A Multi-polar World with Anchor Nations

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

Note: This is not a thread to bash any Country. So please refer from doing so. Keep it pro.

After recently attending a lecture by a world renown professor Rajan Gupta, the regional profile of a multi-polar world was brought up with the term called Anchor Nations. Please refer to the multi-polar regional profile attachment.

Anchor Nations Act as Role Models, promote synergies & facilitate regional development whereby Identity is based on a Larger Regional Framework
• Religion
• Culture
• Values
• Language
• Demographics
• Governance/Civil Institutions
• Economics
• Trade
• Resources
• Security and Threats

Regional stability is promoted by Anchor Nations Working Towards a Larger Goal.
Superpowers (Military & Economic) → Global Anchors
Please refer to the regional anchor profiles attachment.


Will China be the anchor nation for Asia, and be the agent of change in Africa?
Please refer to the leadership multi-polar world attchement.

The fact of the matter is that China is very successful in creating client states of countries that are dysfunctional and/or shunned by the international community due to a much needed mega resources & markets (external & internal).

Considering the vast resources Africa has, and the brutal history behind the Scramble of Africa, in relation to the 7 Grand Challenges in technology and innovation, what foreseeable outcome will occur in perspective of another scramble for Africa? :splat

Please refer to the 7 Grand Challenges attchement.

 

[My2Cents]

Sounds like an argument for re-establishment domination of the 3rd world by new colonial powers. Just look at how many of the ‘regional anchors’ list China as a potential anchor – South Asia (India and Pakistan together? :lol3), South East Asia (Vietnam and the rest of the Indo-China states and Indonesia), Central Asia (Iran and the ‘Stan’s hwell), and Asian Tigers (Japan, Koreas, and Taiwan)?

And the 7 Grand Challenges are all about energy. Not a bad list, but ignorant of many more important items, like clean water, disease, and poverty, to name a few.

Which group and country of academic economist produced this little presentation? :hitwall

 

[kato]

Not a bad list, but ignorant of many more important items, like clean water, disease, and poverty, to name a few.

Which are actually the driving force of internal wars in third-world nations. Not energy. Pretty much the only "internal" war so far that had a good bit on energy resources was the Iraqi occupation of Chuzestan 30 years ago.

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

Sounds like an argument for re-establishment domination of the 3rd world by new colonial powers. Just look at how many of the ‘regional anchors’ list China as a potential anchor – South Asia (India and Pakistan together? :lol3), South East Asia (Vietnam and the rest of the Indo-China states and Indonesia), Central Asia (Iran and the ‘Stan’s hwell), and Asian Tigers (Japan, Koreas, and Taiwan)?

And the 7 Grand Challenges are all about energy. Not a bad list, but ignorant of many more important items, like clean water, disease, and poverty, to name a few.

Which group and country of academic economist produced this little presentation? :hitwall

Oh come on, the group or country of origin of the professor is not the focus of the article however it is still a relevant point. He could have been educated abroad for all we know.

To answer your question: He's from India and isn't an economist either.

On your point about re-establishment, we can already see factors play a vital role in economic power. Could you elaborate more on what you think about the regional anchor models.

About the late reply, I've been away from Silent Hill.

 

[My2Cents]

Oh come on, the group or country of origin of the professor is not the focus of the article however it is still a relevant point. He could have been educated abroad for all we know.

To answer your question: He's from India and isn't an economist either.

I will bet on the educated abroad, either in western Europe or (probably) the US. He seems somewhat innocent on the geopolitical structure of much of the world (probably an ‘Ivory Tower’ type :hippie). Otherwise explain how he would expect Pakistan willing subordinate itself to India, or Southeast Asia to China?

Would you know what his academic area of expertise would happen to be?

On your point about re-establishment, we can already see factors play a vital role in economic power. Could you elaborate more on what you think about the regional anchor models.

I doubt that the regional anchor model is workable given the degree of fear of outside domination, as well as loathing and hatred between population subgroups, that dominate the 3rd world politics. If anything the trend is for greater fragmentation, breaking the artificial boundaries and unions created by the previous colonial powers when they abandoned their possessions.

As for China’s campaign to create client states, it succeeds only because of their willingness to extend credit, political support, and supply weapons to states with resources they desire and where western powers are attempting to influence human rights issues with politically motivated economic boycotts. The boycotts seldom have any effect on the country they are directed at, because there are always countries like China to take up the slack, and are far more costly than publically admitted. However, I consider it likely that China will discover the hard way that these were ill-advised investments due to the increasingly unstable nature of these countries, and subsequent regimes will repudiate the debts owed by their predecessors, as well as nationalizing the extraction infrastructure that the Chinese have built. Which is a historic trend.

 

[ngatimozart]

Note: This is not a thread to bash any Country. So please refer from doing so. Keep it pro.

After recently attending a lecture by a world renown professor Rajan Gupta, the regional profile of a multi-polar world was brought up with the term called Anchor Nations. Please refer to the multi-polar regional profile attachment.

Anchor Nations Act as Role Models, promote synergies & facilitate regional development whereby Identity is based on a Larger Regional Framework
• Religion
• Culture
• Values
• Language
• Demographics
• Governance/Civil Institutions
• Economics
• Trade
• Resources
• Security and Threats

Regional stability is promoted by Anchor Nations Working Towards a Larger Goal.
Superpowers (Military & Economic) → Global Anchors
Please refer to the regional anchor profiles attachment.


Will China be the anchor nation for Asia, and be the agent of change in Africa?
Please refer to the leadership multi-polar world attchement.

The fact of the matter is that China is very successful in creating client states of countries that are dysfunctional and/or shunned by the international community due to a much needed mega resources & markets (external & internal).

Considering the vast resources Africa has, and the brutal history behind the Scramble of Africa, in relation to the 7 Grand Challenges in technology and innovation, what foreseeable outcome will occur in perspective of another scramble for Africa? :splat

Please refer to the 7 Grand Challenges attchement.

Who is this "world renown" professor Rajan Gupta? I googled the name & came up with a physicist in the US who also has an interest in Indian health. Point is what was he lecturing on and why is he world renown? Knowing this helps us evaluate his lecture. At the moment it tends to look a bit naive. You answer to My2Cents

Oh come on, the group or country of origin of the professor is not the focus of the article however it is still a relevant point. He could have been educated abroad for all we know.

is I find a bit of a disparaging remark to a very valid question.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

What do you mean by China being an agent of change? Before I vote on the poll I need to know what exactly I'm voting for.

 

[rip]

Note: This is not a thread to bash any Country. So please refer from doing so. Keep it pro.

After recently attending a lecture by a world renown professor Rajan Gupta, the regional profile of a multi-polar world was brought up with the term called Anchor Nations. Please refer to the multi-polar regional profile attachment.

Anchor Nations Act as Role Models, promote synergies & facilitate regional development whereby Identity is based on a Larger Regional Framework
• Religion
• Culture
• Values
• Language
• Demographics
• Governance/Civil Institutions
• Economics
• Trade
• Resources
• Security and Threats

Regional stability is promoted by Anchor Nations Working Towards a Larger Goal.
Superpowers (Military & Economic) → Global Anchors
Please refer to the regional anchor profiles attachment.


Will China be the anchor nation for Asia, and be the agent of change in Africa?
Please refer to the leadership multi-polar world attchement.

The fact of the matter is that China is very successful in creating client states of countries that are dysfunctional and/or shunned by the international community due to a much needed mega resources & markets (external & internal).

Considering the vast resources Africa has, and the brutal history behind the Scramble of Africa, in relation to the 7 Grand Challenges in technology and innovation, what foreseeable outcome will occur in perspective of another scramble for Africa? :splat

Please refer to the 7 Grand Challenges attchement.

In a world that has global connections, where time and space are continuing to shrink, and where transportation cost are always going down, the idea that geography must dominates all power alliances and that people are then trapped by their geography is one that has persisted long after it is in fact become obsolete.

When an ICBM can hit anyplace on earth in less than forty minutes it puts us all in the same geographical position. I know how tempting it is to look at a map and from that map then assume that the flow of commerce, ideas, and thus mutual interests must then must all follow. But it is a far too simple idea and the world is far more complicated than that. The ideas of sphere of influence and geographical hegemony are ones that no longer work if they ever did.

The paradigm we all are supposed to be working under now is the one of the equality of nations and self-determination. Perhaps it will someday even become true? But even if that paradigm is someday achieved there will still be leaders and followers just as in everything else. but it will not be primarily dominated by geography but by ideas and far more importantly by the power of shared visions of the world we all want to someday live in will be like. If the contention is that an Anchor Nation is a leader of a common vision shared by others, regardless of its size or location, as that vision competes with other visions heald by other nations then the idea has some merit otherwise it does not.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

What do you mean by China being an agent of change? Before I vote on the poll I need to know what exactly I'm voting for.

I'll second that. I'm not sure the term 'agent of change' could be more vague.

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

Otherwise explain how he would expect Pakistan willing subordinate itself to India, or Southeast Asia to China?

Would you know what his academic area of expertise would happen to be?

.

His academic area of expertise: Nuclear & Particle Physic's

How would Pakistan willing subordinate itself to India, or Southeast Asia to China? The answer to that is complex because we're looking at it from a perspective of subordination. From a historical point of view.

India and Pakistan have a long and complicated history together:
-"When British India became independent, it was supposed to be divided into two parts. Areas consisting of 75% or more Muslims were to become Pakistan and the rest of the territory India (Sloan, Ismail. "Kashmir conflict- who is right, India or Pakistan." (1971 India-Pakistan War: Origins of Crisis)
-The result of the first war between India and Pakistan involving Kashmir was Pakistan controlling 37% while India controlled 63%
Two more wars occurred between Pakistan and India. One of the wars was in 1965, which resulted in a stalemate between the two countries for Kashmir. The second war occurred in 1971 and was triggered by Pakistan trying to pacify the Bengali peasantry by confiscating Hindu land and giving it to the Muslims." (1971 India-Pakistan War: Origins of Crisis)

Southeast Asia to China:
-"Southeast Asia historically has been the scene of intense internal competition, the result of the dynamic expansion and contraction of empires and kingdoms within the region." (Conflict Potential in Southeast Asia and the China Sea)
-"In the three decades immediately after World War 2, conflict in Southeast Asia largely shifted away from the traditional struggles between countries and instead focused largely on the political tensions within individual nation-states. Initially, this was manifest in the independence movements against the resurgent colonial powers. By the late 1950s, however, the anti-colonial struggle was replaced by Cold War battles waged between Soviet and Chinese proxies against the U.S., Britain, and their allies." (Conflict Potential in Southeast Asia and the China Sea)

The idea of Anchor nations could tie well into the creation of Satellite nations?

As for China’s campaign to create client states, it succeeds only because of their willingness to extend credit, political support, and supply weapons to states with resources they desire and where western powers are attempting to influence human rights issues with politically motivated economic boycotts. .

Refer to the Myanmar picture for an example.

"Irrespective of whether China & India Collaborate or Compete: The impacts of increasing resource exploitation by them are very large, global, & transformational."
Refer to the China_Neighbors Picture.

We can examine how these system collaborate or compete through various perspectives:coffee (the list goes on):

1. Global fuel resources market niche:
Refer to the alternative fuels picture.

2: From a biological point of view, we could state for example: China is an Enzyme in World Affairs. (Like other powerful and influential Countries are too.)

Definition of Enzyme:
1. Any of numerous proteins or conjugated proteins produced by living organisms and functioning as biochemical catalysts.

Definition of Catalyst:
1. Chemistry: A Catalyst makes a chemical reaction proceed faster, but is not used up by the reaction.
2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences.


To clear up to those who are unsure to decide what an agent of change is:
(Science: pharmacology) Any power, principle or substance capable of producing an effect, whether physical, chemical or biological.

In summary: Talk raises more questions than provides answers.

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

In a world that has global connections, where time and space are continuing to shrink, and where transportation cost are always going down, the idea that geography must dominates all power alliances and that people are then trapped by their geography is one that has persisted long after it is in fact become obsolete.

When an ICBM can hit anyplace on earth in less than forty minutes it puts us all in the same geographical position. I know how tempting it is to look at a map and from that map then assume that the flow of commerce, ideas, and thus mutual interests must then must all follow. But it is a far too simple idea and the world is far more complicated than that. The ideas of sphere of influence and geographical hegemony are ones that no longer work if they ever did.

The paradigm we all are supposed to be working under now is the one of the equality of nations and self-determination. Perhaps it will someday even become true? But even if that paradigm is someday achieved there will still be leaders and followers just as in everything else. but it will not be primarily dominated by geography but by ideas and far more importantly by the power of shared visions of the world we all want to someday live in will be like. If the contention is that an Anchor Nation is a leader of a common vision shared by others, regardless of its size or location, as that vision competes with other visions heald by other nations then the idea has some merit otherwise it does not.

Definitely an excellent point. What about legitimacy of the government?

 

[Belesari]

China has already impacted the world and because of its military and economic power does control alot.

But that being said the world isnt as it was. Where one culture would die off because it was smaller and fractured before now it has the internet and can stay collected and alive.

The changes were seeing in the world are pretty amazing and as i have posted here before the chinese Admirals atleast have given some thought to it. In a meeting with a american admiral his chinese college hinted at the US having everything east of hawaii to east africa and the chinese everything west of hawaii to the mideast. American said no thanks.

Colonialism isnt gonna work anymore. Neither would anchor states. Hell half of nations hate their neighbors.

 

[ngatimozart]

China has already impacted the world and because of its military and economic power does control alot.

But that being said the world isnt as it was. Where one culture would die off because it was smaller and fractured before now it has the internet and can stay collected and alive.

The changes were seeing in the world are pretty amazing and as i have posted here before the chinese Admirals atleast have given some thought to it. In a meeting with a american admiral his chinese college hinted at the US having everything east of hawaii to east africa and the chinese everything west of hawaii to the mideast. American said no thanks.

Colonialism isnt gonna work anymore. Neither would anchor states. Hell half of nations hate their neighbors.

I would strongly dispute your point on colonialism. It is still happening and very much en vogue. There are many works in the literature that support this with examples such as US / western individualistic self centred culture being "prosecuted" via Hollywood, the monoculturalism of western society, or the monotheism of Christianity (and Islam as well) and it's extinguishing of first nation /aboriginal cultural beliefs & traditions (like mine) to name but a few. I will not go any further because it then could be perceived to enter the realms of politics. The point is colonialism is still very much alive and still being perpetrated.

 

[Belesari]

Still alive yes look no further than "former" french colonies like nigeria etc. They are still there and incharge in many ways. Just not so openly.

Here is the question. If China is shown to be dealing in its own colonialism and the press reports it as such would people care if it wasnt the US?

I would strongly dispute your point on colonialism. It is still happening and very much en vogue. There are many works in the literature that support this with examples such as US / western individualistic self centred culture being "prosecuted" via Hollywood, the monoculturalism of western society, or the monotheism of Christianity (and Islam as well) and it's extinguishing of first nation /aboriginal cultural beliefs & traditions (like mine) to name but a few. I will not go any further because it then could be perceived to enter the realms of politics. The point is colonialism is still very much alive and still being perpetrated.

 

[My2Cents]

Still alive yes look no further than "former" french colonies like nigeria etc. They are still there and incharge in many ways. Just not so openly.

I assume this is either sarcasm or you have never tried to do anything in Nigeria, even in a partnership with the French. :fly

 

[ngatimozart]

Still alive yes look no further than "former" french colonies like nigeria etc. They are still there and incharge in many ways. Just not so openly.

M2Cents has it right - it sounds a bit sarcastic mate. Post colonialism has its own pitfalls etc. Not everybody comes out the other end smelling of roses.

Here is the question. If China is shown to be dealing in its own colonialism and the press reports it as such would people care if it wasnt the US?

You seem to be showing you ignorance of foreign affairs. China invaded Tibet in 1959 I think. We still have protests here about Tibet every time a high Chinese govt official visits. and I presume the NZG mentions it regularly to the Chinese Govt when it has high level contacts - if they don't they bloody well should. I can't speak for other nations. I think the US would be speaking first and loudly from on high about Chinese colonialism when it suits their purpose, like most nations.

 

[HybridCyph3r_F1]

Still alive yes look no further than "former" french colonies like nigeria etc. They are still there and incharge in many ways. Just not so openly.

Here is the question. If China is shown to be dealing in its own colonialism and the press reports it as such would people care if it wasnt the US?

Excellent question. Maybe someone should start a poll in specific parts in three regions: North America, Asia, and Africa. Collect the data, and analyze the results. :coffee

More than likely, past historical events will be a determining factor however the goals, aspirations, ambitions, etc. of the people will be the turning point.

So, that leads to another question: Can North America compete for resources in Africa compared to Asia?

 

[swerve]

Still alive yes look no further than "former" french colonies like nigeria etc. They are still there and incharge in many ways. Just not so openly.

Nigeria? French? You're obviously confusing it with some other country, which is an extraordinary thing to do, since Nigeria is very hard to mistake for anywhere else.

Remind me not to ask you any questions about African geography, history, or current affairs.

 

[welsh1]

Still alive yes look no further than "former" french colonies like nigeria etc. They are still there and incharge in many ways. Just not so openly.

Here is the question. If China is shown to be dealing in its own colonialism and the press reports it as such would people care if it wasnt the US?

niger was french, nigeria was british. niger is to the north of nigeria and does still have a special relationship with france.

from what i remeber the french still have military advisers in country and help with trainning of the army.

 

[Belesari]

niger was french, nigeria was british. niger is to the north of nigeria and does still have a special relationship with france.

from what i remeber the french still have military advisers in country and help with trainning of the army.

Yes that is what i ment. They also have a good amount of political power in many countries in africa. Yet no one talks about that in the news. Of course as of lately so does china. More and more it is the one investing in oil and in some cases such as Zimbobwe have supplied arms to the ruling government. Which i have yet to have heard mentioned in the News feeds.

Now im not saying "oh those evil chinese!" im just saying this is a example of how the standards of one power arent the same for another. So that factors into any equation such as: would country X be willing to accept living under country Y's rule even if it was soft as a feather or hard as a hammer.

"Nigeria? French? You're obviously confusing it with some other country, which is an extraordinary thing to do, since Nigeria is very hard to mistake for anywhere else.

See the above. Any lets say "untainted" information can be hard to get about africa. To much politics and racism out of both sides colors the history. Plus its safer for me to say nigeria than Niger. As i once mentioned it in a chat channel and got called a racist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Remind me not to ask you any questions about African geography, history, or current affairs"

See the above. Any tips on some good books to read on the subject. About all you get as far as public education on african history in us is "slaves were taken from africa then to America." Not very complete. Though i do know about the aksumites (was it axsum or aksum? i've seen both).

Ok dont ask me about the latest designs in the fashion world couldn't help ya there either. However i AM pretty good at frog gigging.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So, that leads to another question: Can North America compete for resources in Africa compared to Asia? "

Well to me i really dont see a reason for the US to compete for resources in africa. The US itself has more than enough to sustain us. Even in rare earths we 'have' the mines just like we have the oil. Its just no one is using them for reasons from politics to simple economics. Lately thats gotten more important as china has kept more and more RE for itself and its industrialization. Which ironicly it is now dealing with the same problems they gave us in the USA ie cheap labor, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"You seem to be showing you ignorance of foreign affairs. China invaded Tibet in 1959 I think. We still have protests here about Tibet every time a high Chinese govt official visits. and I presume the NZG mentions it regularly to the Chinese Govt when it has high level contacts - if they don't they bloody well should. I can't speak for other nations. I think the US would be speaking first and loudly from on high about Chinese colonialism when it suits their purpose, like most nations."

Yes but Tibet is rarely mentioned here in the US and i find it ironic so many dont even know China invaded (or attempted) Vietnam after the US left. Much is talked of American and European colonialism but little of others here.

Which again is pushed by china and others justified or not. Thats politics and reality.

So much of the anchor nation would depend on how well a nation or faction is at handling PR.