Get 72% off on an annual Print +Digital subscription of India Today Magazine

SUBSCRIBE

The New World Disorder

India's worries are exacerbated by uncertainties like the upcoming US elections and the rise of an increasingly assertive China.

Listen to Story

Advertisement
Illustration by Nilanjan Das
Illustration by Nilanjan Das

Epochal 20th century events like the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union triggered off a chain reaction that seemed to suggest the end state was globalisation. This boundary-blurring new world order of interconnected markets, technology and culture promised salvation. But as Brexit, Britain's June 23 vote to exit the European Union, showed, globalisation may have hit a speed bump. India's worries are exacerbated by uncertainties like the upcoming US elections and the rise of an increasingly assertive China. Our expert writers make sense of a world in turmoil and chart a way through the storm.

advertisement

THE NEXT TECTONIC EVENT

George Perkovich

When the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, Americans celebrated along with their allies in Britain and on the European continent. The Cold War would soon end-peacefully, as almost no one imagined it would. Four years later the Maastricht Treaty entered into force, creating the European Union and later the Euro. In Asia, China had begun its opening to the wider world, creating special economic zones along its coasts. India, in 1991, began economic reforms that gradually would bring its talented people and their products into the international economy. The global marketplace for goods and services was taking shape.

In the first decade of globalisation, its champions asserted that the rising tide of economic growth would lift all boats. Today, the tide carries boats filled with traumatised refugees. To stop the flow (supposedly), 52 per cent of British citizens voted to exit the European Union. Turkey is being paid to close its border. Donald Trump-with no mind to the Berlin antecedent-promises to build a giant wall to keep Mexicans and Central Americans from coming into the United States, and says he will ban Muslims from travelling here too.

Racism and bigotry undeniably are a factor in all of this. But, fear and feelings of loss may be deeper causes. Workers who attained comfortable wages and relative security in the US and Europe when the world economy was divided into closed blocs, gradually discovered that the globalised economy shifted employment-especially for less-skilled labour-to foreign lands. The rich got much richer, but the incomes of middle and working classes stagnated. Since 1979, despite ample economic growth, the vast majority of American workers' wages have stayed level or declined.

Psychologists know that people fear loss much more than they fear not making new gains. It is more traumatic to be fired from the job you have than it is to not get the new job you want. 'Loss aversion' can be heard in the voices of Americans who have rallied behind Trump and the Democratic Party campaign of Bernie Sanders (before he dropped out). Both candidates have appealed to voters who feel political and economic elites do not listen to them and have 'rigged' the system against the middle and working classes. Trump plays on the sense of loss by promising to "make America great again".



Trump is very popular among white men who do not have college educations and who live outside of major cities. This parallels the English electorate who voted to leave. These people, generally, feel their positions in society have declined in the era of globalisation. They blame their own leaders-elites-and also the 'foreigners' whom they see in greater numbers now than when times were better. Building walls, closing borders and angrily rejecting the views and policies of 'established politicians' feel like the only options left.

advertisement

It is fine for economists and other experts to present data and arguments that barriers and retrenchment will not actually solve the pressing problems of stagnant wages and growth and rising inequality. But, in the world of social media and click-chasing, eyeball-seducing 'journalism', voters follow messengers they 'like' rather than those who may be right. Fact-based analysis and debate of issues and policies is less appealing than the gossip and personality contests that masquerade as news. It should not be surprising that after the Brexit referendum, British citizens scrambled to learn more about what it would mean to leave the EU.

Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, conveys mastery for detail and a predilection to discuss policy proposals. Few people would say she is a motivational orator or a compelling campaigner. As a long-time political figure, she is also implicated in the American policies surrounding globalisation from which so many people feel they have been losers. (Trump labels her "crooked Hillary" and a "world-class liar", and polls report that many people find her untrustworthy. Yet, Politifact reports that 77 per cent of Trump's statements have been false, whereas, by the same analysis, 28 per cent of Clinton's have been false. Nevertheless, Trump's supporters celebrate his 'authenticity' and decry her mendacity.)

advertisement

If political and economic debates in the US, the UK and other open societies display the tendencies described here, the situation is more mixed when it comes to foreign policy. Americans, like citizens in many other countries, find much to fear in the world: terrorism at home and abroad, horrific war in Syria, chaos in Libya, continued bloodshed and disorder in Afghanistan, refugee crises, Russia's stealthy invasion of Ukraine, tensions with China in the South and East China Seas, North Korea's ongoing nuclear and missile programmes?the list goes on. Perhaps because no obvious solution exists to any of these challenges, American politicians largely avoid them, which is not the worst possibility. (Another reason for avoidance is that few political 'leaders' know even the basic causes and features of these challenges, let alone possible solutions to them).

advertisement

The campaign between Trump and Clinton will not reveal much about what the next president and his or her government will actually seek to do internationally. At most, the campaign will indicate the type of thinking and temperament the next president would bring to these challenges. Here, in unprecedented fashion, 121 experienced Republican foreign policy figures publicly declared their opposition to Trump.

Whoever wins in November, the American public today is preoccupied with their own problems and uninterested in spending taxpayer funds and military lives on quests to fix other people's. Events could change this attitude suddenly-such as a major state-sponsored terrorist attack on the US or the invasion of an ally. But, absent a major provocation, the US is unlikely to assume a disproportionate burden of financing and fighting campaigns to rectify injustices in distant lands.

What might this mean for India? The good news is India, broadly, is not an issue in the presidential campaign or American politics. Aside from the supremely talented and successful Indian diaspora in the US, few voters know or think much about India. Americans tend to focus on enemies and strategic competitors; India is neither. In Washington, India's democracy is applauded. Businesses that operate in India or hope to, and that want to benefit from India's skilled engineers, will quietly press for policies to facilitate greater trade, investment and visa accessibility. The time to make this case will be after the election, out of the glare and cacophony of this overheated season. US defence officials will continue to seek further cooperation with the Indian defence sector, and this, too, should not be controversial when the new president takes office.

If Clinton wins, she'll take office more invested in and informed about India than any prior US president. This background reflects not only her tenure as Secretary of State, but also her years reaching out to India during Bill Clinton's presidency. Like all presidents, she will pursue the interests of US taxpayers, businesses, agencies and NGOs. She will have to balance India's preferences with those of other states in managing the global commons. The tensions that normally arise between major states will emerge here, too, but they will be addressed with a determination to cooperate.

If Trump wins, he will have much to learn about India. But there is little inherent in the interests of the two countries that suggests he would not be disposed to seek cooperation too. For India, the bigger question would be whether a Trump administration's exertions in other places and on other issues would create an international environment more or less conducive to India's interests. The best advice for Indians would be to make their country ever more prosperous, stable and constructive in international affairs. If American leaders will do the same, the two countries together will be part of the solution to the world's problems rather than a cause of them.

George Perkovich is Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Also read:

India-China relations: Toward win-win cooperation

Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton: Who should India vote for?


In defence of EU: How Brexit changes global landscape

Brexit vote burns bridges between America, Europe

Why Brexit offers India a new opportunity to build economic muscle

India's future lies in domestic market, not exports: Nandan Nilekani

Why India can no longer speed date global powers

Brexit must make India rethink its foreign policy: Shashi Tharoor

India and the re-aligned movement in post-Brexit EU

Brexit wounds for UK, new challenges for India

With Brexit, India now must conclude pending trade agreements