politalX Politics Store - The Return of History and the End of Dreams
|
List Price: £12.99
Our Price: £9.09
Availability: Usually dispatched within 1 to 4 weeks
Manufacturer: Atlantic Books
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Binding: Hardcover
EAN: 9781843548119
ISBN: 1843548119
Label: Atlantic Books
Manufacturer: Atlantic Books
Number Of Pages: 160
Publication Date: 2008-05-01
Publisher: Atlantic Books
Studio: Atlantic Books
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: Good book; flawed conclusions
Comment:
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union led to many optimistic pronouncements on global politics: we had the peace dividend, the new world order and, in the title of Francis Fukuyama's book alluded to here, the end of history.
Maybe the big wake-up call from this reverie came on 11 September 2001, when the world realised that history red in tooth and claw still prowled the earth, but the asymmetric struggles those events represented are not the only ingredients of the dangerous geopolitical brew now cooking, and in this work Robert Kagan sounds a wake up call to the "democracies", summarising the potential perils of, amongst other things, the new-found power of Russia under Putin, of the growing economic clout of China, and the potential for mischief from the direction of India, also growing in influence within the international community.
Much of Kagan's presentation is irrefutable: Russia is able to intimidate other nations through its control of huge amounts of oil and gas, and its oligarchs are gobbling up energy companies in the West; China's voice in numerous international bodies does perpetuate any number of unsavoury regimes, from nearby Myanmar to Zimbabwe, and its holdings of US dollars have destabilising potential; India does indeed vacillate between blocs, apparently so as to play them off against each other.
But ultimately I couldn't help feeling that maybe in Kagan's conclusions regarding alliances of democracies against the "anti-democracies" had a little too much of the neocon Manifest Destiny message about it, and comes across as a little too cut and dried and unnuanced. It brought to mind the warnings of Japanese world domination by Paul Kennedy a couple of decades or so ago. Kennedy, like Kagan, has impeccable intellectual credentials, but overextrapolated.
So, agreed, there are some nasty forces at play in the world; they may possibly coalesce into a force that consumes capitalism as we know it; therefore be watchful, but rattling sabres right now may lead to nothing less than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Baby it's a Wild World
Comment: This far-sighted examination of global politics identifies a new axis of evil rising in opposition to the West, based on rejection of democracy and the rule of law. Kagan predicts the return of nationalism and confrontation between the forces of democracy and autocracy. He believes that a nation's type of government instead of its culture, religion or geographic location will determine its global alignment. While not dismissing the terrorist threat, he does not consider it a primary menace as history proves that modernity has never lost against the traditionalism represented by the Islamists. That is true, but acts of terror might have unintended consequences in the development of state structures & the formation of alliances.
It's irresistible to compare Kagan's analysis with Margaret Thatcher's 2002 book Statecraft, in which she assessed the state of the globe and possible future trajectories. In chapters 3 and 4 Thatcher looks at Russia and China and India. Rogue states, religion and terrorism are discussed in chapter 6 with the emphasis on North Korea, Islam, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran. Another relevant work, The New Cold War by Edward Lucas, corroborates Kagan's view. Russia is pursuing policies detrimental to its own citizens, neighboring states and the world at large. Lucas scrutinizes the ruling elite which emerged from the ranks of the old KGB. This dominant class harbors resentment against the West as a whole in an interesting parallel to the hostility of the Brussels Eurocracy towards the USA and Israel. The Russian government now openly competes with the West on the economic and political fronts.
Freedom of expression and the rule of law exist in name only; the state controls all the economic activity, political institutions and media that matter. Putin's term "managed" or "sovereign" democracy really means a revived Czarism. Despite Russia's demographic implosion, pervasive corruption and widespread lawlessness, it wages a new cold war through criminal actions against Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Georgia and the UK (in the Litvinenko case) and by supplying arms to rogue states Iran and Syria and their terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Putin gang eagerly befriends all enemies of the West and it's becoming clear that Russia seeks an alliance with the Islamic world and a partial restoration of the Warsaw Pact through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) of which China is a member. The Kremlin ignores the long-term threat from China despite the particularly drastic demographic and infrastructural implosion in Russia's Far East. Russia's rejection of Western values promises to make it more barbaric internally and considerably more dangerous on the global stage. One may confidently expect it to supply Iran with nuclear weapons technology and to support every oppressive regime that pollutes the planet.
It is pursuing an energy policy aimed at squeezing the liberal democracies through a gas cartel. An enlarged SCO that includes Iran, other Middle Eastern and African states like Libya and Sudan, plus Venezuela is a real possibility. The SCO will lock the Turkic speaking states of Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (plus Persian Tajikistan) firmly in the bear's embrace. The future role of Turkey will be crucial; it remains to be seen how its current pro-religious government will adapt its foreign policy in response to the country's certain exclusion from the European inner core. Economic ties to Europe are of course assured but it might significantly upgrade relations with the Central Asian states.
Kagan considers closer ties between the USA, India and Japan more important than a larger NATO role. Affirming the ideal expressed by Anne Bayefsky amongst others, Kagan calls for an international organization of democratic states. Perhaps he underestimates the ambition of the Brussels Eurocracy and its resentment of Israel and the US. Prospects for the closer union of a core group that includes Germany, France, the Benelux countries, Italy, Spain and a few others look promising. Such a restructuring could be triggered by various factors such as the refusal of current member states to relinquish further sovereignty, severe economic problems or security concerns caused by terrorism or the behavior of Russia. Such a central Superstate will undoubtedly dictate the foreign policy of all Europe. By remaining a member, the UK will diminish the Anglosphere. A US alliance with India and Japan, on the other hand, might formidably enhance its influence and assure its strategic advantage of continued dominance over three of the world's oceans.
Isolationism is not an option anymore. Kagan's conclusions are markedly distinguished from those disproved notions of the 90s - Fukuyama's fatuous futurology and Huntington's culturally based theory. The paranoid and the resentful that demonized the "Hyperpower" will look back on the era of American "hegemony" with yearning and remorse once the dynamics of the new multipolar world become clear. How comfortable the decade of the Clintons now appears in the light of contemporary trends. Alarming as it may be, Kagan's message is the right medicine for identifying the formidable challenges of the future.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Worst of all possible worlds?
Comment: This is a perceptive and far-sighted examination on the state of global politics as the decade approaches its end, in the form of an extended essay. A new axis of evil is rising in opposition to the West, one not guided by a shared ideology except in so far as hostility to the rule of law and democracy might be considered ideological. Kagan predicts that the future will see the return of nationalism, growing tensions and confrontation between the forces of democracy and autocracy. What matters is a nation's nature of government, he observes, not its culture, religion or geographic location; and this will determine its international alignment. While not dismissing the terrorist threat, he does not consider it a primary menace as history proves that modernity has never lost against the traditionalism represented by the Islamists. True, but terrorism might have unintended consequences in the formation of alliances and the development of state structures.
It is interesting to compare Kagan's analysis with Margaret Thatcher's Statecraft, published in 2002, in which she assessed the state of the world and possible future trajectories. In chapters 3 and 4 of her book Thatcher looks at Russia and the Asian Giants China (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) and India. Rogue states, religion and terrorism are discussed in chapter 6, with particular reference to North Korea, Islam, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Iran. Another must-read: The New Cold War by Edward Lucas, already confirms Kagan's view. Russia is pursuing policies that threaten its own citizens, neighboring states and the world at large. Lucas takes a hard look at the ruling elite which emerged almost entirely from the ranks of the old KGB. This dominant class harbors resentment against the West as a whole in an interesting parallel to the hostility of the Brussels Eurocracy towards the USA and Israel. The Russian government now openly competes with the West on the economic and political fronts.
Freedom of expression and the rule of law exist in name only; the state controls all the economic activity, political institutions and media that matter. Putin's term "managed" or "sovereign" democracy really means a malignant form of Czarism. Despite Russia's demographic implosion, pervasive corruption and widespread lawlessness, a new cold war is being waged. Not only has the country displayed thuggish behavior against Ukraine, Moldova, Estonia, Georgia and the UK in the Litvinenko case, it is supplying arms to rogue states Iran and Syria and their terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. Anna Politkovskaya's A Russian Diary: A Journalist's Final Account of Life, Corruption, and Death in Putin's Russia exposes the mentality and incompetence of the ruling class.
The geopolitical implications are staggering, as the Putin gang eagerly befriends all enemies of the West. Evidence is accumulating that Russia seeks an alliance with the Islamic world and a partial restoration of the Soviet Empire through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) of which China is a member. The Kremlin ignores the long-term threat from China despite the particularly drastic demographic and infrastructural implosion in Russia's Far East. Whatever other evils follow from Russia's abandonment of Western values, it is sure to become a more barbaric society for its citizens and a considerably more dangerous international player. One may confidently expect it to supply Iran with nuclear weapons technology and to support every loathsome thugocracy that defiles the planet.
Russia is pursuing an energy policy aimed at strangling the liberal democracies by e.g. establishing a gas cartel. An expanded SCO that includes Iran, other Middle Eastern and African states like Libya and Sudan, plus Venezuela is a real possibility. Kagan correctly identifies it as a revived Warsaw Pact. The SCO will lock the Turkic speaking states of Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (plus Persian Tajikistan) firmly in the bear's embrace. The future role of Turkey will be crucial; it remains to be seen how its current pro-religious government will adapt its foreign policy as reaction to the country's certain exclusion from the European inner core. Economic ties to Europe are of course assured but the country might significantly upgrade relations with the Central Asian states and the SCO.
Kagan foresees closer future ties between the USA, India and Japan, rather than a larger role for NATO. Echoing the idea expressed in The UN and Beyond: United Democratic Nations (edited by Anne Bayefsky), Kagan proposes the same type of international organization consisting of democratic states co-coordinating their policies. Perhaps he underestimates the ambition of the Brussels Eurocracy and its resentment of the US. The likelihood of all 27 states uniting is slim, but prospects for closer union of a core group including Germany, France, the Benelux countries, Italy, Spain and a few others are bright. Such a restructuring could be triggered by many factors like the refusal of current member states to relinquish further sovereignty, economic problems or security concerns. While retaining nominal autonomy, the other countries of Europe will undoubtedly accept the Superstate's foreign policy. The loss of the UK will diminish the Anglosphere whilst an alliance with India and Japan might formidably enhance its influence and assure its strategic advantage of continued dominance over three of the world's oceans.
One fact is certain: the USA follows the siren calls of isolationism at its great peril. And the paranoids that tried to demonize the "Hyperpower" will look back on the period of American "hegemony" with affection and nostalgia once the dynamics of the new multipolar world become clear. What distinguishes Kagan's conclusions from the discredited popular notions of the 90s - Fukuyama's fatuous futurology and Huntington's culturally based theory - is that elements of it have already begun to unfold. How comfortable the decade of the Clintons now seems in comparison to contemporary trends. Kagan's book is alarming and unsettling but a much needed tonic for identifying, and preparing for, the coming challenges.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Very good challenge to "clash of civilizations" theory
Comment: Kagan argues that the world is not divided by religion or race as Samuel Huntingdon's 'clash of civilizations' theory suggests and the modern trouble with Islam/West seems to vindicate. Rather he argues the real division in modern geopolitics is between democracies and autocracies, with places like the USA, Europe and Japan on one side, and countries like China, Russia and Iran on the other. As he explicitly states in the book, "But in today's world, a nation's form of government, not its `civilization' or its geographic location, maybe the best predictor of its geopolitical alignment". For example, China and Japan may have a shared Asian culture, but one is a democracy and the other is an autocracy, therefore, Japan will have more in common with another democracy, even if it is not culturally similar, that it will with China.
He argues that the autocracies are dangerous, not just because of their oppressive internal policies, but because they typically are experiencing rapid economic growth. This allows them to fund a more powerful and threatening military with which to threaten democracies: Russia's booming oil wealth has seen it pick fights with the EU and send nuclear bombers on training runs on Western cities, and China makes increasingly murderous demands on Taiwain. Also their economic success in the absence of democracy could lead other countries to emulate their autocratic rule as a means of imitating their success, and there are the beginnings of this in places like Venezuela.
Kagan acknowledges that one autocracy can have friction with another autocracy: for example, Russia and China may distrust each other over their mutual ambitions in Siberia. He also acknowledges that democracies can have friction with each other: for example, the bitter exchanges between the US and France on the eve of the Iraq war. However, Kagan's key point is that when push comes to shove, a democracy will always side with a democracy in conflict with an autocracy, and an autocracy will always side with an autocracy in a conflict with a democracy.
Perhaps most controversially, Kagan accuse the UN of sheltering autocracies under the guise of sovereignty. Also, China and Russia are permanent Security Council members with the veto, and thus can protect other client autocracies like Sudan and Turkmenistan from UN action. To solve this, Kagan advocates setting up a "League of Democracies", where democratic countries can co-ordinate policies for dealing with autocracies that compliment the UN, but which in fact will probably be an alternative to it. He claims the autocracies have already set up a "League of Autocracies" under the guise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which in his eyes is nothing more a Warsaw Pact for the 21st century which needs to be countered.
The book is not without weaknesses. Firstly, Kagan's plan for a League of Democracies is unconvincing on two levels. Firstly, it is hard to see how such a structure could be set up without it being seen as an alternative to the UN rather than a compliment. Secondly, democratic countries often have rivalries and friction with each other, for example France and America have a mutual hostility, and bitter memories of their clashes before the Iraq war. Kagan seems to dismiss these as trivial rivalries, but it is hard to see how such clashes would be avoided within his League of Democracies. Kagan's dismissive claim that democracies will overcome these due to greater fears of the autocracies are, in my view, unconvincing.
All in all, the book is an interesting overview of a reality that undoubtedly puzzles some political thinkers, and is well worth a read.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Poorly-written, historically weak, and worst of all, yet more warmongering!
Comment: Robert Kagan worked in the US State Department from 1984 to 1998, and was a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). He has written this little book in reply to Francis Fukuyama, also of the State Department and of PNAC, who in 1992 wrote `The End Of History And The Last Man'.
This book may be Kagan's application for the post of foreign policy advisor to Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. Among other brilliant ideas, McCain wants Britain to invade Sudan, just like we did in the 1880s. Remember what happened to General Gordon? And to the government that sent him?
Kagan wants whatever he calls democracies to unite against what he calls autocracies, especially China and Russia. But actually he wants empires, US and EU alike, to unite against national sovereignty.
He defines democracy as having competitive elections. But in the USA, the electoral choice is between two wings of the Property Party, two multi-millionaires, equally pro-capital, equally pro-empire (witness Obama's pledges, like McCain's, to back whatever the Israeli state does, to eliminate the so-called threat from Iran and to tighten the USA's illegal blockade of Cuba). Are Russia's elections, or Iran's, or Venezuela's, significantly less democratic that the USA's? Yet Kagan calls these countries autocracies.
Kagan notes that the American people want the USA to play a less prominent world role, but he doesn't let that stop him calling for more globalisation, more capitalism. But the peoples of the world need to determine their own countries' futures, free from outside interference.
He approvingly quotes Blair's adviser Robert Cooper, who says that the EU is a `cooperative empire ... dedicated to liberty and democracy' - so free and so democratic that it refuses its citizens a vote on its treaties. Not surprising, given that Cooper believes, "The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards."
Remember that in 1914, Germany's franchise was wider than Britain's, yet the British and US states called the First World War a war for democracy against German autocracy. Kagan, as a servant of his empire, says that it must fight and defeat the `autocracies' - he is just another warmonger. Here he continues his ten-year campaign for attacking Iraq, claiming that Iraq may join a bloc of pro-US democracies in the Middle East. The end of dreams?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
