining leverage.
Initially, the EU reacted enthusiastically to Asem in the mid-1990s. I know. I was there. However, when the Asian financial crisis came along, the EU abandoned Asia in its hour of need, leaving behind a bitter residue of distrust, and demonstrated that it was a fair-weather friend. Given Asia's quick rebound and the abundant evidence that this will be Asia's century, this European decision will go down as one of its stupidest strategic decisions.
To make matters worse, Europe has forgotten the lessons of Machiavelli (a child of the Italian Renaissance) and is only pursuing ostensibly "moral" policies in Asia. It tries to impose human rights conditions before agreeing to co-operate with the world's largest democracy, India, thereby incurring Indian umbrage. Its relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations, the crucial diplomatic forum in Asia, is distorted by the single lens of Burma, ignoring the 450m south-east Asians living outside the country. Most recently Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, once again demonstrated Europe's tendency to shoot itself strategically in the foot by signalling that they may boycott the Olympics. In short, whenever the EU gets a chance, it slaps Asia in the face.
The real irony here is that Asia is doing much more to enhance long-term European security than America is. The Asian march to modernity, which began in Japan and is now sweeping through China and India, is poised to enter the Islamic world in west Asia. When this march enters the Islamic world, Europe will be surrounded by modern, middle-class Muslim states.
Hence, Europe should encourage Muslims to look at China, India and Asean as their new development models. The success of the Beijing Olympics could help to ignite new dreams of modernisation among disaffected Islamic youth, who will ask why their societies cannot prosper like China. In short, if Mrs Merkel and Mr Sarkozy could think strategically and long-term, they should enthusiastically participate in and cheer the success of the Olympics. When the Islamic world is finally modernised, Europe can go back to being a giant Switzerland again.
The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. His new book, the New Asian Hemisphere, develops the themes of this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)