A few weeks ago, I wrote about how a shift is taking place with the world as we know it, a shift in the global zeitgeist - the dominant belief or idea or psychological state - that we will only truly appreciate in hindsight.
Here is one example of the driving force for the transformation that the world is experiencing.
If the post-World War II was dominated and defined by America, post-war America was shaped by what's called the Baby Boomer generation. In demographic terms, the 76 million Americans who were born between 1946 and 1964 still represents the largest "generation" in demographics. Their parents were the children of the Depression-era who were raised in the farms and small towns amidst economic hardship but also with great resilience and hope. They were the ones who followed their own parents as they fled out of their crumbling farms into the cities, out of the industrial belt and on to new opportunities in California and the West.
The children of the Depression came of age in World War II and with the expanded educational opportunities of the New Deal and the GI Bill eventually became known as "the greatest generation" who built that golden-age of US economic, political and scientific power in the post war era.
And they gave birth to the Baby Boomer generation - a golden generation who rode the wave of peace and prosperity, blessed with material abundance and ever improving standard of living. They saw from the new inter-state highways, from the TVs in their living room, air travel, higher education, gender equality and the conquest of space a world of limitless horizon for their generation. Their live experiences compared to their parents' are like night-and-day. In the 60s, the Baby Boomers saw themselves to be revolutionaries and vanguards of a new consciousness to change the world. Much of the rest of society at the time saw only the excesses and self-indulgence of their adolesence. But from within that also rose a remarkable generation that turned rebellion into creativity and compassion. They gave us the computer age, biotechnology and the information revolution. And from within their search for self-actualization, they gave us global NGOs, alternative energy and a new respect for nature.
True enough, they were by virtue of number, wealth, health, peace and lifestyle the most influential generation in modern US history. And their influence are felt all over the world.
They also spawn the glorious age of consumerism that lasted roughly within the 30 years from 1978 to 2009. In 1978, the Baby Boomers were between 15 and 35 years old (25 +/- 10 years). The oil shocks of 1973-74 and again in 1979 hit them hard, and so did the double-dip recessions of 1979-80 and 1982. But you cannot escape demographics, and true enough there was a whole enormous numbers of people who needed to start new households, buy new cars, homes, appliances and services. The flood of people into their productive years did not go unnoticed either because the US economy went into a remarkable period of steady growth.
You would notice that 1978 coincided with China's opening and reform policy. In fact, on hindsight, China was extremely fortunate in its timing which positioned it perfectly for an consumption-fueled export-led economic boom. When the US Baby Boomers spent, those money often ended up in China. I focused on the US, but to be perfectly clear there were similar post-war demographic booms in Europe and Asia as well. Every place on earth affected by World War II - Europe, Japan and Asia - all had their own baby boomer generation.
The steady and uninterrupted pace of growth continued unabated even when the Baby Boomer workforce began to taper off from 2000 onwards (as the first of them hit 55 and they began to retire), because they were being enticed to switch to an (even) bigger home, buy another car and generally spend more money on credit.
But this merely delayed the inevitable. Rather than being 25 +/- 10 years old as in 1978, by 2009 the Baby Boomers are now between 55 +/- 10 years old. As we all know, the lifestyles and spending pattern of 55 year olds are very different from 25 year olds. More importantly, the psychology pattern and risk-appetite for the Baby Boomers are now very different from what the whole world have been assuming and operated on for the last 30 years.
The current recession might just be one of the many consequences of the long term disruption resulting from this shift in energy, appetite and priorities of this most influential group in global economic demographics. These disruptions to long standing economic patterns and assumptions has to happen one way or the other. Just think about it. The Baby Boomers are once again influencing the world in ways that we must first learn to understand before we can even get to know the new world that is emerging right at this moment.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Inclusive China
This will be a short post.
A 19 year old teenager is selected into the China Man Volleyball Team. What makes this newsworthy? Why I want to share this news. He happens to be of Sino-African parentage with prominent African physical attribute.
The selection is a sign of inclusiveness based on merit and not color. This is to be congratulated. Whilst it is still a long way to emulate the American in having the first bi-racial or the first post racial President, China is showing progress.
首位黑人选手入选国家队 父为南非人母为杭州人2009-04-14 01:27:00 来源: 半岛晨报-海力网(大连) 作者：韦伯宁
北京时间4月13日，中国排协公布了男排国家队2009年集训名单。其中，现效力于浙江利群的19岁小将丁慧引起众人关注，因为皮肤黝黑的他是一名中非混血儿，他也成为了中国国字号球队历史上首位“黑人”选手。 丁慧出自一个单亲家庭，他的父亲是南非人，母亲是杭州人。他自幼随母亲入中国国籍并一直生活在杭州。黑皮肤、厚嘴唇、大白牙是丁慧的标志形象，但他一口流利的普通话甚至杭州话，会让刚接触他的人大吃一惊。丁慧10岁就被送到当地的体校接受训练，2003年，身体条件和竞技水平都相当出色的他入选了浙江青年队，2007年，丁慧入选U19国青队，并在世青赛上作为主力帮助球队获得了亚军这一历史最佳成绩。在那场世青赛上，不少华侨到场加油助威，观众们对阵容中出现的黑色身影很感兴趣，很多人疑惑：男排什么时候跟日本足球学了？于是向教练组打听，教练们耐心介绍后，华侨们更使劲地为小丁加油。当时中国男排主教练周建安就说：“我一直在关注这名球员，他潜力非常大素质很不错，但现在岁数还小，北京奥运会还用不上。”北京奥运会后，主教练周建安确定第一批集训名单时首先就想到了丁慧。到2012年伦敦奥运会，正是丁慧成长为国家队主力的时候。 (本文来源：半岛晨报-海力网 作者：韦伯宁)
A 19 year old teenager is selected into the China Man Volleyball Team. What makes this newsworthy? Why I want to share this news. He happens to be of Sino-African parentage with prominent African physical attribute.
The selection is a sign of inclusiveness based on merit and not color. This is to be congratulated. Whilst it is still a long way to emulate the American in having the first bi-racial or the first post racial President, China is showing progress.
首位黑人选手入选国家队 父为南非人母为杭州人2009-04-14 01:27:00 来源: 半岛晨报-海力网(大连) 作者：韦伯宁
北京时间4月13日，中国排协公布了男排国家队2009年集训名单。其中，现效力于浙江利群的19岁小将丁慧引起众人关注，因为皮肤黝黑的他是一名中非混血儿，他也成为了中国国字号球队历史上首位“黑人”选手。 丁慧出自一个单亲家庭，他的父亲是南非人，母亲是杭州人。他自幼随母亲入中国国籍并一直生活在杭州。黑皮肤、厚嘴唇、大白牙是丁慧的标志形象，但他一口流利的普通话甚至杭州话，会让刚接触他的人大吃一惊。丁慧10岁就被送到当地的体校接受训练，2003年，身体条件和竞技水平都相当出色的他入选了浙江青年队，2007年，丁慧入选U19国青队，并在世青赛上作为主力帮助球队获得了亚军这一历史最佳成绩。在那场世青赛上，不少华侨到场加油助威，观众们对阵容中出现的黑色身影很感兴趣，很多人疑惑：男排什么时候跟日本足球学了？于是向教练组打听，教练们耐心介绍后，华侨们更使劲地为小丁加油。当时中国男排主教练周建安就说：“我一直在关注这名球员，他潜力非常大素质很不错，但现在岁数还小，北京奥运会还用不上。”北京奥运会后，主教练周建安确定第一批集训名单时首先就想到了丁慧。到2012年伦敦奥运会，正是丁慧成长为国家队主力的时候。 (本文来源：半岛晨报-海力网 作者：韦伯宁)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
ASEAN's Generation Gap - Stuck With Our Parent's Leaders?
Just a short post reflecting on a web-chat I had with my good friend Nasri about the developments in Thailand. I was reflecting that although I liked him PM Abhisit's political life is - sadly - numbered because historically in Thailand when protests turn violent, that crosses the line that makes the status quo unteneble. My thesis is that either the palace will step in, or there would be a deal for the opposition to step in, or the Prime Minister would be removed in a face-saving deal that preserves the interests of the powers-that-be. My friend's view is that would be a shame because his colleagues in the foreign ministry who have dealt with Abhisit up-close found him "damn impressive...and he was a breath of fresh air for ASEAN". I was struck by that second point.
The leaders of ASEAN are increasingly disconnected with the demography of ASEAN nations. In 2000, the median age in ASEAN was 23.9 years old, meaning 50% of the population was below the age of 23.9. This ranges from a little less than 18 years in Cambodia and East Timor to Singapore which at median age of 34.5 had the "oldest" population. The rest of the original ASEAN 6: Malaysia is 23.3, Brunei is 25.7, Indonesia 24.6, Thailand 27.5, Vietnam 23.1 and the Philippines 20.9.
On the otherhand, in terms of age (and probably in world view and outlook) ASEAN leaders are invariably one - or even two - generations removed from the majority of their population. Thailand's Abhisit is by far the youngest at 44. The Sultan of Brunei is 63. Singapore's PM Lee Hsien Loong is 57. Malaysia's new PM Najib is 55. Indonesia's President Yodhuyono is 59. President Gloria M.Arroyo is 62.
In terms of the gap between median age (2000 figures) and the age of the leaders of the original ASEAN 6, the lowest is Thailand at 16.5 years and the highest is Philippines at 41 years. The rest from lowest to highest: Singapore about 22.5, Malaysia is about 32, Indonesia is around 34 and Brunei around 37.
Using the rule of thumb of 25 years for every "generation", ASEAN leaders are therefore approximately 1.5 generations older than their people as a whole. Perhaps this is not a topic to apply any logic, but I would consider any gap beyond one-generation older than the median age to risk a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the population; both in life-experience, priorities but more fundamentally in their respective risk-horizons.
Granted that it would make sense for people in national leadership to have sufficient experience and gravitas to leaven even the best minds and talents; and granted that Asian societies have a reverence for seniority; and granted that it takes years in any system to reach the top - be it in government, business or in society as a whole; but to be more than a whole generation older than the average age of the entire population could not be a very healthy sign for any society. What more for societies that managed to compress (and are still compressing) perhaps a century of change into one or two generations.
One could correctly argue that changes are only superficial. Beneath the glitter on the surfact, the people themselves have not changed as much: that age-old conflicts, dramas and demons still unresolved and would therefore need to be managed by those who knows them best. These people may not know much about the internet or finance but they "know" nationalism, racial politics and exercise of power.
Nonetheless, I would still conclude that those skills while useful are backward looking and do not move society forward. Their people will be looking - nay, they will demand leadership and new ideas both of themselves as well as to define their common purpose. And more and more, those in their 20s and 30s will not simply inherit their parent's leaders. Within the next 10 years, I see this realignment between generations (and also between the old power elites and the new power structures) to be a relentless and continuing challenge for every ASEAN country.
Ironically, Abhitsit not withstanding his age happens to be with the old power structures. His predictament unfortunately is due not to his age, politics or policies - its simply one of timing. His Democratic Party is well-respected but often a pawn at the mercy of other more powerful political forces/personalities in Thailand in need for a "legitimate" face. This time is probably no different.
My personal dealings with Abhisit was limited to little more than showing him the bathroom. In 2003, I helped organize a small conference in Kuala Lumpur where Abhisit was invited to speak. And because he was on a flying visit from Bangkok to speak at the conference, I asked Firdaus one of the helpers at the conference to personally see to his journey from KLIA to the Mandarin Oriental and back to the airport. He spoke - not to memorably - and as he was leaving for the airport, Firdaus asked if he minded taking the LRT and the KLIA express to the airport because it had been raining cats and dogs and when that happens the KL traffic became unmoving. Being a polite and unaffected politician, he quickly agreed. And then he asked me to show him where the bathroom was and so I did. Not to be outdone by this anecdote, Nasri says he had a similar bathroom directing experience - his with the former Japanese PM Mori.
The leaders of ASEAN are increasingly disconnected with the demography of ASEAN nations. In 2000, the median age in ASEAN was 23.9 years old, meaning 50% of the population was below the age of 23.9. This ranges from a little less than 18 years in Cambodia and East Timor to Singapore which at median age of 34.5 had the "oldest" population. The rest of the original ASEAN 6: Malaysia is 23.3, Brunei is 25.7, Indonesia 24.6, Thailand 27.5, Vietnam 23.1 and the Philippines 20.9.
On the otherhand, in terms of age (and probably in world view and outlook) ASEAN leaders are invariably one - or even two - generations removed from the majority of their population. Thailand's Abhisit is by far the youngest at 44. The Sultan of Brunei is 63. Singapore's PM Lee Hsien Loong is 57. Malaysia's new PM Najib is 55. Indonesia's President Yodhuyono is 59. President Gloria M.Arroyo is 62.
In terms of the gap between median age (2000 figures) and the age of the leaders of the original ASEAN 6, the lowest is Thailand at 16.5 years and the highest is Philippines at 41 years. The rest from lowest to highest: Singapore about 22.5, Malaysia is about 32, Indonesia is around 34 and Brunei around 37.
Using the rule of thumb of 25 years for every "generation", ASEAN leaders are therefore approximately 1.5 generations older than their people as a whole. Perhaps this is not a topic to apply any logic, but I would consider any gap beyond one-generation older than the median age to risk a fundamental disconnect with the rest of the population; both in life-experience, priorities but more fundamentally in their respective risk-horizons.
Granted that it would make sense for people in national leadership to have sufficient experience and gravitas to leaven even the best minds and talents; and granted that Asian societies have a reverence for seniority; and granted that it takes years in any system to reach the top - be it in government, business or in society as a whole; but to be more than a whole generation older than the average age of the entire population could not be a very healthy sign for any society. What more for societies that managed to compress (and are still compressing) perhaps a century of change into one or two generations.
One could correctly argue that changes are only superficial. Beneath the glitter on the surfact, the people themselves have not changed as much: that age-old conflicts, dramas and demons still unresolved and would therefore need to be managed by those who knows them best. These people may not know much about the internet or finance but they "know" nationalism, racial politics and exercise of power.
Nonetheless, I would still conclude that those skills while useful are backward looking and do not move society forward. Their people will be looking - nay, they will demand leadership and new ideas both of themselves as well as to define their common purpose. And more and more, those in their 20s and 30s will not simply inherit their parent's leaders. Within the next 10 years, I see this realignment between generations (and also between the old power elites and the new power structures) to be a relentless and continuing challenge for every ASEAN country.
Ironically, Abhitsit not withstanding his age happens to be with the old power structures. His predictament unfortunately is due not to his age, politics or policies - its simply one of timing. His Democratic Party is well-respected but often a pawn at the mercy of other more powerful political forces/personalities in Thailand in need for a "legitimate" face. This time is probably no different.
My personal dealings with Abhisit was limited to little more than showing him the bathroom. In 2003, I helped organize a small conference in Kuala Lumpur where Abhisit was invited to speak. And because he was on a flying visit from Bangkok to speak at the conference, I asked Firdaus one of the helpers at the conference to personally see to his journey from KLIA to the Mandarin Oriental and back to the airport. He spoke - not to memorably - and as he was leaving for the airport, Firdaus asked if he minded taking the LRT and the KLIA express to the airport because it had been raining cats and dogs and when that happens the KL traffic became unmoving. Being a polite and unaffected politician, he quickly agreed. And then he asked me to show him where the bathroom was and so I did. Not to be outdone by this anecdote, Nasri says he had a similar bathroom directing experience - his with the former Japanese PM Mori.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The world will be what you make of it
I have a confession to make. I simply cannot wait for President Obama's memoires, the first of which is due in the shops for Christmas 2017 or summer 2018. And I hope he will keep writing a book every few years. We all had a preview this past week, as I took pleasure in reading some of the transcripts of Obama's exchanges with students and journalists during the G20, NATO, EU-US summits as well as visit to Turkey and Iraq. History will take many years to decide (and revise its opinion of) what to make of what he said. But of my many years as a news and currrent affairs junkie, rarely have I encountered more intelligent, thoughtful and educational remarks. His speeches are good but his impromptu responses can only be described as masterful. Reading them I felt like a humble student. I hope you don't mind me posting some of the passages that made me sit up and read again:
April 2, 2009, London, On whether it is unwieldy to get a consensus from so many countries: "..... there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. "Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade." Well, if there's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's a -- that's an easier negotiation. (Laughter.) But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in. And so that's not a loss for America; it's an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India -- these are all countries on the move. And that's good. That means there are millions of people -- billions of people -- who are working their way out of poverty. And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world. And that's the kind of leadership we need to show -- one that helps guide that process of orderly integration without taking our eyes off the fact that it's only as good as the benefits of individual families, individual children: Is it giving them more opportunity; is it giving them a better life? If we judge ourselves by those standards, then I think America can continue to show leadership for a very long time.
April 2, 2009, London, On how local political considerations affect decisions to tackle global economic crisis: "..... In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States.... And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better..... But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world; that if we neglect or abandon those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us; that unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who's going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda. So if I'm effective as America's President right now, part of that effectiveness involves holding a -- providing Americans insight into how their self-interest is tied up with yours. And that's an ongoing project because it's not always obvious."
April 2, 2009, London, on how he intends for US leadership to be different: "...we exercise our leadership best when we are listening; when we recognize that the world is a complicated place and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries; when we lead by example; when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer, but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer."
April 8, 2009, Istanbul, in Obama's opening remarks to Turkish students: "....Simple exchanges can break down walls between us, for when people come together and speak to one another and share a common experience, then their common humanity is revealed. We are reminded that we're joined together by our pursuit of a life that's productive and purposeful, and when that happens mistrust begins to fade and our smaller differences no longer overshadow the things that we share. And that's where progress begins.....So to all of you, I want you to know that the world will be what you make of it. You can choose to build new bridges instead of building new walls. You can choose to put aside longstanding divisions in pursuit of lasting peace.
April 8, 2009, Istanbul, on whether he is trying to do the impossible:....Well, some people say that maybe I'm being too idealistic. I made a speech in Prague about reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and some people said, ah, that will never happen. And some people have said, why are you discussing the Middle East when it's not going to be possible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to come together? Or, why are you reaching out to the Iranians, because the U.S. and Iran can never agree on anything?
My attitude is, is that all these things are hard. I mean, I'm not naïve. If it was easy, it would have already been done. Somebody else would have done it. But if we don't try, if we don't reach high, then we won't make any progress. And I think that there's a lot of progress that can be made.
And as I said in my opening remarks, I think the most important thing to start with is dialogue. When you have a chance to meet people from other cultures and other countries, and you listen to them and you find out that, even though you may speak a different language or you may have a different religious faith, it turns out that you care about your family, you have your same hopes about being able to have a career that is useful to the society, you hope that you can raise a family of your own, and that your children will be healthy and have a good education -- that all those things that human beings all around the world share are more important than the things that are different.
And so that is a very important place to start. And that's where young people can be very helpful, because I think old people, we get into habits and we become suspicious and we carry grudges. Right? You know, it was interesting when I met with President Medvedev of Russia and we actually had a very good dialogue, and we were -- we spoke about the fact that although both of us were born during the Cold War, we came of age after the Cold War had already begun to decline, which means we have a slightly different attitude than somebody who was seeing Russia only as the Soviet Union -- only as an enemy or who saw America only as an enemy. So young people, they can get rid of some of the old baggage and the old suspicions, and I think that's very important. But understanding alone is not enough. Then you -- we actually have to do the work."
April 8, 2009, Istanbul, on peace in the Middle-East: "I have to believe that the mothers of Palestinians and the mothers of Israelis hope the same thing for their children. They want them not to be vulnerable to violence. They don't want, when their child gets on a bus, to worry that that bus might explode. They don't want their child to have to suffer indignities because of who they are. And so sometimes I think that if you just put the mothers in charge for a while, that things would get resolved.
And it's that spirit of thinking about the future and not the past that I just talked about earlier that I think could help advance the peace process, because if you look at the situation there, over time I don't believe it's sustainable.
It's not sustainable for Israel's security because as populations grow around them, if there is more and more antagonism towards Israel, over time that will make Israel less secure. It's not sustainable for the Palestinians because increasingly their economies are unable to produce the jobs and the goods and the income for people's basic quality of life.
So we know that path is a dead end, and we've got to move in a new direction. But it's going to be hard. A lot of mistrust has been built up, a lot of anger, a lot of hatred. And unwinding that hatred requires patience. But it has been done. You know, think about -- my Special Envoy to the Middle East is a gentleman named George Mitchell, who was a senator in the United States and then became the Special Envoy for the United States in Northern Ireland. And the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland had been fighting for hundreds of years, and as recently as 20 years ago or 30 years ago, the antagonism, the hatred, was a fierce as any sectarian battle in the world.
And yet because of persistent, courageous efforts by leaders, a peace accord was arrived at. A government that uses the democratic process was formed. And I had at the White House just a few weeks ago the leader of the Protestants, the leaders of Catholics in the same room, the separatists and the unionists in the same room, as part of a single system. And so that tells me that anything is possible if we're willing to strive for it. But it will depend on young people like you being open to new ideas and new possibilities. And it will require young people like you never to stereotype or assume the worst about other people.
In the Muslim world, this notion that somehow everything is the fault of the Israelis lacks balance -- because there's two sides to every question. That doesn't mean that sometimes one side has done something wrong and should not be condemned. But it does mean there's always two sides to an issue.
I say the same thing to my Jewish friends, which is you have to see the perspective of the Palestinians. Learning to stand in somebody else's shoes to see through their eyes, that's how peace begins. And it's up to you to make that happen."
------ end of post ------
April 2, 2009, London, On whether it is unwieldy to get a consensus from so many countries: "..... there's been a lot of comparison here about Bretton Woods. "Oh, well, last time you saw the entire international architecture being remade." Well, if there's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's a -- that's an easier negotiation. (Laughter.) But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in. And so that's not a loss for America; it's an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India -- these are all countries on the move. And that's good. That means there are millions of people -- billions of people -- who are working their way out of poverty. And over time, that potentially makes this a much more peaceful world. And that's the kind of leadership we need to show -- one that helps guide that process of orderly integration without taking our eyes off the fact that it's only as good as the benefits of individual families, individual children: Is it giving them more opportunity; is it giving them a better life? If we judge ourselves by those standards, then I think America can continue to show leadership for a very long time.
April 2, 2009, London, On how local political considerations affect decisions to tackle global economic crisis: "..... In terms of local politics, look, I'm the President of the United States.... And so I have a direct responsibility to my constituents to make their lives better..... But in an era of integration and interdependence, it is also my responsibility to lead America into recognizing that its interests, its fate is tied up with the larger world; that if we neglect or abandon those who are suffering in poverty, that not only are we depriving ourselves of potential opportunities for markets and economic growth, but ultimately that despair may turn to violence that turns on us; that unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who's going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda. So if I'm effective as America's President right now, part of that effectiveness involves holding a -- providing Americans insight into how their self-interest is tied up with yours. And that's an ongoing project because it's not always obvious."
April 2, 2009, London, on how he intends for US leadership to be different: "...we exercise our leadership best when we are listening; when we recognize that the world is a complicated place and that we are going to have to act in partnership with other countries; when we lead by example; when we show some element of humility and recognize that we may not always have the best answer, but we can always encourage the best answer and support the best answer."
April 8, 2009, Istanbul, in Obama's opening remarks to Turkish students: "....Simple exchanges can break down walls between us, for when people come together and speak to one another and share a common experience, then their common humanity is revealed. We are reminded that we're joined together by our pursuit of a life that's productive and purposeful, and when that happens mistrust begins to fade and our smaller differences no longer overshadow the things that we share. And that's where progress begins.....So to all of you, I want you to know that the world will be what you make of it. You can choose to build new bridges instead of building new walls. You can choose to put aside longstanding divisions in pursuit of lasting peace.
April 8, 2009, Istanbul, on whether he is trying to do the impossible:....Well, some people say that maybe I'm being too idealistic. I made a speech in Prague about reducing and ultimately eliminating nuclear weapons, and some people said, ah, that will never happen. And some people have said, why are you discussing the Middle East when it's not going to be possible for the Israelis and the Palestinians to come together? Or, why are you reaching out to the Iranians, because the U.S. and Iran can never agree on anything?
My attitude is, is that all these things are hard. I mean, I'm not naïve. If it was easy, it would have already been done. Somebody else would have done it. But if we don't try, if we don't reach high, then we won't make any progress. And I think that there's a lot of progress that can be made.
And as I said in my opening remarks, I think the most important thing to start with is dialogue. When you have a chance to meet people from other cultures and other countries, and you listen to them and you find out that, even though you may speak a different language or you may have a different religious faith, it turns out that you care about your family, you have your same hopes about being able to have a career that is useful to the society, you hope that you can raise a family of your own, and that your children will be healthy and have a good education -- that all those things that human beings all around the world share are more important than the things that are different.
And so that is a very important place to start. And that's where young people can be very helpful, because I think old people, we get into habits and we become suspicious and we carry grudges. Right? You know, it was interesting when I met with President Medvedev of Russia and we actually had a very good dialogue, and we were -- we spoke about the fact that although both of us were born during the Cold War, we came of age after the Cold War had already begun to decline, which means we have a slightly different attitude than somebody who was seeing Russia only as the Soviet Union -- only as an enemy or who saw America only as an enemy. So young people, they can get rid of some of the old baggage and the old suspicions, and I think that's very important. But understanding alone is not enough. Then you -- we actually have to do the work."
April 8, 2009, Istanbul, on peace in the Middle-East: "I have to believe that the mothers of Palestinians and the mothers of Israelis hope the same thing for their children. They want them not to be vulnerable to violence. They don't want, when their child gets on a bus, to worry that that bus might explode. They don't want their child to have to suffer indignities because of who they are. And so sometimes I think that if you just put the mothers in charge for a while, that things would get resolved.
And it's that spirit of thinking about the future and not the past that I just talked about earlier that I think could help advance the peace process, because if you look at the situation there, over time I don't believe it's sustainable.
It's not sustainable for Israel's security because as populations grow around them, if there is more and more antagonism towards Israel, over time that will make Israel less secure. It's not sustainable for the Palestinians because increasingly their economies are unable to produce the jobs and the goods and the income for people's basic quality of life.
So we know that path is a dead end, and we've got to move in a new direction. But it's going to be hard. A lot of mistrust has been built up, a lot of anger, a lot of hatred. And unwinding that hatred requires patience. But it has been done. You know, think about -- my Special Envoy to the Middle East is a gentleman named George Mitchell, who was a senator in the United States and then became the Special Envoy for the United States in Northern Ireland. And the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland had been fighting for hundreds of years, and as recently as 20 years ago or 30 years ago, the antagonism, the hatred, was a fierce as any sectarian battle in the world.
And yet because of persistent, courageous efforts by leaders, a peace accord was arrived at. A government that uses the democratic process was formed. And I had at the White House just a few weeks ago the leader of the Protestants, the leaders of Catholics in the same room, the separatists and the unionists in the same room, as part of a single system. And so that tells me that anything is possible if we're willing to strive for it. But it will depend on young people like you being open to new ideas and new possibilities. And it will require young people like you never to stereotype or assume the worst about other people.
In the Muslim world, this notion that somehow everything is the fault of the Israelis lacks balance -- because there's two sides to every question. That doesn't mean that sometimes one side has done something wrong and should not be condemned. But it does mean there's always two sides to an issue.
I say the same thing to my Jewish friends, which is you have to see the perspective of the Palestinians. Learning to stand in somebody else's shoes to see through their eyes, that's how peace begins. And it's up to you to make that happen."
------ end of post ------
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Answer That Will Rule The World
I believe we are living in the midst of a very important shift in global affairs. However, as is often the case, I am not altogether clear how we are shifting and where we are shifting to.
It is fashionable to postulate and fantasize about tectonic changes in the balance of power and influence among the nations of the world. However, that confuses the effect for the causes. And confuses the boundaries of sovereign states and governments for actual boundaries of power.
If we look back at the last quarter of the 20th century, it was marked with the ascendence of a few central ideas: capitalism, global markets and the mass consumer society. May be we should call it the global consumption consensus. The intellectual underpinning - if we can characterise it as such - is founded on the notion of property and economic rights of the individual and that such rights to make and spend money should be as unconstrained as possible by national boundaries - and within those boundaries, by the interference of others.
In this consensus, progress is measured by growth in GDP. Why is growing GDP supposed to be good? Nobody knows? But we only know that if more wealth is created all the time everyone (still) has the chance to grow rich even when they are not.
The main driving force behind the rise of the global consumption consensus was America. No, not the power of the US government or the military. This is the soft power from the appeals on the world's masses of American-style properity, lifestyle, technology, meritocracy and freedom to fulfil one's dreams. Whether all that is true, I do not know for sure. But for sure, the allure and the attraction of the whole idea of a freer, fairer, wealthier, more modern and more comfortable society is one that proved to be the most powerful force that shaped the world.
The second most ardent subscriber of these ideas has been China. It was American consumption that kept China growing and it was the capacity of China to deliver more-and-more at less-and-less cost (this refers to both goods or capital) that kept America going especially since the last decades of the 20th century. In economic freedom (and US-led culture of consumption), China found an ally to keep it growing, modernise its society and to slow the demand for other forms of individual freedoms. China also found that its central position in the global market proved useful in broadening its influence throughout the world. As an investor of capital, consumer of raw materials and supplier of manufactured goods China developed tremendous prestige and influence in the developing world. If America supplied the dream of the modern consumer society to the masses, China brought billions of people closer to realising it - and doing so cheaper than ever.
The rest of the world subscribed to largely the very same ideas. The only difference has been a matter of timing or degree. Western Europe liked to label it the Anglo-Saxon approach but it found ready adherents by countries in Europe's periphery: within the British Isles, in the Baltics and amongst the newer members of the EU. Much of East Asia found itself part of the global supply chain to this consumer economy and (like China) eager to keep the golden goose going. India, Russia and Latin America came to the party later and with much ideological apprehension but they too found it advantageous to buy into a world of capitalism, global markets and mass consumption.
The way I see it, this current economic crisis marks the end of the global consumption consensus. This is the tectonic change I was talking about. What is not clear however, is what will replace it as an idea that is so alluring and attractive that societies, economies and political forces will reshape themselves around this new idea. This is why a new global leadership is needed; and needed more than ever since the 1930s. Because there is no lack of dangerous and divisive ideas - mostly backward ideas centered on religion, race or national identity - lurking about in its stead.
The consumption consensus will not go down without a fight. Ironically, its biggest defenders will be those that depended on it the most i.e. China and East Asia. In any religion, the new converts after all tend to be the most fervent. It may yet happen, but right now one do not see the emergence of new ideas that will lead the world from the mercantilist economies of East Asia. If anything, the powers there are more reactionary and interested in the status quo. China would be tempted out of short-term self-interest to step into the hot seat as the driver for global consumption, but the scale of America's profligacy will be hard to match. It is much harder - not to mention foolish - for China to grow by spending its own money on consumption which ultimately destroys rather than create value. After all, consumption unlike investment does not carry a rate of return.
So there is no turning back.
In the ageing societies of Europe and Japan, they are turning their back on the constant need for growth. Yes, they have more social issues to take care of as society ages but they also realise that they will have trouble keeping up. But that is no use for the rest of the world. When developed societies turn their back on the world and tend only to their parochial concerns, what hope is there for the rest of world for those who want to better themselves?
So turning inwards and leaving everyone to their own devices cannot be a viable way forward.
But - sigh! - what about America? It is almost clear that America is more than ready to move on from the grand bargain that sustained the global consumption consensus; if only because now it is dawning on the fact that it can no longer afford to sustain a fantasy lifestyle of limitless consumption. That was the grand bargain that began during the reconstruction after World War II and during the Cold War, in that in return for re-establishing the primacy of capitalism and free-market system (and American power), America would basically underwrite the world's security umbrella (vs communism) and fund everyone's progress towards economic prosperity. After the Cold War, the security umbrella and American-primacy part became optional, hence opening the door for the likes of China, India, Russia and Brazil into the feast. That grand bargain served Western Europe, Japan and East Asia very well; and played a large part in one of the greatest worldwide uplifting of the quality of life in the human history. We often forget that as little as 50 or 100 years ago in most parts of the world (even in peacetime) most people lived in conditions that would be considered horrific by today's standards. But that grand bargain is coming to an end.
Just like what they say about China: everyone can moan about China being too powerful until the day when China gets weak and people will miss the powerful China. The same can be said about America, that the world might have good reasons to miss having a powerful America that foolishly pays everyone's bills without realising its detriment.
What will be the new grand bargain? No body knows.
What will be the next unifying ideal for the world? No body knows.
Where will it come from? No body knows.
The one that comes closest to an answer will be the global leader of the 21st century.
It is fashionable to postulate and fantasize about tectonic changes in the balance of power and influence among the nations of the world. However, that confuses the effect for the causes. And confuses the boundaries of sovereign states and governments for actual boundaries of power.
If we look back at the last quarter of the 20th century, it was marked with the ascendence of a few central ideas: capitalism, global markets and the mass consumer society. May be we should call it the global consumption consensus. The intellectual underpinning - if we can characterise it as such - is founded on the notion of property and economic rights of the individual and that such rights to make and spend money should be as unconstrained as possible by national boundaries - and within those boundaries, by the interference of others.
In this consensus, progress is measured by growth in GDP. Why is growing GDP supposed to be good? Nobody knows? But we only know that if more wealth is created all the time everyone (still) has the chance to grow rich even when they are not.
The main driving force behind the rise of the global consumption consensus was America. No, not the power of the US government or the military. This is the soft power from the appeals on the world's masses of American-style properity, lifestyle, technology, meritocracy and freedom to fulfil one's dreams. Whether all that is true, I do not know for sure. But for sure, the allure and the attraction of the whole idea of a freer, fairer, wealthier, more modern and more comfortable society is one that proved to be the most powerful force that shaped the world.
The second most ardent subscriber of these ideas has been China. It was American consumption that kept China growing and it was the capacity of China to deliver more-and-more at less-and-less cost (this refers to both goods or capital) that kept America going especially since the last decades of the 20th century. In economic freedom (and US-led culture of consumption), China found an ally to keep it growing, modernise its society and to slow the demand for other forms of individual freedoms. China also found that its central position in the global market proved useful in broadening its influence throughout the world. As an investor of capital, consumer of raw materials and supplier of manufactured goods China developed tremendous prestige and influence in the developing world. If America supplied the dream of the modern consumer society to the masses, China brought billions of people closer to realising it - and doing so cheaper than ever.
The rest of the world subscribed to largely the very same ideas. The only difference has been a matter of timing or degree. Western Europe liked to label it the Anglo-Saxon approach but it found ready adherents by countries in Europe's periphery: within the British Isles, in the Baltics and amongst the newer members of the EU. Much of East Asia found itself part of the global supply chain to this consumer economy and (like China) eager to keep the golden goose going. India, Russia and Latin America came to the party later and with much ideological apprehension but they too found it advantageous to buy into a world of capitalism, global markets and mass consumption.
The way I see it, this current economic crisis marks the end of the global consumption consensus. This is the tectonic change I was talking about. What is not clear however, is what will replace it as an idea that is so alluring and attractive that societies, economies and political forces will reshape themselves around this new idea. This is why a new global leadership is needed; and needed more than ever since the 1930s. Because there is no lack of dangerous and divisive ideas - mostly backward ideas centered on religion, race or national identity - lurking about in its stead.
The consumption consensus will not go down without a fight. Ironically, its biggest defenders will be those that depended on it the most i.e. China and East Asia. In any religion, the new converts after all tend to be the most fervent. It may yet happen, but right now one do not see the emergence of new ideas that will lead the world from the mercantilist economies of East Asia. If anything, the powers there are more reactionary and interested in the status quo. China would be tempted out of short-term self-interest to step into the hot seat as the driver for global consumption, but the scale of America's profligacy will be hard to match. It is much harder - not to mention foolish - for China to grow by spending its own money on consumption which ultimately destroys rather than create value. After all, consumption unlike investment does not carry a rate of return.
So there is no turning back.
In the ageing societies of Europe and Japan, they are turning their back on the constant need for growth. Yes, they have more social issues to take care of as society ages but they also realise that they will have trouble keeping up. But that is no use for the rest of the world. When developed societies turn their back on the world and tend only to their parochial concerns, what hope is there for the rest of world for those who want to better themselves?
So turning inwards and leaving everyone to their own devices cannot be a viable way forward.
But - sigh! - what about America? It is almost clear that America is more than ready to move on from the grand bargain that sustained the global consumption consensus; if only because now it is dawning on the fact that it can no longer afford to sustain a fantasy lifestyle of limitless consumption. That was the grand bargain that began during the reconstruction after World War II and during the Cold War, in that in return for re-establishing the primacy of capitalism and free-market system (and American power), America would basically underwrite the world's security umbrella (vs communism) and fund everyone's progress towards economic prosperity. After the Cold War, the security umbrella and American-primacy part became optional, hence opening the door for the likes of China, India, Russia and Brazil into the feast. That grand bargain served Western Europe, Japan and East Asia very well; and played a large part in one of the greatest worldwide uplifting of the quality of life in the human history. We often forget that as little as 50 or 100 years ago in most parts of the world (even in peacetime) most people lived in conditions that would be considered horrific by today's standards. But that grand bargain is coming to an end.
Just like what they say about China: everyone can moan about China being too powerful until the day when China gets weak and people will miss the powerful China. The same can be said about America, that the world might have good reasons to miss having a powerful America that foolishly pays everyone's bills without realising its detriment.
What will be the new grand bargain? No body knows.
What will be the next unifying ideal for the world? No body knows.
Where will it come from? No body knows.
The one that comes closest to an answer will be the global leader of the 21st century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)