A perfect storm

Better comment this time. Revieling in few places.

"This in turn has enabled them to resist the soft pressure from the West (either through financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank or from individual countries) to carry out democratic, market-oriented reforms. "

I'm glad to see that someone can addmit this, as opposed to most politicians who are saying that these are institutions belonging to everyone. "INTERNATIONAL" monetary fund, and "WORLD" bank. etc.

"...the soft pressure from the West (either through financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank or from individual countries)..."

Tools of pressure.

In one place Montgomery contradicts himself.

"For decades now, the West has preserved and strongly supported a doctrine of free trade with the belief that it is beneficial for all. (Critics will claim it was exclusively designed for the benefit of Western developed countries to the detriment of the underdeveloped world). "

Than later:

"d) The traditional US/European support for free trade may be coming to an end as we go from being its principal beneficiaries to one of its victims. French President Sarkozy signaled this change with his insistence on de-emphasizing the role of competition within the EU at the last EU Summit."

Practically, in the first part, the critics were wrong. Free-trade has to be supported, not because West is benefiting, but because it's beneficial for all. We have seen it not being beneficial for all for a long time now. Many African countries are far worst off then they've been decades ago. Just examine case of Ghana, that turned from food exporter to having to import half of its food, while empoverishing many of its farmers. It happened after following recommendations of IMF that required free-market, open-border for imports policy. Food from heavily subsidised US and European farmers started to pour in.
In second part, well, West may no longer support free-trade, as this time it's working against it, not in favour of it. Agricaltural catastrhophy in Ghana was simply "market adjustment" and "neccessary pain that follows implementation of market rules." Pain so readilly required from the others, is not willingly taken now.
I don't think that West has to worry about it too much. Asians will want to bring Westerns in line, too, as they aquire required level of economic, political and military power.
While Western countries will certainly loose some of its current power, they will not turn into push-over countries. I doubt that we will see India or China applying same tactics previously used by "free-trade" proponents. (support for the opposition, assasination of political leaders that are standing in the way, military coup d'tat, etc.).
But, I have to agree with Montgomery in many things that he's saying in this article. I was never proponent of free-trade and globalization as it is done today. Even less of the free-market that he advocated 3 articles ago.
It's time that world should try to find model of COOPERATION in its developments not COMPETITION.
I agree with Sarkozy that competition should be de-emphasized.
And I'm not saying this because "In short, in a growing number of categories, we simply cannot compete fairly with them. "
I'm saying this because I have been a firm believer of other models of development for a long period of time.
And finally.

"What makes these challenges so great is that in almost every case, they fall outside the normal range of government responses and ministries. They are multinational challenges, which require united, multinational responses."

I couldn't agree more. We are facing global problems today, that are asking for global solutions.

Where are now Albanians with their comments about "one and only super power blah,blah"?:-)
As i said last week,the world is changing today much faster then ,lets say, 100 or 50 years ago.The "reality" will be very interesting in 10-20 years from now,for sure!

The age of American unipolar hegemony has ended, and I as an American am happy about it - more like relieved.

Unipolarism is one of the most unstable international systems, and throughout history unipolar powers have been beset with numerous challenges to authority and domination, even by would-be allies and client states. Moreover, unipolar powers almost bankrupt themselves from within, trying to maintain the hold on power as challenges to authority and hegemonic legitimacy increase. It is apparent now that we are moving back to a multipolar world in which the US continues to be a major power, but now must share the state with Europe, China, India, Russia, and even Iran. As such, American foreign policy now has to compete for authority and make compromises with other players. This is a good thing for us because it forces us to modify our statements for the sake of international consensus, and also adds to alliance formation, particularly with the Europeans in countering other potential threats from the Middle East or Asia.

We painfully realized the futility of trying to rebuild the Middle East on our own, and we are increasingly realizing that "smaller" solutions such as Kosovo are being met with open opposition from Russia and a muted response from Europe. That to me says it's time to rethink many of the unipolar strategies we have constructed and adapt them to more current situations. America can only become stronger and more respected if it plays along with the rest of the crowd, and not act as if it were the 1990s anymore.

This is the BEST article Mr.Montgomery has ever written and I applaud him for it.BRAVO

Not this guy again! What is he saying now? That the world changes over time? Like, who doesn't know that already? I have an inconvenient truth for Mr. Montgomery: I would rather read more about the "Serbian Man Purse".

If I had more time I would write longer dissertations on many of these topics but for now Matthew has explained it brilliantly.

His excellency fails to explicitly mention that the arrogance of U.S. leaders made things a lot worse. This created headaches and problems for everyone, while at the same time eroding U.S. resources, will and credibility. He should not forget that this also applies to the failed policies of the West in the Balkans.

Hahaha. B92 censored my inconvenient truth about Montgomery: His blogs are boring. Obviously B92 gets funded by the US government to spread propaganda.

Nicely noticed, Sreten!
"free trade with the belief that it is beneficial for all. "
"The traditional US/European support for free trade may be coming to an end as we go from being its principal beneficiaries to one of its victims."
So, there are beneficiaries and victims of free-trade after all.
Surprise, surprise..
And on something I have to disagree.
Neither India nor China will be any better in managing world's affairs then its current masters. While they won't be able to do that in the West, "support for the opposition, assasination of political leaders that are standing in the way, military coup d'etat, etc." will be widespread in South America and Africa, you can be sure of that.

Well, I'm still a believer in free trade, the World Bank and the IMF.

Albania for one thing has benefited from the oversight of the two institutions and from the constant pressure from the U.S. and E.U. to obey the rules of democracy. So here's a thank you to all of them.

People like to blame the failure of Africa especially on the free trade. That is garbage.
The main reason African countries have failed is because of mismanagement, corruption and lack of vision by their own governments. Zimbabwe is probably the shining example of that. Riches to rags within a decade.

The second reason of failures in Africa and other third world countries is EXACTLY the lack of free trade. The most griveous examples of which are the Common Agriculture Policy in Europe and extensive farm subsidies in the United States.

There is indeed a TEMPORARY shift in the balance of power between the West and Asia/Russia. The Asian shift is likely to last longer than the Russian one however. The reason for this is simply income inequality. It's an imbalance that's being corrected. Also, while the Asian countries have plenty of cheap unskilled labor, they have very little cheap skilled labor. As India and China demonstrate, the cost of skilled labor is rising in double-digits every year.

As for Russia, I've commented before on this, but here I go again. Russia will remain a military superpower by virtue of its nuclear weapons. It will enrich itself on oil and gas revenues for a while. In the long run, it will remain an economic joke.

I live in the United States and I believe thye will still lead on in the long run. It's simply a lot more entrepreneurial and risk taking a country than any other in the planet. It attracts the best and the brightest in the world with Europe, Canada and Australia following close by. No one will be heading to Russia, China or the rest of Asia any time soon if they're bent on making an impression on this planet.

In the end it comes down to how you see the world, a glass half empty/half full. The U.S. may have gotten a bit lazy while it had no competition. Nothing to get its competitive juices flowing again once an opponent (or many) are introduced. That you can count on.

I would like to see the developments as a "what goes around, comes around".
For many years we have seen the poor countries getting poorer and the rich richer. Now the trend is reversed. I am not too worried about us being unable to compete with China. The same was said a few decades ago about Japan and now we can perfectly live with it.
The real problem with the American pro-democracy drive was that is was never unselfish. The support for the color revolutions came from old cold war instincts. And nobody has forgotten the US support for the coup in Venezuela. The US keeps behaving awkward when confronted with democracies that are hostile to the US. Iran is probably the most democratic country in the Middle East (other countries are more free, but Iran is the only country where voters can make a major difference). Yet the US keeps treating it like the devil.
The problem with the Islamic world is mostly a problem with Saudi Arabia. Look at any terrorist and he has radicalised in a mosque financed by Saudi Arabia. And with their offers of free scholarships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia these mosques are very attractive for a lot of people. When that the US finally decides to erase this kingdom Islamic terrorism will soon be history.
The real risk factor to me seems to be China. They have territorial claims on nearly all their neighbours and in 10 or 20 years they will have the means to impose their will. In that new world Russia will be a natural ally for the US.

The age of American unipolar hegemony has ended, and I as an American am happy about it - more like relieved.

Unipolarism is one of the most unstable international systems, and throughout history unipolar powers have been beset with numerous challenges to authority and domination, even by would-be allies and client states. Moreover, unipolar powers almost bankrupt themselves from within, trying to maintain the hold on power as challenges to authority and hegemonic legitimacy increase. It is apparent now that we are moving back to a multipolar world in which the US continues to be a major power, but now must share the state with Europe, China, India, Russia, and even Iran. As such, American foreign policy now has to compete for authority and make compromises with other players. This is a good thing for us because it forces us to modify our statements for the sake of international consensus, and also adds to alliance formation, particularly with the Europeans in countering other potential threats from the Middle East or Asia.

We painfully realized the futility of trying to rebuild the Middle East on our own, and we are increasingly realizing that "smaller" solutions such as Kosovo are being met with open opposition from Russia and a muted response from Europe. That to me says it's time to rethink many of the unipolar strategies we have constructed and adapt them to more current situations. America can only become stronger and more respected if it plays along with the rest of the crowd, and not act as if it were the 1990s anymore.

Not this guy again! What is he saying now? That the world changes over time? Like, who doesn't know that already? I have an inconvenient truth for Mr. Montgomery: I would rather read more about the "Serbian Man Purse".

Better comment this time. Revieling in few places.

"This in turn has enabled them to resist the soft pressure from the West (either through financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank or from individual countries) to carry out democratic, market-oriented reforms. "

I'm glad to see that someone can addmit this, as opposed to most politicians who are saying that these are institutions belonging to everyone. "INTERNATIONAL" monetary fund, and "WORLD" bank. etc.

"...the soft pressure from the West (either through financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank or from individual countries)..."

Tools of pressure.

In one place Montgomery contradicts himself.

"For decades now, the West has preserved and strongly supported a doctrine of free trade with the belief that it is beneficial for all. (Critics will claim it was exclusively designed for the benefit of Western developed countries to the detriment of the underdeveloped world). "

Than later:

"d) The traditional US/European support for free trade may be coming to an end as we go from being its principal beneficiaries to one of its victims. French President Sarkozy signaled this change with his insistence on de-emphasizing the role of competition within the EU at the last EU Summit."

Practically, in the first part, the critics were wrong. Free-trade has to be supported, not because West is benefiting, but because it's beneficial for all. We have seen it not being beneficial for all for a long time now. Many African countries are far worst off then they've been decades ago. Just examine case of Ghana, that turned from food exporter to having to import half of its food, while empoverishing many of its farmers. It happened after following recommendations of IMF that required free-market, open-border for imports policy. Food from heavily subsidised US and European farmers started to pour in.
In second part, well, West may no longer support free-trade, as this time it's working against it, not in favour of it. Agricaltural catastrhophy in Ghana was simply "market adjustment" and "neccessary pain that follows implementation of market rules." Pain so readilly required from the others, is not willingly taken now.
I don't think that West has to worry about it too much. Asians will want to bring Westerns in line, too, as they aquire required level of economic, political and military power.
While Western countries will certainly loose some of its current power, they will not turn into push-over countries. I doubt that we will see India or China applying same tactics previously used by "free-trade" proponents. (support for the opposition, assasination of political leaders that are standing in the way, military coup d'tat, etc.).
But, I have to agree with Montgomery in many things that he's saying in this article. I was never proponent of free-trade and globalization as it is done today. Even less of the free-market that he advocated 3 articles ago.
It's time that world should try to find model of COOPERATION in its developments not COMPETITION.
I agree with Sarkozy that competition should be de-emphasized.
And I'm not saying this because "In short, in a growing number of categories, we simply cannot compete fairly with them. "
I'm saying this because I have been a firm believer of other models of development for a long period of time.
And finally.

"What makes these challenges so great is that in almost every case, they fall outside the normal range of government responses and ministries. They are multinational challenges, which require united, multinational responses."

I couldn't agree more. We are facing global problems today, that are asking for global solutions.

Nicely noticed, Sreten!
"free trade with the belief that it is beneficial for all. "
"The traditional US/European support for free trade may be coming to an end as we go from being its principal beneficiaries to one of its victims."
So, there are beneficiaries and victims of free-trade after all.
Surprise, surprise..
And on something I have to disagree.
Neither India nor China will be any better in managing world's affairs then its current masters. While they won't be able to do that in the West, "support for the opposition, assasination of political leaders that are standing in the way, military coup d'etat, etc." will be widespread in South America and Africa, you can be sure of that.

Where are now Albanians with their comments about "one and only super power blah,blah"?:-)
As i said last week,the world is changing today much faster then ,lets say, 100 or 50 years ago.The "reality" will be very interesting in 10-20 years from now,for sure!

His excellency fails to explicitly mention that the arrogance of U.S. leaders made things a lot worse. This created headaches and problems for everyone, while at the same time eroding U.S. resources, will and credibility. He should not forget that this also applies to the failed policies of the West in the Balkans.

This is the BEST article Mr.Montgomery has ever written and I applaud him for it.BRAVO

If I had more time I would write longer dissertations on many of these topics but for now Matthew has explained it brilliantly.

Well, I'm still a believer in free trade, the World Bank and the IMF.

Albania for one thing has benefited from the oversight of the two institutions and from the constant pressure from the U.S. and E.U. to obey the rules of democracy. So here's a thank you to all of them.

People like to blame the failure of Africa especially on the free trade. That is garbage.
The main reason African countries have failed is because of mismanagement, corruption and lack of vision by their own governments. Zimbabwe is probably the shining example of that. Riches to rags within a decade.

The second reason of failures in Africa and other third world countries is EXACTLY the lack of free trade. The most griveous examples of which are the Common Agriculture Policy in Europe and extensive farm subsidies in the United States.

There is indeed a TEMPORARY shift in the balance of power between the West and Asia/Russia. The Asian shift is likely to last longer than the Russian one however. The reason for this is simply income inequality. It's an imbalance that's being corrected. Also, while the Asian countries have plenty of cheap unskilled labor, they have very little cheap skilled labor. As India and China demonstrate, the cost of skilled labor is rising in double-digits every year.

As for Russia, I've commented before on this, but here I go again. Russia will remain a military superpower by virtue of its nuclear weapons. It will enrich itself on oil and gas revenues for a while. In the long run, it will remain an economic joke.

I live in the United States and I believe thye will still lead on in the long run. It's simply a lot more entrepreneurial and risk taking a country than any other in the planet. It attracts the best and the brightest in the world with Europe, Canada and Australia following close by. No one will be heading to Russia, China or the rest of Asia any time soon if they're bent on making an impression on this planet.

In the end it comes down to how you see the world, a glass half empty/half full. The U.S. may have gotten a bit lazy while it had no competition. Nothing to get its competitive juices flowing again once an opponent (or many) are introduced. That you can count on.

Hahaha. B92 censored my inconvenient truth about Montgomery: His blogs are boring. Obviously B92 gets funded by the US government to spread propaganda.

I would like to see the developments as a "what goes around, comes around".
For many years we have seen the poor countries getting poorer and the rich richer. Now the trend is reversed. I am not too worried about us being unable to compete with China. The same was said a few decades ago about Japan and now we can perfectly live with it.
The real problem with the American pro-democracy drive was that is was never unselfish. The support for the color revolutions came from old cold war instincts. And nobody has forgotten the US support for the coup in Venezuela. The US keeps behaving awkward when confronted with democracies that are hostile to the US. Iran is probably the most democratic country in the Middle East (other countries are more free, but Iran is the only country where voters can make a major difference). Yet the US keeps treating it like the devil.
The problem with the Islamic world is mostly a problem with Saudi Arabia. Look at any terrorist and he has radicalised in a mosque financed by Saudi Arabia. And with their offers of free scholarships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia these mosques are very attractive for a lot of people. When that the US finally decides to erase this kingdom Islamic terrorism will soon be history.
The real risk factor to me seems to be China. They have territorial claims on nearly all their neighbours and in 10 or 20 years they will have the means to impose their will. In that new world Russia will be a natural ally for the US.