Of Asia's nearly 5bn people, 3.5bn are not Chinese. China's huge debts, rapidly ageing population and the crowding out of foreign competition from its domestic market is pulling global attention toward other Asian sub-regions, such as South Asia and south-east Asia.
The whole Asia region — which Khanna defines as stretching from the Arabian Peninsula and Turkey in the west to Japan and New Zealand in the east, and from Russia in the north to Australia in the south — is already a behemoth. It accounts for about 50 per cent of global gross domestic product and two-thirds of its economic growth. But the most arresting statistic in the 433-page tome is this: of an estimated "$30tn in global middle-class consumption growth between 2015 and 2030, only $1tn is expected to come from today's western economies".
As this vast undertow of spending power emerges, it will tilt the world. In spite of some "pockets of haughty ignorance centred around London and Washington", the west appears certain to play a vastly diminished role in global affairs. A wave of Asianisation is set to follow the 20th century's Americanisation and 19th century's Europeanisation of the world, argues Khanna.
The answer to Communism, in brief, is Capitalism. And once we understand this, the problems of "ideological strategy" which we have been confusedly debating begin to melt away.
This essay from 1953 by Henry Hazlitt, Let's Defend Capitalism, A Freeman Pamphlet, 1953, reprinted from the Freeman (February 23, 1953), is as true today as when it was published 65 years ago.
The State Department, Voice of America, and Western governments generally, "set up "Democracy" as the antithesis of Communism, partly because they are confused enough to believe it is, and partly because they have neither the will nor the courage to defend Capitalism.
It is in large part because of the connotations built into the smear word "Capitalism" that, while millions are willing to die for Communist delusions, nobody has been willing to die for Capitalism — certainly not under that name. But Capitalism is merely the Marxist epithet for the system of the free market, for competitive private enterprise, for the system under which each is permitted to earn and keep the product of his labor — in brief, for economic freedom.
...
The answer to Communism, in brief, is Capitalism. And once we understand this, the problems of "ideological strategy" which we have been confusedly debating begin to melt away. We do not have to discuss whether we have been "merely talking to ourselves" or not. The very question is based on a false analogy — the analogy of the lawsuit, of "our side" versus "their side." This analogy unconsciously swallows the Marxist theory of a real clash of interest between economic "classes" — employers versus workers or rich versus poor. But once we recognize that the system of Capitalism is the only workable one, the only one that promotes the interest of both employers and workers, while it provides the maximum of opportunity for the poor to conquer their poverty, then the real distinction is between those who understand the system and those who do not. A man who is known to understand a problem is never merely talking to himself; all those who sincerely wish to understand it can be counted on to listen.
Another problem which melts away is whether we should confine ourselves to combating Communism, because it is a conspiracy and a military menace, or whether we can disregard Communism, on the ground that it has been sufficiently exposed, and concentrate on combating socialist measures because there is so much more real likelihood of their being adopted at home.
The solution is simple. There is only one right answer to the sum of 2 and 2, and an infinite number of wrong answers. Once we have shown that 2 and 2 make 4, we do not have to provide separate proof that every other answer is wrong. Communism is just one wrong answer to the basic social problem — though the worst and most dangerous. Socialism (which proposes the same basic economic measures as Communism) is merely another wrong answer, in the long run only a little less bad and a little less dangerous. "Planning," price control, inflation, Keynesianism, are still other wrong answers. As in arithmetic, there are an infinite number of such wrong answers. But once we have found the right answer, we can explain what is wrong with the other solutions from that basis.
Netanyahu seeks to bolster Israeli ties with Gulf nations | Financial Times
"Israel does not want it to stand in the way of normalizing ties with the wealthy and increasingly interventionist Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia."
"The younger generation of Gulf Arab leaders have not shown the same determination as their elders to shun Israel because of the Palestinian conflict and have instead engaged in informal outreach to Jerusalem."
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, is seeking to bolster his country's ties with Gulf countries long seen as its foes in an unusual public effort focused on Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
On Friday, Mr Netanyahu revealed that he had visited the Sultan of Oman, who greeted the prime minister, his wife, and the head of Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service. Next week, his minister of transportation and intelligence, Israel Katz, will head to Oman for a conference.
At the weekend one of Mr Netanyahu's parliamentary allies wept as the Israeli national anthem rang out in an Abu Dhabi sports auditorium after a Jewish athlete won a judo championship. On Tuesday his communications minister, Ayoob Kara, is expected in the UAE, which has no diplomatic ties with Israel, for another conference.
Much of the Arab world has shunned the Jewish state since it was born in 1948, but Mr Netanyahu is betting he can create stronger relations with influential Gulf nations on the basis of shared fears over Iran and a shared interest in boosting trade ties.
The Gulf initiatives come at an opportune political moment for Mr Netanyahu. Israeli analysts predict an election early next year and note that the prime minister — who also holds the foreign policy portfolio — could claim improved relations as a win.
Mr Netanyahu's visit to Oman — the first by an Israeli leader since 1996 — was filmed and made public at the request of the prime minister's office, according to a person familiar with the talks leading up to it.
Although Israel has maintained clandestine ties with Gulf nations for at least a decade, they have not been publicised because Arab leaders worry that they would anger their citizens as long as the Israel-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved.
The Sultan of Oman, Qaboos bin Said Al Said, severed ties with Israel during the second intifada, but he hosted some of the talks that led to the Iran nuclear deal and is seen as an intermediary between Jerusalem and Tehran.
Other Gulf nations share Israel's concerns about Iranian expansionism in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.
Because of Oman's strong relations with Iran it has been left out in the diplomatic cold by the Trump White House, which has abandoned the nuclear deal.
A visit from a western ally helped shore up the Sultan's standing in Washington, while allowing Mr Netanyahu to advertise an example of Israeli-Arab co-operation, said Eli Avidar, the former head of the Israeli delegation to Qatar.
"This visit to Oman was made possible purely because of the interests of the Sultanate of Oman," said Mr Avidar, who also advised former prime minister Ariel Sharon on diplomatic issues.
Iranian officials have criticised the Israeli leader's visit to Oman, but few expect Muscat to pivot away from Tehran as it seeks to balance interests across the divided region.
While the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is stalled, Israel does not want it to stand in the way of normalising ties with the wealthy and increasingly interventionist Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia.
The younger generation of Gulf Arab leaders have not shown the same determination as their elders to shun Israel because of the Palestinian conflict and have instead engaged in informal outreach to Jerusalem.
"Israel is building a wall of countries [with] which it has interests that it can use as leverage to get Iran to start backing down," said Michael Stephens, research fellow for Middle East studies at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank. "The idea is to surround Iran from all sides — it's the diplomatic equivalent of putting missiles in Cuba."
Next week, Mr Katz, the transportation minister, will go to Oman to present a somewhat improbable plan for a railway line to connect Haifa in northern Israel with the Gulf via Jordan.
The plan, nicknamed, Regional Tracks for Peace, has Mr Netanyahu's approval, despite the fact that all the countries involved except Jordan still officially consider Israel an enemy state.
"Mr Katz is going as the minister of transportation to a conference of ministers of transportation, but he is going also in his double function, as part of his intelligence portfolio," said Arye Shalicar, an adviser.
"Already we see that little by little countries in the Middle East are approaching each other and approaching us, and we're sure that contacts on a wider and a more intensive scale will probably take place."
Posts
