India doesn’t count yet

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Related Articles

Wanted: CEOs from India

: US — a second world nation? The thought may be radical to most, but that’s exactly what Parag Khanna, fellow at New America Foundation argues in The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order, saying the 21st century will be dominated by three first-world superpowers: the United States, China and the European Union. And they will compete for resources in nations in east Europe, Latin America and West Asia — countries of the second world. Suman Tarafdar tries to figure out where the world is headed.

Why do you see the US becoming a second world state? Where did it fail to read the geopolitical mutiny ?

The US did fail to read the ways in which pivotal second world states such as Iran and Venezuela could stand up to the US and sustain their defiance, not to mention the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. America’s imperial overstretch is palpable in its economy that has been weakened by the war and exposed other domestic vulnerabilities such as a crumbling infrastructure, declining health and education standards, and deep political divisions. Those latter factors are hallmarks of second world countries.

The ‘deep differences in interests among the big three make forging a “culture of peace” difficult,’ yet the three are also bound to each other by economic ties. Where does the resolution lie?

A “culture of peace” can have several sources, such as mutual economic dependence in investment and trade, and also the reality of nuclear deterrence. It could be that rather than defining their interests in divergent terms — such as in the pursuit of exclusive access to oil and gas resources — powerful states such as China, India and America could focus on expanding supply through joint exploration and development. One sees this happening already between Japan, China, and Korea in the waters between them. Also, there are issues such as terrorism and climate that affect all powers as well, and need to be addressed jointly.

What about ‘Chindia’? Where will India be in future?

A lot less is being written about “Chindia” today than a while back as people wake up to the massive edge that China has built up globally in its strategic and economic leverage. There are two issues: where does India stand in the international hierarchy? At present it is very low: India represents under 2% of the global economy and is not a major diplomatic player yet. The other issue is how quickly does India address its internal challenges of poverty, environment, health, corruption, etc to be on a coherent, sustainable path towards greatness and respectiability? India should focus on the latter in order to achieve the former — this is what China has done since the 1970s.

Is central Asia going to be the determinant of how power equations are going to be structured in the new century?

Central Asia is one of the critical “second world” regions I focus on. It has the second largest oil reserves, particularly in the Caspian Sea region, and is the strategic crossroads of East and West. It is where Russia’s influence may gradually decline as China’s grows — China borders more of the post-Soviet “Stans” than Russia does and has advanced rapidly in building road, rail, pipeline, and trade linkages across these countries to reach Iran and the Persian Gulf. It is also the region where the expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) westward towards Iran (including Afghanistan and Pakistan) overlaps nervously with the eastward expanding missions of NATO. So Central Asia is very much where we see a new round of the historic “Great Game” being played out.

The Second World. Given that the geopolitical groupings indicated by this name have changed over the past few centuries, how do you use the label? How long do you see the countries you have labeled second world continuing to be so?