John Ibbitson wrote an article in the globeandmail about what the French election means for the World. It is the work of a simpleton- an America-loving Canadian simpleton who seems to know little beyond what Americans know about the rest of the world. The article is best found using a Google search string:
http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en-ca&q=What+it+will+mean+to+have+France+with+America+in+the+world&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
This is my response to his column:
Dear Mr. Ibbitson,
I read your latest article "What it will mean to have France with America in the world" which ended in the following manner, "And if nothing else, Mr. Sarkozy's victory should serve as a reminder to skeptics that the American way is increasingly the only way - even for the French." That sentence made me laugh out loud. It sounds like it was been written 40 years ago when America, Britain, France and Russia were the most important countries in the world.
American power in both West Asia and South America have been gradually fading for 35 years. Asia is where all the growth is, and America's impotent fury over North Korea underscores exactly how much its influence in the region has faded. The fact is that, notwithstanding Sarkozy, the American and European agenda has diverged on energy (gas and oil from Russia), defence (European defence products), and international trade (different emphasis in trade accords). Given the political moves of the Bush administration as well as the economic news to come, the American model of state-sponsored (not laissez faire) capitalism, centralised presidential democracy and no welfare state stands increasingly discredited as a model (even as its acceptance is still peaking in the world mind you). Democracy and political accountability are causing that. If, as you say, Europe will never have the population or economic clout to lead the world, it is hard to understand why America will continue to do so.
The last effort to reign in Asia was the South-East Asian economic crisis where the State Department let well known financiers run riot knowing fully well what they were up to- the memories of the South-East Asians won't let that happen again. With Russia playing the energy card with increasing effectiveness (it supplies energy to Europe, China and Japan) and the failed wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, American efforts at bolstering influence in Central Asia have ground to a halt. The only places in the world that this slide in influence has not been halted are Central America, Canada and large parts of Africa. The increase in influence in Canada has been the most fruitful with America gaining near total control of energy supplies. The influence in Central America is a mere remainder of the heyday of the Monroe doctrine. Even in Japan, that most faithful of America's allies, the legitimacy of American power and influence has been slipping even in the face of North Korean madness.
The latest effort at finding a close ally is in India. The only problem is that India is a lively feisty democracy that has the highest consistent anti-incumbency mood among the large democracies of the world. Its political elite are increasingly reminded that private side deals aren't important if domestic policy isn't taken care of. The pro-American bent in the present government is being rapidly checked as the domestic ramifications of policies are felt. India is looking increasingly eastwards not westwards. Building trading ties with ASEAN is their prime consideration. Even Australia under Sheriff John Howard, arguably the oldest whitest male heading a "western democracy", is having to build bridges with his coloured counterparts in Asia. As Latin America and Europe find their own destiny, Russia bargains to maintain its place, and China and India rise, America's role as leader of the "free world" against communism becomes increasingly obsolete. The efforts at creating one more singular bogeyman, be it Al Qaeda, Iran or Chavez, are not finding fruition. It is fortunate that the never-ending war described in 1984 has been so difficult for the Bush administration to recreate in our world.
American financial institutions have achieved remarkable efficiencies in generating and deploying capital. As these systems were exported, America's influence consistently rose. That quid pro quo is natural. But now America has less to offer many countries- it has some of the highest poverty rates, crime rates, and health care cost problems in the industrialised world. Its political system is almost too dire to be called a representational democracy (two nearly identical parties competing for votes, regional bias in the senate completely perverting the one person one vote principle). I think you have been spending too much time sympathising with the Americans. You might try sympathising with others as well. I suggest reading the Financial Times, The Guardian, Xinhua - anything that will cure you of this American tunnel-vision you seem to possess.
Best regards,
Hari Balaraman
P.S: you might find this article on the future prospects of the American economy enlightening ( http://www.blonnet.com/2007/05/11/stories/2007051100430800.htm )
P.P.S: The French economy has grew uninterrupted for the last ten years (although its prospects are now dimming). The French people have turned to Sarkozy because of the societal tensions integrating a welfare state with multiculturalism. He has tapped into a deep vein of racism that has sustained both the mainstream in decades gone by (in its paternalistic colonial endeavours) and lately candidates such as Le Pen. It is laughable to say they votes for his pro-American and pro-English bias. In fact the most popular that Chirac and de Villepin have been is when they have been seen as standing up for France against the Americans or against other EU interests. His pro-American bias is incidental to his appeal in French society. He won because he was more plausible as a "rupture" candidate than his uncertain and lightweight Socialist opponent. Don't kid yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment