The Post-American World [Hardcover]

The above quote (with emphasis in the original) is part of the concluding arguments from Fareed Zakaria's book which focuses on the dynamic shifts in the distribution of power on a global basis. It is an essential statement, and he supports his contentions with the pitiful sums that are devoted to America's efforts to promote its ideals as opposed to the truly mind-boggling sums that are thrown at military hardware. If the ratio of those expenditures was reduced, the "post" part of the title might be a bit longer in coming.

Zakaria is an immigrant to America from India, and as such, has a broader global perspective than most Americans. He understands the American outlook of the proverbial "Joe Six-Pack", and also understands the outlook of many citizens in other countries. Early in the book he emphasizes that much of the economic progress made in the last two decades is due to the state of peace reigning in the world --at some level this is counterintuitive since, as he says, "A cottage industry of scaremongers has flourished in the West--especially in the United States--since 9/11."(p14) Based upon this peace, and wiser leadership in other countries, Zakaria states that numerous other countries are becoming much more prosperous, and although the book focuses on China and India, he also cites Russia, Brazil and South Africa. China is now the "workshop of the world," making most of what Wal-Mart sells. India is specializing in providing the "services" part of the equation. (yes, the dreaded tele-marketers, as well as the software programmers.)

Zakaria provides numerous anecdotes and examples of a global perspective, and how America is often out of step with other countries. For example, standard American historians, such as Stephen Ambrose and Ken Burns demote Russia to a minor role in the Second World War, but it was on the Eastern Front that the true "War of the Century" was fought, with the Russians taking 20 million dead. America is the only country in the world to issue a "report card" on others, yet is not introspective enough to do one on itself. America's "go it alone" approach is underscored on page 206, where Zakaria says that in addition to America, only Liberia and Myanmar are not on the metric system, and the only other country in the world that has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child is Somalia. In the tradition of numerous other Indians, on nuclear non-proliferation, he rightly condemns America's "do what I say, not what I do," approach. (p 241). And he underscores the irony of Dick Cheney quoting our adversary's in terms of guidance for our own actions. (p 250).

I found numerous other original points worthwhile in terms of the global perspective: on the "what-might-have-beens" of history, he discusses how the Chinese Admiral, Zheng He had more, and larger ships that explored the oceans prior to 1492, but that the Chinese authorities eventually banned large-scale ocean exploration. He points out that numerous non-American leaders, such as Nehru and Nasser liked the West, and sought to emulate many of its characteristics. Another salient point is the belief in God, which is high in the West, but the same concept is not held in China and India. All these issues are important for the oft-too-insular Americans to comprehend in considering our upcoming position in the world.

But like other reviewers, including "Laughingbird," I found Zakaria too optimistic, and like a newly converted zealot, not willing to criticize some of the central tenets of his "American faith." Far too much emphasis is placed on the quantitative number, "GNP," but not on its quality. Growth in population is often considered positive and desirable, and, perhaps naturally given his personal history, immigration is viewed positively, without consideration for the offsetting costs to both countries involved in the transaction. He also sees economic activity through the "competitive" paradigm, as though putting bread on one's table is analogous to a football game. He acknowledges that Americans are borrowing 80% of the world's savings, and using it for consumption, but he does so as an afterthought. An entire chapter should be devoted to the ramifications if those savings were no longer available to borrow.

In particular, I found his comfortable "MAD" analogy concerning the Chinese-American relationship false. Specifically on p 124 he says: "The Chinese-American economic relationship is one of mutual dependence. China needs the American market to sell its goods; the United States needs China to finance its debt--it's globalization's equivalent of the nuclear age's Mutual Assured Destruction." But surely China will grow tired of the "free trade" that involves them working hard to provide real goods only to receive paper promissory notes in return from a generally ungrateful America. They could suddenly stop buying our T-bills, and divert their resources, energy, and now know-how to improving their domestic market. And then where would America be, with its own industrial capacity and know-how gutted? No military action need be taken on their part, and all those fears from the `50's and `60's of "Red China" would come true.

As to his son, Omar, who was concerned about his father writing a book about the future, all so soon the economic events may be proving Omar right. Zakaria deserves kudos for his numerous vignettes that can improve an American's global perspective, but in terms of the competition for ideas, which is paramount, he needs to do a "retake" on the facile and rosy economic concepts.

(Note: Review first published at Amazon, USA, on December 17, 2008)

The previous reviewer's skepticism, grounded in the fact that this book is sold in airport bookshops, is unfounded. Whilst Zakaria's arguments are not groundbreaking, he does offer a compelling account of what the future may hold. Differential rates of growth across the world (described pithily as 'the rise of the rest', as well as the shift away from the nation-state as the sole political actor, will probably see a fundamental change in the international order. This will be a slow, gradual process, and perhaps calling the product a 'post-American world' is going too far (although it is the best formulation yet, in my opinion, for the not quite uni-polar, not quite multi-polar world which is emerging). Nonetheless, for those interested in international relations and current affairs, this book is well worth reading.

Zakaria's book is quite readable but contains several factual errors.
For someone born and raised in Mumbai ,he appears woefully ignorant about India.
He writes in Chapter 5 "Buddha was Indian...there are virtually no Buddhists in the country today...to find Buddhists you must go thousands of miles from where it was founded."
Buddha was born and raised in Nepal.
The Indian census lists a Buddhist population of some 8 million.
Apart from the Dalai Lama and over 100,000 exiled followers who live in northern India,one needs to travel only 40 miles across the Palk Strait to Sri Lanka (14 million)or bordering countries such as Myanmar (43 million),Bhutan (1.5 million),not to mention 6 million Tibetans in neighbouring China.
He displays similar ignorance of the U.K's Beveridge Report.His claim that the 20 fastest-growing cities in the world are Chinese is ludicrous.

Given these lapses,I am at a loss as to Joseph Josse's New York Times Book Review
calling it "relentlessly intelligent". I can charitably assume that he had not read the book.