In this new globalizing world, many Americans are scared that their time of dominance has ended. Both Kishore Mahbubani and Tony Judt agree on this. The Rise of the Rest seems imminent. In Mr. Judt’s article, What Have We Learned, if Anything, he critiques the West for, on the most basic level, forgetting the lessons of the twentieth century. In The Case Against the West, Mr. Mahbubani, however, attacks the West, claiming that it is both an incompetent player in global affairs and the cause of many—the way he puts it, it seems to be all—of the world’s problems.
As an American, it is hard to read Mr. Mahbubani’s article and not get angry. In the beginning, he asserts that “the West assumes that it is the source of the solutions to the world’s key problems. In fact, however, the West is also a major source of these problems” by its mishandling of global affairs, some of his examples being the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, and Israel, to be precise), global warming, and the economic crisis. He, then, asserts that Asia will replace the US as the head of the world (but then contradicts himself to say that Asia merely wants to be partners with the West, not overtake them, but that is neither here nor there.)
I have a few problems with this article. The first is the claim that China has become a “‘responsible stakeholder’ in the international system.” For an incredibly long time, China has been artificially depreciating its currency in order to make its exports more competitive on a global market. This comes as an advantage for China at the cost of, well, everyone else. Similarly, when Mr. Mahbubani claims that “the demise of a round table negotiation, the Doha Round,” is because of the West’s mismanagement of worldly affairs, he conviently overlooks the fact that China has also played its part in the demise. Thus, I find his claim that China has become a responsible stakeholder quite misleading.
My second issue with Mr. Mahbubani is his blatant anti-American, pro-Asian bias. Yes, everyone has their opinion, and Mr. Mahbubani should be allowed to express his. However, I find that this prejudice creates a misleading argument, one of the few examples being the one above.
My final issue is simply that he blames global problems almost solely on the West. Yes, America has surely messed some things up. Vietnam, Iraq, torture at Guantanamo, I get it. We have done some bad things. But to place the blame for all of the world’s problems on the US seems absurd for two reasons. 1. We can only do so much. We facilitate peace talks. We try. But when it comes down to it, the people of that region are the ones who have to put the suggestions of the peace talks into action. Not us. 2. Mr. Mahbubani claims that Asia is going to dominate the world and thus, take over the responsibilities of the West as the global mediator. Would China be able to settle the conflict in Palestine more effectively than the US?
Mr. Judt’s article, on the other hand, I find to be particularly accurate. His question of “What have we learned, if anything?” I believe is an important one to ask. I would agree with Mr. Judt that we have not learned much from the twentieth century. This is evident in our glorification of war and criticism of pacifism as a cowardly option. The US now uses torture, something, as Mr. Judt points out, once reserved solely for dictatorships like Soviet Russia. Finally, there is an anti-Islam wave sweeping through the nation, (of course, it has not hit everyone). The fairly recent Qur’an burnings make this abundantly clear. From all of these points, especially the last two, I would conclude the same things that Mr. Judt does. Americans have forgotten (or never learned) both the horrors of war and the horrible things that happen when you dehumanize your enemy.
