We have entered into a new world of global politics. The G20 Summit was held in an emerging economy; and probably for the first time at a meeting of this forum the United States did not have its way. The president of the USA visited India before going to the G20 Summit. The prime minister of Britain visited China while he was on his way to the summit that was held in South Korea. Both men, from the old industrial powers, were travelling to the newly developed and developing countries seeking jobs, jobs and jobs. In spite of their “hat in hand” type of visit to Asia, both leaders carefully laced their speeches with calls for democracy, all pointing to China. Over the years we have observed the British fall from power. Today we are witnessing the rise of new industrial power centres and the decline of the USA. If President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron speak about democracy and dissent, then they are familiar with the voice of JS Mill who spoke about dissent and democracy. Mill also informed that democracy is not a system for every situation.

South Korea is an amazing country. It moved from a war-torn country to a First-World nation in one generation. This country has much to teach underdeveloped and developing countries. When a South Korean official was asked for the critical ingredient to the rise, he replied that it was the premium placed on educational achievement. It is the first emerging economy that hosted the G20 Summit. The forum failed to back the “US push” against China’s currency. The USA failed also to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea. President Obama has a challenging job. The commander in chief leads at a time when the USA is at war. The chief executive is administering a country that has lost its industrial dominance, and a country reeling from the cost of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. He is trying his best in a world characterised by the rising of new centres of industrial powers emerging from the periphery. The capitalist powers in America redefined the economy over past decades in terms of heavy reliance on providing service and outsourcing. During the 1930s America was able to emerge from the depression very quickly. One of the main reasons may have been its dominance in global industrial output. In those times wars may have been profitable ventures.

In his book, The world is flat, Thomas Friedman (2005) attempts to create a portrait of the contemporary global scene with bright colours of globalisation and the new scientific revolution. The writer spends much of his time looking at success stories in Asia, mainly in India and China; and that the new successes were informed by the revolution in science and technology. He notes that the “American decline” is based on its “lack of scientific prowess”. The writer cites a speech made by Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rennsselear Institute, speaking on the “quiet crisis” in America. This “quiet crisis” exists as a result of the erosion of America’s scientific base; and that America’s competitors are running away from the US in terms of the dominance in science and technology. The writer cites the data from Shirley Ann Jackson in illustrating the “proportional emphasis on science and engineering”. Science and engineering now represents 60 per cent of all bachelors degrees in China; 33 per cent in South Korea, 41 per cent in Taiwan and 31 per cent in the USA. Americans who graduate with engineering degrees in the USA amount to five per cent when compared to 25 per cent in Russia and 46 per cent in China. The “quiet crisis” in America is a very deep problem. Paul Kennedy (1989) in The rise and fall of great powers: Economic change and military conflicts from 1500-2000, discusses the decline from another point of view.

The writer provided an interesting and instructive history of how great powers of the modern world rise and fall from Spain’s 16th century over expenditure to her colonies and the heavy commercial and economical losses entered into decline; and how the French foray into the American Revolution, in addition to previous internal and external military engagement, led that country into decline. Then came England, the chief adversary of Spain, with greater scientific, technological and industrial power, developed a massive naval power in defence of her national interest. At the end of the 18th century, England began its decline. Germany with its powerful industrial base declined after its wars in Europe. Kennedy argues that dominance is not only lost on the battlefield. He writes that “an examination of various economic indicators reveal that one could detect the rise and fall of great nations when they start losing their economic competitiveness”. There is a brave new world that is on the horizon. It is already shining and we must have that “sociological imagination” as well as that “enlightened eye” to see where the new path can take us. The consensus arrived at by the emerging powers at the Seoul G20 Summit is an indication that a new world order has emerged against the traditional Anglo-American axis. However, President Obama’s message to the Islamic/Muslim world must not go unnoticed; it was indeed, an intelligent and a politically gracious act.

Louis EA Moyston

thearchives01@yahoo.com