Suchergebnisse

This is partially why Trump happened, says Kishore Mahbubani.

Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Kishore Mahbubhani is a retired diplomat and respected author. He shares with DNA his 5C theory of leadership, as well as his thoughts on working with Singapore's founding leaders.

Going through a protracted period of transition since the end of the Cold War, the world order in the making is neither what was nor what it is yet to become. It is in "the middle of the future."To get our bearings in this uncertain transition, we explore the two grand post‐Cold War narratives—"The End of History" as posited by Francis Fukuyama and "The Clash of Civilizations" posited by the late Samuel Huntington. Mikhail Gorbachev looks back at his policies that brought the old order to collapse. The British philosopher John Gray critiques the supposed "universality" of liberalism and, with Homi Bhabha, sees a world of hybrid identities and localized cultures. The Singaporean theorist Kishore Mahbubani peels away the "veneer" of Western dominance. Amartya Sen, the economist and Nobel laureate, assesses whether democratic India or autocratic China is better at building "human capacity" in their societies.

No abstract available

A great historical transition is underway from American‐led Globalization 1.0 to Globalization 2.0—the interdependence of plural identities where no one power or alliance of powers dominates.The G‐20 is floundering as the immediate global financial crisis has receded. The United Nations and the old Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO—have lost their vigor and are struggling to adjust to the global powershift with the rise of the emerging economies. While Europe is paralyzed as the historic project of integration stalls, the world's two largest economies—the United States and China—are as yet unable to figure out how to share power.The danger now is that the geopolitical vacuum will invite assertions of national self‐interest that will unravel the rules‐based order that enabled stability and prosperity over recent decades.America's leading geopolitical strategist, China's most outspoken strategic thinker and one of Asia's leading global thinkers from Singapore offer their reflections on this state of affairs.

Three key principles should drive global governance reform: democracy; the recognition of power imbalances; and the rule of law. Democracy simply means that the 12 per cent of the world's population who live in the West can no longer dominate the leadership of global institutions. It is manifestly absurd, as we enter the second decade of the 21st century, that the West continues to insist that the head of the IMF should be European and the head of the World Bank an American. This rule was reaffirmed as recently as 2011 and 2012. No national democracy would disenfranchise 88 per cent of its population. Neither can our world. The leadership of global institutions must reflect the choices of seven billion people. At the same time, power is not distributed fairly and equitably among nation states. Great powers remain. And great powers continue to dominate great power politics. It was therefore wise for the UN founding fathers to give them veto powers in the UN Security Council. This gave them a stake in keeping the UN alive and not destroying it as they did to the League of Nations. Yet, for the Security Council to be credible, it must represent the great powers of today, not the great powers of yesterday. Hence, in my forthcoming book, The Great Convergence, I have suggested a 7-7-7 formula for reforming the Security Council: seven permanent members, seven semi-permanent members and seven elected members. Adapted from the source document.