Kishore Mahbubani's "The Case Against the West"

In his article, "The Case Against the West", Kishore Mahbubani attempts to prove that the West is a major source of many of today's global issues. Mahbubani believes that the West is unable to accept the inevitable rise of the "Asian century" and that in this fight against change, the failures of the West have grown increasingly more commonplace in today's world. For example, in the case of the war in Iraq, the West is unable to see that sometimes Western actions can cause more harm than good. The West went into Iraq expecting the Iraqi people to be waiting with their arms open to be rescued. As Mahbubani writes, this entire notion was "ridiculous." Furthermore, the West broke the theory of international law by using force in a situation that was not defined as an act of self-defense or approved by the UN Security Council. What Mahbubani expresses that he doesn't understand is how a well-developed country based on the idea of individual advancement and freedom can expect to rule over other countries and apply the same government rule abroad. The West cannot do it all, and taking on too many issues has lead to several mismanagements. It is here that the ability for Asian countries to step up has taken place. Since the West cannot manage everything, other Asian countries such as China have used elements of Western policy in their own systems to attempt to take responsibility for many world issues.

Right here is where in my opinion, Mahbubani has erred. He even admits that the West cannot take on all these issues at the same time. So why is he criticizing the West for failing, if he knew it was inevitable? His writing almost seems to express, in places, that he expects the West to take responsibility for several of these issues, while at the same time he knows they can't. It's unrealistic and hypocritical. For example, Mahbubani writes that the West is "failing to take a lead on battling global warming." He backs up his claim that the West should take charge of environmental issues by saying that anything dealing with the commons should be under the care of wealthier nations. This seems so hypocritical! How can he say that China and other countries are trying to rise up and take responsibility for world issues and accuse the West of not letting them, but then try to assign MORE work to the West? He is saying the West fails at what it does, so why is he trying to pile on more work? Why can't China and other Asian countries take responsibility for these issues? Just because China contributes less toxic emissions than the US doesn't mean the environment isn't important to the Chinese also.

Mahbubani accuses the West of not welcoming Asia's rise in the modern world. How can they welcome the rise of other countries, when he and so many others are still pressuring them to take responsibility for global warming, and other issues? How can the West be expected to manage things, and yet still relinquish power?

On a side note: In my last post, I briefly mentioned the American GM crop company, Monsanto. In upcoming posts, I will discuss Monsanto's effect on the world. America is using Monsanto to trade GM corn with other countries. However, many countries are rejecting the corn because of the environmental problems associated with it. Mahbubani would probably argue, with relation to this topic, that America is unthinkingly forcing faulty products on other countries - products which harm them, and that the West is causing more harm than good. Is this true? Stay tuned to find out.