In January, John Baird told me he was proud that his first trip as Canada's new foreign minister was to Beijing rather than Washington. Canada values its ties with America, he said, and wants to sign a trade pact with Europe. But building new bridges to Asia will help protect his country's economy from an inevitable slowdown in the West. Canada has options.
In February, Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou used our scheduled meeting to deliver an impassioned monologue on his country's urgent need to diversify its commercial partnerships. Taiwan has profited from a major agreement with China in 2010, but dozens of other trade deals have been signed in Asia in recent years, and Taiwan has been shut out. Ma would love to see his country win membership in the U.S.-led Transpacific Partnership and sign deals with Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia and India. But Beijing can make these agreements costly and complicated for all involved, Taiwan's business elite is rushing to deepen ties with the mainland, and Ma's government can't escape China's lengthening shadow. He knows Taiwan needs options but can't get them.
In March, Burma's military strongmen announced they would permit open local elections for the first time in a generation. In April, the votes were cast, the opposition won a resounding victory, and Western governments moved quickly to ease sanctions. This resource-rich country is looking for new friends to ensure it has options.
In April, China's government approved construction of a refinery capable of handling unprecedented volumes of Venezuela's heavy-grade crude oil. This is great news for Hugo Chavez and Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA, which can now ease its reliance on U.S. refineries and diversify its list of customers. In years to come, Venezuela will have new commercial options.
These and a growing number of other countries recognize the urgent need to build a broader set of trade and security ties. Some, like Taiwan, won't succeed, but others will use this strategy to survive and thrive.
There's nothing new about the wisdom of diversified investment, but ongoing fundamental changes in the global order will ensure that a country's ability to avoid over-reliance for security and prosperity on a single dominant ally is about to become more important than at any time in decades. In years to come, every nation will have to create its own options, because there will be no single government or alliance of governments with the political and economic muscle to drive an international agenda.
Welcome to the G-Zero era, a world of every nation for itself. The United States will remain the sole superpower for the foreseeable future, but war-weary, under-employed, debt-plagued voters will reject an activist foreign policy. Europeans won't fill the vacuum; they're busy fighting over how best to save the eurozone. China and other emerging powers won't be much help. They face too many complex challenges at home to accept new risks and burdens abroad. This leadership void won't last forever, but the problem won't be solved this year or next.
Yet, some countries are better positioned than others to prosper in this decentralized global order. Options, the ability to "pivot" among multiple political and commercial partners, can ensure that a country is blessed with resilience as well as growth. In an increasingly crisis-prone world, resilience will be a crucial advantage.
Take Brazil, Latin America's largest consumer market. Its middle class is growing. It's an increasingly important energy exporter, but has a well-diversified economy and a growing self-confidence. But there's another crucial factor that adds resilience to Brazil's strength. Commercial relations with the United States will continue to profit both countries, but Brazil's imports from China have risen more than 12-fold since 2000, and its exports to China have grown even faster. In 2009, China became Brazil's largest trade partner, helping the country absorb the shock of the financial crisis and U.S. recession. Brazil has become a pivot state.
Add Turkey. NATO membership gives Turkey influence in Europe and America. The citizens of many Arab countries look to Turkey as a dynamic, modern Muslim state. The country is a bridge that connects Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union. Turkey's government is using all these advantages to build new political and economic partnerships.
Africa has become a pivot continent. For years, cash-strapped African states had to turn almost exclusively to the IMF, World Bank and Western governments for financial help. But in 2010 alone, China's trade with Africa expanded by more than 43 percent, and it replaced the U.S. as Africa's largest trade partner. Africa can now expect multinational and state-owned companies from developed and developing states to compete for access to African consumers and favorable investment terms.
But this is not simply a story of countries pivoting away from America or the West toward China. In fact, Asia is home to several pivot states that want to expand ties with the United States precisely to avoid too-deep a dependence on China and its markets. Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country and a well-diversified economy, maintains trade ties that are well balanced among China, the United States, Japan and Singapore. Vietnam draws most of its aid from Japan, its arms from Russia, its machinery from China, and its biggest export market from the United States. Traditional Pacific allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia -- and new friends like India -- are working to bolster ties with Washington as a hedge against China's bid for regional dominance.
Finally, as John Baird reminds us, not all pivot states are emerging markets. Canada remains vulnerable to an American slowdown -- but, thanks to his government's foresight, not as vulnerable as it used to be. The percentage of Canada's exports to countries other than the United States jumped from 18 percent in 2005 to more than 25 percent, and its western provinces now export more to Asia than to the United States. Today, Canada draws nearly 40 percent of its imports from countries other than the U.S. It exports large volumes of oil, natural gas, industrial machinery, auto parts, timber, and other products to many different consumer markets.
We're living in a crisis-prone moment. In just the past four years, the United States has endured a financial crisis and the deepest recession in 75 years. Europe still faces a fundamental threat to the single currency and to the broader European idea. Upheaval continues in North Africa and the Middle East. In a world in transition and turmoil, it helps to have as many partners as possible. That's the power of the pivot.
Joel D. Hirst: Venezuela's Unfair Elections
Andrew G. Lim: Will U.S. Investment Create a 'Ruby Republic' in Burma?
Rajan Menon: Whither Eurozone Austerity?
Here is General Bert Stubblebine's Estimate of Situation. His warning about the immanent threat to the entire northern hemisphere must be considered by anyone concerned about the immediate and long term: http://youtu.be/UJIEZvX4PZI
It takes an awful lack of imagination to imagine the world is going to continue in the future as it is today. In fact, that's about the only conclusion about the future that I am always happy to say is false.
The human trend has been for greater co-operation and more effective transnational structures, not fewer. At best this article should be seen as a warning against the prospects of isolationism - it's certainly not a description of a likely future based on analysis of existing evidence.
Premise is clearly false. The EU is not "every nation for itself". Just the opposite, Europe has merged.
Not only are the other ways to encourage freedom and democracy than via the rifle, almost all of those ways are both less expensive and more effective.
Cut the military budget in half; take 10% of what you cut and spend it on foreign aid and save the other 40%. Now I have personally solved half of America's economic and diplomatic problems!
But I don't agree with the premise. China's power is rising, but the Soviets fell. The US now has more power over the world than it during the Cold War, and greater control of world events. The Soviets protected our enemies, and that protection is gone. Iran has no superpower backer, it's military can be destroyed as easily as we did Iraq, twice. North Korea borders China and has its support, that is the only reason the North Korean regime persists. But I doubt that will last much longer, China will surely see North Korea is nothing but trouble to them, much as Israel is to the US.
Without a viable transport system, the nation’s arteries are severed.
Cut out this G-zero nonsense, and stop imagining it will be something we can ease ourselves through to reach some kind of post-industrialised utopia
Visualise the USA post oil, (and by default, post cheap food), add inevitable climate change, and the future becomes frighteningly different.
http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
Malthus and all of us were wrong about overpopulation. We imagined we would all be squeezed together fighting for food. But that won't happen. Instead prices will rise slowly, people will use less. That is what is happening now with oil. We won't run out, it will just get increasingly expensive. Some poor will suffer. But decreased nutrition leads to low birth rates, so population growth will end.
And electric cars have 100 mile range already. They are perfectly adequate for personal transportation, and they use far less energy. Not only can they be recharged from alternative energy, but the internal combustion is so inefficient (at most 25%) that you actually get 40% more miles if you burn that oil or nat gas to make electricity to charge an electric car - than you do if you burn it in the car!
Electric cars will change the world - by force, not out of choice. Gas cars will be too expensive for most people. Electric cars will make our cities clean - and quiet. Engine noise is what you hear. Even busy streets will become quiet, and a desirable place to live. Housing values will rise, people will move from suburbs to the clean, quiet cities.
Economics drive the world, and economics will force the change. Yes we are creating global warming - but guess what? we are also running out of fossil fuels that cause that warming. The latter will fix the former, hopefully in time.
And also - the Hunger Games premise will never happen. Governments would have no power in such times, it would be anarchy. North Korea maintains that only because China prevents refugees from leaving. People would cross borders to other nations, fascism could not exist. Governments of poor nations have less control over their population, not more.
When a nation has been built by the use of hydrocarbon energy, it cannot be held togeth with electricity.
But nevertheless, your most interesting (and self centred) response has confirmed my thinking on this problem
Then why is population growth fastest in Africa and India?
From the same country that still prances around the world acting like a superpower, when it is merely a sycophant of the US. The same country that made piracy a gov't institution and which continues to do so in its City. The same country that has looted more art from the rest of the world than the US could ever steal.
"Welcome to the G-Zero era, a world of every nation for itself." Says who? You?!?
Last time I checked there was a thing called the United Nations, and despite America's paranoia - and power to veto the UN - the rest of the world was willing to work with it.
America is the sole superpower?!? Oh please... How much is the CIA paying you, Poindexter?
America's financial crisis is it's own fault! Even so, Wall Street continues to resist regulation.
"Europe still faces a fundamental threat to the single currency and to the broader European idea?" Doesn't That threat comes from the "austerity" imposed by America's "World Bank" and IMF?
The bottom line? Nationalism has absolutely no place outside the Olympics or World Cup. There is only one race - the human race. There is only one viable form of government and that's called SOCIALISM. It's simple, care about your fellow man, protect the environment, control population growth, and TAX THE RICH UNTIL THEY F@#%ING BLEED!
But, to the extent it gets tossed around, YES, average Americans are globally rich and YES, they should expect to be taxed MORE and contribute MORE to global development.
Right now America spends a fortune on development, but sadly no matter how many missiles and rifles America invests it never manages to achieve its peace and democracy objectives. Perhaps wealthy Americans can give up some fighter jets and SUVs as part of the project? Perhaps invest in efficient transit instead of competing to exhaust non-renewable resource before our grandkids get to them?
Nah, let the poor suffer. As long as we have the rifles and missiles, let the billions starve outside our gates. Right??
Despite that from a business point of view it could sound reasonable, we can not forget that China's miracle is based on the West economical dynamics in the first place.
Besides, there are several institutional challenges China must overcome as a mean to sustain a sustainable economic performance in the long run.
A G-0 framework poses a lot of strategic concerns. However, this scheme if valid could be considered as another step in speeding up a worlwide globalization process.
Hernan L. Villagran (Chile)