Debate: 'South America Will Be The C21st Superpower' 22 March 2011 - Transcript

For your information (details on the event)
Event Speakers:
Chair
Jonathan Freedland
Speakers for the motion

Parag Khanna
Oscar Guardiola-Rivera
HE Roberto Jaguaribe
Speakers against the motion

Bill Emmott
Rana Mitter
Gideon Rachman
Event Title:
Look West not East: South America will be the 21st century's superpower
Tuesday March 22nd, 2011

Doors open at 6pm. The debate starts at 6.45pm and finishes at 8.30pm.
Event Summary
Conventional wisdom tells us that a new star will rise in the East, and over the past decade
all eyes have been looking towards China or India to witness the emergence of the 21st
century’s new superpower. But if the three key elements for a strong and powerful
economy are democracy, economic growth and low inflation then neither of those would-
be giants makes the grade. Inflation in India is at a 13-year high; as for democracy in
China… well there isn’t any. Remarkable as has been their recent economic growth the
institutional frailty of both nations raises questions about long-term sustainability. But
quietly and less flashily the economies of South America have also been transforming
themselves, only in their case unburdened by the dead weight of caste politics or
communism. And it’s not just the growing might of Brazil that catches the eye: a new
vitality is evident across the continent – in Peru, for example, whose 9.8 percent growth
rate last year was one of the world’s fastest. So perhaps we should all do an about-turn.
Look West, young man!
Super-Power-Debate-Audio
Look West not East: South America will be the 21st century's
Superpower
Tuesday March 22nd, 2011
Chair: Jonathan Freedland
Thank you very much Khanna. Welcome to all of you, our live audience here for
Intelligence Squared. Also, welcome to the online audience watching the debate via the
Intelligence Squared website, who will doubtless be sending in their questions later via
Twitter. This is usually the David Dimbleby moment, where he mentions things like hash
tags, etcetera that he clearly doesn’t understand. I’m not going to do that.
Instead, let’s introduce our subject for tonight. It is “Look West, not East. South America
will be the Twenty-First Century’s Superpower.” If the premise for this motion is that Latin
America does not get the attention it deserves because people are always looking
elsewhere, then I have to say, not just myself but my newspaper, I write for the Guardian,
has a little taste of how that must feel right now . Some of you may have noticed that while
the Arab world and North Africa are burning up with revolution and military intervention and
while Japan is in turmoil after earthquake and potential nuclear meltdown, the Guardian
has decided to devote a month of coverage to a season in Europe, rather brilliantly.
[Laughter]
And so, last week I was in Paris and then in Madrid interviewing one diplomat after the
other and each one of then asked the same question as I walked in: “You’re a journalist.
Why on earth are you here?” [Laughter] So this is, perhaps, Europe suddenly having a
flavor of what Latin America experiences often. I will also just plant it to have hovering in
our minds, again it may be more ceased on by one side of our motion rather than the
other, the declaration from a grizzled and veteran editor of the New York Times who had
been taught from bitter experience that Americans will do mostly anything for South
America except read about it. We may find some contra-views to that proposal this
evening.
So, that is the motion. You will be casting a vote at the end of the evening by tearing your
ticket in two and voting either with the “for” or “against” slip. If you are a “don’t know,” you
should place the entire ticket in the ballad box. That counts as an abstention. There will
be a pre-vote, and I will be giving you the results of that after we’ve had the set piece
speeches from our speakers. I’m glad to say that the format is, and they will stick very
strictly to it, each speaker has eight or nine minutes. They will speak from the podium. I
will be quite hard-line. Two minutes before, I will give two strikes of the glass. One minute
before, one strike of the glass. After that I will gesticulate wildly and generally embarrass
you if you do not come back away from the podium. So, that is the procedure. Then we’ll
open it up, as you know people who have been here before, to questions and contributions
from the floor. A spirited debate at this end as well. So, I’m going to introduce our
speakers one by one as they come up.
So, our first speaker that may ascend to the podium is Parag Khanna, who’s a senior
research fellow in the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. He’s
the author of the, wonderfully titled: “How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next
Renaissance.” He is, of course, as our first speaker, speaking for the motion: Parag
Khanna.
For: Parag Khanna
Good evening. Many of you are no doubt here because you were seduced by the image
on the left side of this screen. This succulent, seductive lady and you might have hoped to
see her or some avatar of her up on the stage this evening, instead of seven men. Sorry
to disappoint you. That said, she and what she represents, has seduced the President of
the United States. So while we all sit here this evening, President Barack Obama is in
South America, in Chile and en route to Brazil. No doubt seeking comfort and solace from
the world’s turbulence. What is his mission? He says it is to forge new alliances across
the Americas. He will need them to counter those stiff generals on the right side of this
program this evening.
Now those generals and the Chinese superpower that they represent, appear to be an
unassailable force, marching irreversibly towards global hegemony. But note that tonight’s
proposition is not that China or Asian represent the only superpower, but that South
America will surprise us in becoming one. Now ladies and gentlemen, geopolitics is a very
unsentimental discipline. It doesn’t care how many articles or books you’ve read about the
rise of China. It doesn’t care how much money you’ve invested in Asian mutual funds. It
doesn’t care how many hours or dollars you’ve spent on the Chinese nanny to teach your
kids Mandarin. [Laughter]
Geopolitics is about the relationship between power and space. Thus, tonight’s debate
should center on the elements of power: where and how they come together and how they
are executed, nothing more. It is already the case that the 21st century is, in fact, multi-
polar and multi-civilizational. More than one superpower means that no continent will
emerge as the superpower. But there will be quite a few that can claim that they are
superpowers. Indeed, the combination of military, economic, and diplomatic influence
make the United States, the European Union, and China, already superpowers. Their
influence extends around the world. They are the three largest imperial units. They are
models, which are actively spreading themselves around the world. They have resources,
they have ambition.
Why is Latin America, why is South America, so perennially been excluded from this
conversation about geopolitics? Well, there’s a naïve and simplistic assumption that
hegemonic power moves in cycles from East to West and now East again, ignoring the
complex realities of how power, the power of each depends on the power of others.
The second reason is that South America has, for so long, been considered a resource
provider rather than a resource deplorer. The third reason is that the South American
continent has been considered geopolitically inert and marginal and subservient,
especially to the United States.
Ladies and gentlemen, all of that has changed. First, China is not just rising by itself. It is
bringing others with it. Latin America’s booming exports to China are part of the reason
why we can have this debate this evening about South America rising to the status of a
superpower. According to Standard Chartered Bank, the trade between Latin America and
Asia is the fastest growing between any pair of regions in the world. That trade is very
balanced as well. So, South America is not being bought or owned in some neocolonial
pattern, such as many describe Africa today. To the contrary, China’s rise is elevating
South America. It will continue to grow and benefit from that.
Secondly, in an age of resource scarcity, it matters who controls the resources. South
America represents a very sizable share of the earth’s total biocapacity. The Amazon rain
forest is the world’s lungs. The continent is also the world’s bread basket, producing most
of the world’s bananas, sugar, oranges, coffee, soya beans, and a major share of the
world’s beef and pork. It also has massive mineral deposits: silver, copper, lead, zinc, tin,
iron or lithium. All of these, in this very rich continent. The Western hemisphere in fact, on
the whole, is on the cusp of energy and food independence from the rest of the planet.
Canada, the United States, Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil, are all major oil and gas
producers for a hemisphere that only has one billion people. Those resources are far less
volatile than the Middle East on which, in fact, China and Asia depend.
In fact, Brazil itself may just have discovered as much oil as Russia has. Canada is
physically as large as Russia, except it works. [Laughter] So, in a century of resource
scarcity, supply has the upper hand on demand. Third, South America previously had no
leader. But today, Brazil has emerged as a confident and mature international power. It is
leading the creation of the union of South American nations. It has become active with
Europe, across Africa, negotiating with Iran and trading with China. No one really knows if
China’s economic figures are real. But, evermore people are confident in the Brazilian
Real. South America’s economy, as a whole, is already the same size of China’s but with
only half of the population. Due to the success of Chile and Brazil, there is a new left
consensus across South America that has taken hold. It reverses centuries of political
volatility in favor of a consistent pattern of social democracy, proper investment and a
welcoming climate for foreign-direct investment. South America is in a state of peace.
There are no active hostilities between its nations. It has relatively few countries and a
common culture and heritage. No doubt we look at South America and we see Hugo
Chavez and his cantankerous rule. He has almost led his nation into conflict with several
neighbors, including Colombia. But, that has not materialized, very largely due to the
mediation of powers such as Brazil. On the whole, Brazil’s role has in fact been to
animate Latin American leaders, to stand up for themselves and be a part of this story of
South America’s rise.
Now, like North America, South America is geographically isolated from geopolitic threats.
Much like America rose from a period of splendid isolation. So will too South America. By
contrast, Asia is very turbulent. The great power rivalries and suspicions that plague the
region are alive and well, between China, Japan, India and South Korean. Asia is, in fact,
leading the world’s arms bazaar. All countries around China have dramatically increased
their acquisition of military assets to hedge against China’s rise.
Can you be so sure that China’s commercial dominance, and the Asian culture of
deference, will prevail over parochial interest and the parochial interest of proud nations
that are armed to the teeth? I wouldn’t bet on it. Leaving aside the rational powers, there
are still major flash points in Asian from Myanmar to North Korea, rogue regimes that
could suck Asia’s powers into military conflict. If World War III will take place anywhere, it
will be in Asia.
China is not without domestic disturbances. From the waves of protest on corruption at all
levels, to the existential challenge of caring for its vast elderly as the race to clean up the
environment continues without taxing the society to the limit, when it’s currently choking
much of its population. By and large though, this entire case can be made without bashing
Asia, which is of course the continent I come despite my rugged Latin looks. [Laughter]
Which brings us back to Obama’s trip for this week in which he went South, not East.
America has realized that South America is its turn-key solution to its two greatest
challenges: energy security and economic competitiveness. Obama’s trip takes place on
the fiftieth anniversary, to the month, of the Alliance for Progress, which sparked a very
important wave of modernization and industrialization in South America in the 1960s.
Today, America is launching a new alliance for progress in the region. American firms are
relocating from Asia to Mexico and other Latin American countries, while partnerships in
energy and trade are flourishing between America and Brazil. Together, North and South
America will be able to compete with Asia, whose rise America has sponsored with the
outsourcing of manufacturing is going to come back to America’s time zone.
In other words, South America will become a major 21st century superpower also because
America wants it to be one. The rise of the East then, will reunite the West stronger than
ever. But this West will include, not only just the United States and Europe, but also a new
third pillar: South America. Thank you very much.
I hope the other speakers notice that, with the merest flick on the glass, he was back in his
seat. [Laughter] This is the rod of iron for which I propose to use this evening. Our next
speaker is himself a former editor, but one of the very few who actually can claim to have
covered South America seriously in his publication. Nevertheless, despite that, he’s here
to argue against the motion. He’s the former editor of The Economist and author of
“Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India, and Japan Will Shape Our Next
Decade.” Here to argue against the motion, I suppose suggesting that we should look
east rather than west is Bill Emmott.
Against: Bill Emmott
Well thank you very much, Chairman, and to Intelligence Squared for having me here this
evening. I’d like to thank my friend Parag Khanna for making the first speech against the
motion. His excellent speech told us exactly what I think, which is that the 21st Century
should not be a century in which we look in one direction or the other. It should not be a
century in which we chose China over Brazil, India over the United States. It should be,
we should hope it will be, a century in which there will not be a single superpower. In
which there will be many powers and perhaps a balance of those powers.
Of course, looking to the future, we must remember always the wise words of Sam
Goldman, that we should never forecast, especially about the future. We should look at
the future with humility. Anyone who looks at the speed of events in North Africa and the
Middle East since December when the first spark came in Tunisia, anyone who looks at
the potential impact on Japan on the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster on March
11, should be touched by the humility. By that sense that any forecast about the future is
first of all something that of course would rule journalists out of a job, since if it was all
clear, nobody would need to buy our publications or read our columns or our books. But
secondly, that many things can or will change. Let me emphasize how profoundly
pessimistic the motion actually is about that future.
The motion that says South America will be the 21st century’s superpower. Look west, not
east. That is profoundly pessimistic because it assumes that the way we’re developing
now, which is to have the greatest growth in living standards, in humanities income, in the
movement in people out of poverty that’s ever happened in history, thanks substantially to
what’s happening in the most populous place in the world, namely Asia, home to half the
world’s population, three billion plus people, that this may come to an end. That this might
achieve some sort of terrible denouement. That, in the future, this progress of the East
might be severely interrupted. In my book, as was kindly marketed by our chairman, I do
say that there is rivalry between China, India and Japan that will help to shape the future.
But I do come from a background in which I think that competition can be a positive thing.
There are arms races. There is real tension in Asia. There’s real tension within the
countries of Asia over future types of government that those countries should have,
particularly in China. The speed with which the Chinese government and authorities have
sort to snuff out any signs of protest, any signs of dissidence emulating events in Egypt,
Tunisia, Libya, and elsewhere, shows how paranoid they are about these prospects.
But still, to see the 21st century as being defined solely or chiefly by South America
requires a very pessimistic view about the outcome of that story in Asia. Not just that there
will be interruptions, not just that there will be perhaps bits of instability as China
democratizes, as India deals with it’s inequality, as issues such as the unification of the
Koreas are played through. No not just instabilities, but rather that this whole process will
come to some sort of a terrible conclusion.
Because otherwise, a steady growth in the half of the world that we call the East, should
produce very, very powerful countries in that part of the world that would be at least a
balance to very powerful countries in the Western part of the world. I believe we should be
very positive about the prospects for South America, especially about Brazil, of course the
dominant country of the South America. The progress in the last twenty years in the
politics of Brazil, the economic management of Brazil, the management of inequality within
that country, the spread of development of its democracy have been spectacular and have
been extremely welcome. I hope very much that they will continue. But we must
recognize the weaknesses also within that continent.
Argentina is usually one president away from its next default. [Laughter] It is the worlds
champion sovereign debt defaulter. Anyone looking for worries about the Euro and future
models for how you do a sovereign debt default always reach for the file marked
“Argentina” in their file. Mexico, the second great economy of the region, has the worlds
murder record for crime in the Mexican border region, the drug related crime is very sadly
absolutely spectacular. Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is a notable figure there of course and I
am a proud owner of his constitution. He came to The Economist to meet with some of us
there. When we started asking him about problems with his constitution, he said “Yes, it’s
an excellent constitution” and reached into his pocket and pulled out a little blue book, kind
of like Mao’s little red book. He said, “Here is it, I wrote it. I’ll sign it for you and here’s a
copy.” [Laughter]
I have it on my bookshelves at home. So what I want to say about Latin America, about
South America, is that they are not together a unified nor actually especially well-
integrated region of the world. They are a region with great potential, Brazil especially. I
wish them extremely well, but I think we should recognize the pessimistic view that the
idea that they will become the 21st century superpower, what this represents. The strength
of Asia, the population of Asia, the speed of change in Asia, the great flexibility of the
Asian economies and Asian societies, I think, is remarkable and impressive. We hope,
and we should hope, that the development of that part of the world will spread and depend
and will indeed spread into greater democracy.
We should also assume and hope that the United States will be, still, the 21st century
superpower. It goes through its ups and down. It’s currently in a bit more of a down than
an up. But, Winston Churchill’s great comment about America, about the United States, is
worth always remembering. Which is that America can always be relied upon to do the
right thing once it has exhausted the alternatives. [Laughter]
I will leave my colleagues to talk about the merits of Europe and Britain, but I do think you
should vote against the motion. You should be optimistic about the future, a future that is
balanced between many strong countries, big and small, that doesn’t follow the fashion
that’s been the fashion of the past few years that looks at only large countries to be
important in the world. But perhaps looks back at the fashion prior to that in which the
nation state was supposedly becoming less important and hopes that, in fact, super power
status will become much less important in the future and we will have a much wider
development, a much broader development and, one must hope, a peaceful world as we
can hope. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you. There can be no mistaking which side our next speaker is on. A senior
lecturer in law at Birkbeck College and the University of London. He is the author of,
relevantly for our purposes, the ambitiously titled: “What if Latin America Ruled the
World?” Our next speaker, for the motion, is Oscar Guardiola-Rivera.
For: Oscar Guardiola-Rivera:
May you live in interesting times, goes the saying attributed to the Chinese. It sounds like
a good omen, doesn’t it? But I’m told that they intended it as a curse. Looking at the most
decisive events of the century so far, from the water wars in Bolivia, to the stolen election
in America, the debacle of Iraq, the great recession or civil war and military intervention in
Libya. It seems impossible not to agree that we do live in interesting times.
Whether you look at the happy non-democracies of the east or some of our own unhappy
democracies caught between austerity and gloom, you may be inclined that the Chinese
got it right, that to use one of those profound terms we philosophers are so fond of, we’re
screwed. [Laughter]
So, where can we look for much needed hope and some inspiration. I say, look west, not
east. Everyone knows interesting things are happening in the Americas. I have written a
book, a whole book, entitled, “What if Latin America Ruled the World?” which describes
some of the things that are happening there as well their historical context. But most
important of all, it explains why there are good reasons to choose what I call the happy
democracies of the Americas as an image of hope and an example to the rest of the world.
For instance, there is a strict parallelism between the grass roots mobilizations we have
been witnessing in the Arab world and the grass roots mobilizations that took place in the
first decade in this century. In both cases, the people took up against domestic as well as
foreign dictate and took it upon themselves to realize the promise of freedom that was held
back for so long. To the extent that Brazil, and the other countries of South America, have
managed to enhance their capacities for self-rule, while deepening their commitment to
democratic and egalitarian institutions dating back some two hundred years ago. The
continent as a whole has become a beacon of freedom and hope around the world.
The resistant nations of the Western hemisphere have consolidated a unified voice around
such institutions as Mercosul, UNASUL, IPSA and other successful instances of regional
and south corporation, while at the same time, overcoming the situation of dependence
that can actualized the period of the late 1990s.
Crucially, they have renounced violence on war as the norm of international and domestic
relations, opting instead for a principal that stands in favor of equality and democracy.
These new situations contrast sharply, very sharply, with instability and non-democracy
elsewhere. This is why, as he toured South America, U.S. president Barack Obama was
able to hail Brazil or Chile as an example everywhere in the world, which shows how to
transform itself into a vibrant democracy. Which shows that a democracy provides
freedom and opportunities to the people as he put it.
But this is also why Obama knew he could not pretend that the United States would ever
again deal with Latin America as it had done in the past in terms of dictates, as if South
American countries were Americas backyard. You know interesting things are happening
when the president of the lonely superpower has to acknowledge that, realistically
speaking, the best he can hope for is an equal partnership between his country and the
countries of South America. That, in a way, America needs the countries south of the
border more than they need the U.S. because, among other things, there is a whole Latino
nation within the United States which in demographic terms already doubles the rest of the
population and will triple or quadruple its presence in the U.S. by 2050.
Hope didn’t come to Latin America. We made it our own. But hope in Latin America is
always tempered by sobriety. Our optimism illuminated by a clear memory of past failures
and current challenges. Some of our own making, others associated with a long and not
too distant history of colonialism, unfinished projects, broken promises and intervention.
Also, in this respect, Latin America’s leadership matters. We are less confident than many
of our Euro American counterparts and they need the novelty of multilateralism in the
world. This may be lead towards more antagonistic views of world order based on a
balance between five or six powers calling all the shots. But also, towards ambitious goals
concerning a regional and international entities.
This has been exemplified in the position taken by Latin America vis a vis the international
financial institutions, Eleron, and more recently in the wake of the 2008 global crisis. It
calls for a complete overhaul of the postwar arrangement. It’s leading rolling to the
negotiations that led to the declaration of Tehran in May of last year or in the global
partnership dialogue launched by Brazil and the United States last February.
In all of these cases the point is the same: to interact with the rest of the world, with
America particularly, as equal. This is the thesis of my book. The combined power of the
two Americas, bought ever closer by a common libertarian history, economic ties, shared
space and demographics will give any upstart nations with potentials of hegemony a run
for its money. This is why I believe you should look west, not east.
It is no surprise that in the last global survey conducted by the BBC Global Service, that in
twenty seven countries around the world, the positive opinion about the influence of
countries such as Brazil has increased from forty percent to forty-nine percent, while
negative views fell three points to twenty percent. In contrast, China’s positive rate fell six
points this year to thirty-nine percent with forty percent, rating it negatively. I have no
intention the many achievement of the east, particularly in effect to the millions of people
who have been lifted out of poverty in recent years or demonize it. We should not fall for
the false dilemmas or the “us versus them” choices hashed by people unable to
understand that the world has moved on. These people lazily hang on to the tired mantras
of the threatening order, gloom and decline. Decline has failed to acknowledge that
nobody is seeking to replace the United States, that it has no real competitor and that it will
continue to play an important military and cultural role in the coming years.
Alas, from the so called rise of China or Brazil and the rest of South America, it does not
follow the decline of the West. Just as the rise of the west in the fifteenth century did not
follow solely from China’s decision to turn inwards. If there was any decisive event all
those centuries ago, it was the encounter between peoples from Asia, Africa, Europe and
the Americas.
We live with the consequences of that encounter. Some were dire and we should not
deny them in the name of some mystical idea of progress. Others, still unfolding, point
towards the enhancement of what is best about us all. Exclusively peaceful relations with
the rest of the world, a model that connects the more [unclear 50:18] with inclusive growth,
employment creation and international interaction based on diplomatic solutions. Perhaps
even some non-modern solutions to a very modern problem. Cooperation to reduce
famine and poverty and to create more democratic mechanisms to deal with global
questions.
These, my friends, are not mere ideals. This is Latin American practice. This is why Latin
American is being hailed as an example to the world and this is why you should look west,
not east. But if you still need some convincing, let’s make fun of philosophy once more.
As you know, we philosophers love engaging very complicated though experiments so let
me try to conclude this evening with something much less sophisticated. Let’s call it a gut-
feeling experiment inspired by the publicity for this event. Look at this image and tell me
which way you would go? [Laughter] Would you choose him or him? [Laughter] Or
perhaps you might prefer him. Would you go for these strong ladies or these strong
ladies? [Laughter] Or perhaps you would prefer her? Who could blame you? I won’t.
[Laughter]. I know where I stand and I think you know which way your vote with go
tonight. Thank you.
The diary story almost writes itself about the all-male panel assembled by Intelligence
Squared which ended up flashing pictures of scantily clad women on the screen. I won’t
leak it if you won’t. Our next speaker like the first against the motion, a journalist. Also, a
graduate of The Economist, where he reported from Brussels, Bangkok, and Washington,
but not, I noticed from South America. He is now the Chief Foreign Affairs columnist of the
Financial Times, where he’s a must read and the author of “Zero Sum Futures: American
Power in an Age of Anxiety.” Here to oppose Gideon Rachman.
Against: Gideon Rachman:
Thank you very much Jonathan and thank you for inviting me. Ladies and gentlemen,
Latin America is a great place which we’ve just seem by those spectacular visual aids.
[Laughter]
I don’t have pictures of scantily clad dancers or hatchet-faced Chinese generals to
entertain you with. But what I do want to do is to explain to you why, although Latin
America is a very positive, optimistic place at the moment, there is no way that it will rule
the world or indeed be the superpower of the 21st century, not politically, not economically
and not even intellectually. Now after pouring a bit of cold water on that, let me start with
some kinder words. Let’s start with what’s going right. I was actually in Brazil last week,
so don’t ever let it ever be said that I don’t go the extra mile to do my research for
Intelligence Squared debates. [Laughter]
Like Jonathan, I have the experience with thinking, “I write about international affairs. Why
am I actually in Brazil instead of somewhere a little a bit more in the news?” Then I noticed
Obama was actually in Brazil and I thought, “Well then, I’ve gotten something right.” And
you can totally understand why people are paying attention to the country and the
continent and why people in Brazil are so upbeat at the moment. The economy is growing
strongly. The Brazilian Finance Minister has just claimed, a little prematurely, that it is the
now the world’s fifth largest economy. But even if it’s not yet, it soon will be.
Unlike in the west, where we’ve had thirty years marked by rising inequality, Brazil which
has been a buy word for inequality is now seeing falling inequality. The Bolsa Familia, this
program of social transfers is a highly successful, much admired social program. Brazil’s
commodity exports, as Parag pointed out, are booming. Foreign reserves are high. The
currency is strong. In fact, it’s too strong. They’re complaining bitterly about it. Rent and
bankers salaries, if that’s an indicator of health, are now higher in San Paulo than in New
York.
The World Cup is coming, the Olympics are coming. What could go wrong? Brazil is
certainly fashionable. It’s part of the most fashionable geopolitical arrangement in the
world: the BRICS. But unlike the other BRICS, it’s not scary. It’s not scary like China or
scary like Russia and it’s certainly less chaotic than India. So, Brazil is the cuddly BRIC.
It’s the one that everybody likes and they give all the tournaments to.
Now, look more broadly at the continent, again it’s a positive story. Growing fast, countries
that were once famous for terrible conflicts have often outgrown them. Chile’s successful,
prosperous democracy. Peru has beaten the shining the path. Colombia lastly has
beaten the drug cartels. And continent-wide, this is, as it’s been said, a conflict-free zone.
The wars that disfigured Central America are over.
But, this still will not be the Latin American century, let alone the Latin American decade or
whatever you want for several reasons. The first is simply sheer size. The total population
of Latin America is just shy of six hundred million. That’s less than half the population of
China alone. When it comes to economic weight, size does matter. The Chinese
economy at the moment it’s just, as somebody pointed out, the size of the Latin American
economy. But China is growing much faster than Latin America. China has been growing
at an average rate of eight to nine percent per year for the last thirty years. It may not be
sustainable for the next thirty years, probably won’t be, but it’s got a momentum behind it
that Latin America simply doesn’t have. Brazil, where I was last week, they’re growing a
percent, but not really sustainable, probably four to five percent as a natural rate of growth.
Maybe that’s more healthy. But if China, a huge population is growing at twice the rate of
Brazil, you don’t really need to do the mathematics to work out what’s going to happen.
The sheer economic weight of Asia is just going to be much, much larger than that of Latin
America. China is not actually that anomalous. India is actually also growing at eight to
nine percent a year, another country of over a billion people.
So the sheer economic weight of Asia is going to completely dwarf that of Latin America.
And political power does grow from the economic power. It’s not a complete mathematical
translation that this size of economy equals this amount of political power. But look at the
growing political clout of China in the world. I mean, the Brazilians are locked into an
economic relationship with China that they aren’t exactly happy about. They are the
commodity supplier, the manufacturers are all going out of business because Chinese
good are out-competing them and certainly it’s the Chinese who are going around Europe
offering to buy up Greek bonds or fund Portuguese debt, not the Brazilians.
So, that’s the economic side. But I think one also has to look, as well as making this
comparison with Asia, you have to look at Latin America which, although it has a lot going
for it, also does still have many weaknesses. Inequality is coming down, but it’s still one of
the most unequal parts of the world. The drug gangs may have been beaten in Colombia,
but they are rampant in Mexico where twenty-eight thousand people have died since the
Calderon administration launched its drug war, a much higher civilian toll than even in
Afghanistan.
And in fact, the Mexicans will tell you, I’m not sure it’s true, perhaps the Brazilian
ambassador can set me right, they’ll take you aside and say: “Actually the murder rate is
higher in Brazil and it’s higher in Central America.” So, this is quite a violent continent.
Education is another big problem. On the PISA rankings of school in maths and literacy,
Brazil comes very low down the rankings. Brazil is half of the continent. It came fifty-third
of sixty-two in reading and math. The U.S., which thinks it has great problems in those
area, is in the twenties. Britain is in the twenties as well. And if you take the famous
Shanghai rankings of the world’s top universities, there isn’t a single Latin American
university in the top hundred.
Finally, ideology, Oscar, to judge by his book and by his speech tonight, believes that Latin
America represents in some way, a new slightly more humane form of globalization and a
new form of approaching economics. But it seems to me that a lot of the success of
modern Latin America has actually just entailed an embrace of the globalization that we
already have. Lula’s first trip as president of Brazil to the World Economic Forum in
Davos, the festival of globalization where all world leaders go and play court for the same
investment bankers and multinational executives. And if you go to the Latin American
dinner at Davos, it’s stuffed with presidents there that basically embraced the globalization
consensus. The Latin American populist left still romanticized by many in Europe, I’m
afraid represents a dead end. For those who doubt it, consider that Hugo Chavez was the
2009 winner of the Muammar Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. [Laughter]
That’s not one that you want to keep on your mantelpiece. [Laughter]
So Latin America is a great place, it’s an exciting place, it’s an optimistic place, but it’s
certainly not going to run the world. And Latin Americans frankly should be grateful for
that, given the current travails of the U.S., running the world isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Later on, Gideon, perhaps you’ll share with us some of the previous winners of the
Muammar Gaddafi prize for Human Rights. I think that may there may be some here
tonight, some residents in this country, perhaps even some former Prime Ministers of this
country, I was wondering. So, perhaps we’ll hear from you who the previous winners
were.
Our next speaker is an advocate for South America not just for fun here this evening, but
this is how he earns his living. He is a trained engineer, but also one of the most
seasoned diplomats in London. Representing the country hailed as the superpower of this
region, that might indeed become the super power of the 21st century, the country you just
heard to being referred to as the cuddly BRIC, the Ambassador of Brazil to London, please
welcome the next speaker, his Excellency Roberto Jaguaribe
For: HE Roberto Jaguaribe:
Good evening and thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here. Of course, the first
thing to consider is the fact that no one can ration the fact that we are entering to a very
clear phase of multi-polarization in the world and that there will be no single superpower.
We are going to have different focuses of power. In fact, superpower is an acronym, is a
name, or a category, which does not apply to Latin America or to Brazil. We do not aspire
that. We aspired to be in a world of more equilibrium or more cooperative stances. But
this is a very strong posture. This is a posture that has transformational elements in it and
it has aspired to improve the world. I think looking to South America, you will find that we
will have contributions in order to generate the type of dialog and intervention that is
required to optimize the possibilities of a more multilateral, multi-polar scenario. I think this
is one of the important elements of South America.
We are witnessing, of course, a major transformation. I think China is one of the countries,
perhaps the country that has pushed for that transformation and opened the door for
others to become visible. Brazil, amongst us, South America, amongst us, the major
areas of transformation that China has brought are very important. Among those, I would
say, that to become a very important country, it’s no longer necessary to be a developed
country.
China is a developing country, will be a developing country for a very long time, but it is a
determining country in an international scenario. This applies to a number of other
elements, a number of other countries, that goes for India as well. It certainly goes for
South America and for Brazil. The advantage of South America in relation to other
regions, we are, without any doubt living in the most extensive, cohesive, and
homogenous region of the world. There is no geographical space that is as homogenous
or as cohesive as Latin America is, because of its history, because of its problems,
because of its challenges, because of its population and the language is also a common
ground. Everyone knows that Spanish is a variation of Portuguese. [Laughter]
We have enormous elements of importance that contributes to the fact that we can really
place and have an important role in this place in the world. Demography which has been
in place states that as a deficit for Latin America is to an extent a deficit and I concur with
that. But let’s say if Brazil had the demographic density of Bangladesh, we would have ten
billion inhabitants in Brazil. So demography is also a challenge for growth, demography
also presents as enormous benefit to Latin America.
We have two or three major issues of the 21st century which are clearly resolved in South
America, Latin America in general which are: environment, energy, and water. South
America energy is an enormous plus. We provide about thirty percent of the world and
growing because the prospects of additional finds in oil in Brazil alone are already very
significant. It’s not just brazil. Many other countries are beginning to find very significant
deposits of oil in that region. Renewable energy is fundamental. Water: South America
provides thirty percent of the renewable water in the world. Water is a scarce element in
Asia. It’s going to become even scarcer. Latin America, Brazil alone, has fifteen percent
of all the renewable water in the world. This is a fundamental element. Commodities, I’m
not just going ahead and producing something because you have the land, the space, or
the air, or the sun as an agriculture. Commodity requires an agricultural production, require
competitiveness, requires investment. The reason why Brazil and many other Latin
American countries have become so competitive in commodity exports is because of the
enormous amount of research that has gone into agricultural development.
The bread basket of Brazil today is the center part of the country, which was considered
completely inept for agricultural production until about thirty years ago. So it’s not just a
question of having a lack of capacity in research and technology, which is a problem, I
must confess, but it’s the fact that we have devoted enormous energies to maximizing
benefits that are structural in our region.
Another very important element relates to the cultural dimension, which I already
mentioned. All of Latin America is very diversified from the point of view of the cultural
formation of each country. We are a very synchratic culture. That is very much the case
in Brazil. That brings multiple cultural references in play. We have the ability and this is
not exclusive of South America, India to the certain extent has the same benefit, of being
able to look into things from different angles, which provides a much better possibility of
understanding amongst, not just inside, but also in relation to international relations in
general.
We have been working very hard to change the international scenario and we believe that
the format that is really taking place and taking shape, which is the multi-polarity, is
extremely beneficial to the type of vision that we bring to this matter, which is essentially
the idea that we much have horizontal and vertical relations.
Another element which we think is fundamental and which provides a certain novelty in
this space is the idea of doing away with the like-minded countries agenda which has
dominated international relations for the past twenty or fifty years after the second world
war. Like-minded agenda has not resolved the political or even the economic or
development issues in the world. We favor a country a diverse-minded country coalition
which will be able to provide different perspectives to common and traditional problems
that actually have not been resolved.
Another element which I think is important to consider when you look at the 21st century is
to create and distinguish between structural and conjunctoral problems. Latin America,
South America in particular, does face and we do face significant conjunctoral limitations.
Many of those have been mentioned. There are limitations in relation to education. There
are limitations in relation to infrastructure. There are limitations in relation to science and
technology. But there are limitations are essentially conjunctoral limitations and not
structural limitations. What do I qualify as structural limitations?
Long-term impediments to continued growth: demography is one, natural resources is

another, availability of water another continues and also the difficult geographic and
geopolitical environment. But this has already been stated. South America is very much
at peace. It’s a continent that has a number of minor irritants in relation to national
questions. But it’s essentially been resolved throughout the nineteenth century.
On the other hand, we also have an enormous degree in each country of national
integration. This is a crucial element in the definition of what the nation is. How many big
countries in the world do not have any problem of national integration. I will tell you, two
United States and Brazil. All other countries of a big size have an enormous problem of
integration, which constitutes significant barriers and problems to their own development.
Most Latin American countries present one major challenge, which is being superseded
which is social integration. This again, has been already qualified. We do have problems
of social integration. But the advances in the policies that have been carried out, not just
in brazil, but throughout the region have placed Latin America, on the other hand, at what
is taking place all around the world, which is growth with increased income distribution.
WE have not witnessed that anywhere else in the world, via the developed world, via the
parts of the developing world. Growth with income distribution is a characteristic that we
will find today only in South America. Of course there are other cultural elements which
we believe are very important. We have a very clear national identity in relation to
literature, music and a very general optimistic and I’m not favorable to the methodology
that is applied to many of these surveys. But one of the ones that came out recently, but
of the ten most optimistic countries in the world, nine were in South America, Latin
America. Of course, just the numbers are very representative.
Today, South America, according to figures of the IMF or the CIA, already represents the
fourth largest economy in the world, after NAFTA, which is the biggest, Europe which is
the second and China, which is the greater. Of course we have a much more population
of any other of these combinations, but we already are a very significant economic power.
In terms of commodities, the numbers have already been provided. I could add a list to
those in which we are very representative. And finally, of course, we must state that we
have been, for a long time and hopefully will continue to be, the world’s most important
powerhouse in football. Thank you. [Laughter]
Saving the best until last, perhaps, many of you would have heard our next speaker on the
radio as the presenter of Radio Three’s Nightwaves, also author of “A Bitter Revolution:
China’s Struggle with the Modern World.” He’s the professor of the history and politics of
Modern China at Oxford, our last speaker, speaking against the motion is Rana Mitter.
Against: Rana Mitter
Thank you Jonathan and everyone here tonight. I might say, as Oscar was speaking
earlier on, I thought that, “If Latin America ruled the world. One thing clearly that would
happen is that we would all dress much better.” And clearly the tie being worn both by
Gideon Rachman and myself would probably both be publicly burned as a crime against
fashion in that particular world. So, perhaps it’s lucky that we’re not in that world.
[Laughter]
I want to describe the world around us. I just came in obviously to London from Oxford
where I live. As I was traveling on the tube, I noticed around me, an awful lot of people
actually studying and practicing the Portuguese language and using a whole variety of
different grammars and tapes and iPods to practice those difficult vowel and consonant
sounds that the ambassador will know. The kind of “curacao” “nao.” Actually, as I’ve
been wondering around the country, I’ve been finding this tremendous upsurge for the
enthusiastic study of the Portuguese language. People basically realizing that as Brazil
takes its role as that great new continental regional power, they need to get in on the
ground floor and start learning the language.
Well, that would be a great idea that except, as we know, that isn’t really the world as we
see it. If people are taking on a new global language, the stark reality is, that it is
Mandarin. That is the language that people are taking on board, whether it’s the nannies
as Parag mentioned it, or what else is bringing it to children, but it is the Chinese language
that seems to have caught peoples imagination. If you go around the world and say “Falu ti
português?” you might get a pleasant smile. But if you go around saying “Wo shuo
zhongguo hua?” you’re going to start actually doing business. I think that reality, that
division between the two is really where my part of today’s argument lies.
Because I do want to suggest that, in the world order as it is, we started with Parag on the
other side, talking about the reality of geopolitics you might want it to be. It’s clear that in
terms of world order and shaping of that order, it is the East and I’m ashamedly saying that
we’re talking here about the big Asian superpowers, it is the East that is going to shape the
next century and not, to my regrets as I’m as attracted to these pictures as anybody else,
the world of South America.
It is going to be a place which is shaped very much by a variety of new powers that have
something to say and have the clout to make it happen. One argument that I think put
forward particularly by Parag Khanna that I need to combat immediately is the idea that
the India, the China, the Japan, still the worlds third largest economy, mustn’t forget about
even as it’s declining, the idea of an Asian culture of deference is going to prevent these
powers from really having their say. I think about prominent Asian thinker that have
changed the world: Mao Ze Dong, Mahatma Gandhi, Parag Khanna, none of these people
could be described in any ways in deference of the way of the thinking the world is
described by. [Laughter]. Instead, these are people that have ceased and changed the
world. It is with those figures that I really have to make the core of my argument now,
which is with great regret and great respect to our colleague the ambassador and others
here who hail from the continent of South America, in the end and for the moment and for
the time that I can foresee, the global attraction of Latin America is still going to be
relatively globally limited. As opposed to something that is more universalizing on the
Asian side.
We’ve talked about the cultural side of things. So, let’s talk about the big transmitters of an
Asian style of culture around the world. That is the Bollywood movie. Those of you who
have not yet enjoyed the pleasure of a four hour movie extravaganza of singing, dancing
and extremely dubious plot lines, have a treat in store for them. But it’s very clear that it’s
the Bollywood movie that has shaped cinema around the world, not the other way around.
If one goes to Latin America, the movie tunes from those Bollywood movies, are well
known enough that people actually don’t know they come from India. The same is true in
the Middle East and the same is true even in China. This is a universalizing cultural
phenomenon that comes from Asia. If one looks at, I don’t know how much of your time
you spend hanging out with thirteen or fourteen year olds, and I think I might lead some
raised eyebrows if I claimed that much of my time was spent in that way at least not while
people are watching on the web stream, but if you talk to teenagers about the cultural
impacts, you will hear over and over again the word “manga.” In other words, a Japanese
form also known as the anime which comes from a very different cultural and visual way of
seeing that has gone global and has gone viral. Wherever you go in the world, and I’m
sure that includes Latin America, the pictures, the culture, the visuality, of the manga and
the anime are yet another example of how a cultural mean formation from the Asian side
has spread across the world. In contrast, the things that are uniquely and distinctively
South American, still I think have a long way to go before they have that wider
transformative power. I am, for instance, a great fan of the 1960’s expressionist
Argentinean film director Leopoldo Torre Nilsson. I’m sure everyone on the panel is as
well and we shall be swapping anecdotes later about his greatest movies, “La mano en la
trampa,” a masterpiece. On the other hand, I think it’s fair to say and I make a slightly
unfair comparison there that Latin American cinema, literature, even football, which is
perhaps a slightly different sort of cultural formation, either tend to attract praise because
of the cultural specificity or because, like football, they are something that’s so globalized
already, there’s not specifically very Latin American about them.
If we think about the way in which societies are understood, are put forward, let’s think
about a figure like Mahatma Gandhi, if you’re going to mention anyone who’s associated
with progressive political change in our own era, perhaps Nelson Mandela. Perhaps,
across the century, Gandhi comes in mind more than anyone else as a great liberator.
Simon Bolivar is also a figure of great interest and importance who I highly respect. But I
think it’s fair to say that he doesn’t get the name-brand recognition that a Gandhi has
around the world. Similarly, if you go around the world looking for cultural symbols of that
type of cultural change, people might well point to the Confucius institutes, which have
been set up in over one hundred countries over the world to spread the study of Mandarin.
I asked a friend of mine who is here tonight this evening if she had ever heard of
Confucius, at which point she basically slapped me across the face for asking such a
stupid question. She slaps across the face a lot to be fair. I then asked her if she new
Bernardo O’Higgins, the great Chilean liberator and I have to say, on that particular
occasion, she clearly hadn’t. In other words, there are some universalizable trops,
memes, ideas that I think are much more coming from the Eastern than the Western side
of our cultural universe. I fear that will be the case for some time to come.
The reason for this has been touched on by some fellow speakers of this side. So, I won’t
repeat where we’ve gone already. But I think it is the fact that the East and particularly
India, China, and Japan, are going to dominate the way in which the next superpower is
going to be formed in the next century. That is going to be in virtual space, in cyberspace.
Whatever we’ve been led to believe, the reality is that Latin America is not at the moment
and is not, in the near future, is going to be dominant in the virtual reality that shapes all
the ways we interact. When the next version of the IP address, the internet protocol that is
being discussed right now, those discussions are taking place with Beijing. They are not
taking place in the same level with Brasilia or with Buenos Aires.
That’s largely because of the things that the ambassador himself acknowledged. In other
words, that the educational level, the infrastructure, the things that absolutely make the
formation of the educational superpower of the next century are happening in China, they
are happening in India, places like the Peking Institute, the India Institute of Technology.
But not yet in Brazil, Argentina or the other countries of that continent.
In a country, China, where even despite the authoritarian restrictions of freedom of speech
which I suspect everyone in this room would frown upon, there are four-hundred ten million
users of the internet, growing daily, larger than the population of the entire United States.
They are creating a new way of interaction that will shape the nature of that next
superpower.
So I think, in the last resort, if we want to think about the way in which the next century is
going to do, log onto the internet, find out which is the language is being used most
frequently aside from language and actually coming up on the outside and with great
regret the language is not Portuguese, it’s not even Spanish, it’s Mandarin. Thank you.
Thank you. Well thank you to Rana Mitta and all of our speakers. All of them admirably
precise. I hope all of you will use that as a model as we now open up the debate. We
heard arguments on my right here for the motion ranging from the notion that the
combined power of North and South America will be awesome, the notion that the
economy of South American already matches that of China and the argument that Spanish
is a mere variation of Portuguese.
On my left, against the motion, you heard the argument the region is, with a heavy heart,
the buy word for debt, murder and dictatorship. You also had the suggestion that size
does matter and that the population of South America is just too small for superpower
status. You heard the call to look at the language people around the world are learning
and that it’s not Spanish or Portuguese. So, those are some of the spirited arguments
made just now. Before you heard those, you did vote and I’m going to give you the result
of that prevote. It is the perfect result for a good debate evening. There were, for the
motion, two hundred and thirty six votes; those who did think that we should, indeed, look
west not east. And, against the ballot, very even, two-hundred seventy-nine. The reason
that I say why it’s the ideal for a good evening is that the very large number of numbers of
“don’t knows” reached two-hundred and one. And it’s those floating two-hundred one that
our six speakers will do their best, I’m sure to woo and persuade this evening. Now is the
chance for some of those floating voters to make their case. Let’s get as many of these in
as we can. Let’s see some hands. There will be people with microphones who can
hopefully get to you.
There’s someone straight out of the block there. If you can go to the gentleman there in
the blue shirt. I will not discriminate against people up there in the top, so in the even
more expensive seats perhaps. So, we’ll go with you first. Any other hands that are
coming up? Well, let’s hear our first speaking.
Speaker from Audience:
I would love to believe in Mr. Guardiola Rivera’s future of a humane social demographic of
a hegemony in Latin America, but one thing that hasn’t been addressed so far, I think, is
the sixty years history of the United States intervention in Latin America supporting
sometimes overtly, sometime covertly, tyranny, and the tyrannical regimes in defense of
it’s own interests. And we’re not going to have Obama forever. We might well have a very
right-wing and very reactionary president next and perhaps some time may come where
we will have diminishing resources, we’re going to have economic crisis. What is going to
stop the United States from once again intervening in the politics and supporting it’s own
success and once again, crushing that hope which has been outlined tonight?

Thank you. If you give the mic to the person two rows behind you to someone there who
has a question. Why the microphone is reaching, we’ll go up to the top here.
Audience Speaker #2:
If we think of base EPA as the basis of hard power, I’d like to ask the for-panel how a
continent could ever be thought of as a super power?
Just explain what your doubt is?
Well, by which I mean, how can a number of countries actually directly intervene and
exercise power as opposed to America, which is obviously one country and China, which
is obviously one country.
I see. One country, under one command. Very good, thank you. We have the third one
here.
No one has mentioned how different political systems might impact the development of
say far east or China in particular compared to South America, referred to as a commoner
system in the former and in general more democratic system in the later. Second, and I’d
like comments from the panel, second question is something that Niall Ferguson in a talk a
couple of weeks ago referred to when he referred to his six killer apps that had explained
the dominance of the West and that one of them was the Protestant work ethic. Maybe
the panel might like to comment on how the Chinese work ethic and the religion that
underpins that might differ from the primarily Catholic work ethic in South America. So,
two different questions for the panel.
Are you suggesting that people in South America don’t work as hard as people in . . .
Not at all, I asked the panel to comment on that.
Very good, I just thought we were straying slightly into Jeremy Clarkson territory there.
[Laughter] You’ve caught the attention of, of course, Mexico and of course a national
stereotype there. But, we’re not straying into that territory. Why don’t we go with the first
question which I’ll put to the people who are against the motion first with this one.
Because the other two, I think relate to the people who are for the motion. Let’s just start
with you, Bill Emmott on the sixty year Latin American intervention by the United States.
The question has said there has been long history there. What’s to stop there to be a
returning of that kind of medley? Let’s hear you on that.
Against: Bill Emmott:
Well, nothing completely but what’s the reason why we should expect it to intervene in the
future? The past history was substantially abut the cold war. The United States wasn’t the
only outside power that was looking to intervene in the politics of Latin America. It was,
unfortunately, a kind of proxy battle ground between the United States and the Soviet
Union during the Cold War. Looking into the future, I think we could ask: What the interest
of the United States in treading over there? They’ve been pretty reluctant to take part in
the intervention in Libya. They are scarred in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would even
Sarah Palin even intervene in Latin America? Does Sarah Palin even know where Latin
America is? [Laughter]
You can’t see it from Alaska.
What is so amazing about that is that you have got a laugh even before you mentioned the
joke just by saying her name.
I know, that’s right!
That says something about London audiences. You get a laugh just by saying the name.
Now, let’s give to you, Oscar Guardiola-Rivera this question about how can we speak
meaningfully about a super power if it’s made up of lots of countries instead of one. In
terms of high power military power, there isn’t one. How could we meaningfully speak
about a superpower, South America?
For:Oscar Guardiola-Rivera:
The ambassador of Brazil already pointed out, one of the advantages of the Americas, not
just Latin America, is the cultural homogeneity. As I mentioned, one of the most
interesting stories of the next thirty or forty years is going to be the Hispanicization of the
United States. Nobody is taking that into account. This is the reason why the United
States is not going to intervene in Latin America in the near future. Really? We’re talking
about the demographics of where are Latin Americans, who they are, who are they voting
for, who are they going to continue to vote for? Which means, the idea that some sort of
Sarah Palin get into office, is not as likely as many people think. The cultural homogeneity
of Latin America is an intellectual strength, a cultural strength. Meaning that, for us, it’s
much easier to interact with one another as a unity than it is in any other region of the
world. We Hispanic speakers in Latin America do not need to learn Portuguese. We
speak our portojun and they understand us. They speak their Portuguese and we
understand them. We have a common history. Ethnic-wise, we have plenty in common. I
don’t know which thirteen year old, says my friend on the left, is talking to.
I was watching anime, manga, when I was a kid. But now I ask my ten year old daughter
who is English, absolutely western country girl and she listens to Shakira. [Laughter] That
sense of universality is what allows us to act as a unity. But most important of all, we are
changing the terms of the conversation as it comes to geopolitics. That’s what we must
do. Geopolitics cannot continue to be about hard power and war as the normal
international relations. It cannot, not because I have some ideal idea of the future, but
because it is unsustainable. The idea that you can sustains island of affluence amidst the
oceans of the retched of the earth by meaningful force is completely bonkers.
Parag Khanna, do you want to come in on this particular point?
For: Parag Khanna:
I just want to add one very important additional point to what Oscar said. We’re having
this conversation about South America becoming a superpower despite lacking those hard
power credentials that the question is about. Despite the fact that Brazil gave up it’s
nuclear weapons program over twenty years ago. Still, you can have a conversation about
South American is becoming super and that really proves Oscar’s point about the new
metrics of power.
Ambassador, why don’t you respond to that and I also would like you to say something
about the point of the work ethic about the people of Brazil and the wider continent lacking
what Niles Milfoksen called the silent killer of the Protestant work ethic. Say something
about that, then I want to hear Rana Mitter.
In relation to militarization, I think it’s very fair to say that, today one-sided military
intervention is not as possible as it was one hundred years ago. A hundred years ago, it
was worse than it was fifty years ago. And I’d say that fifty, even twenty years from now,
it’s going to become more difficult. It’s more balanced and the fact that you have individual
military power is no longer as important as it was. We’re going to need, as I said,
increased capacity or vertical relations, which is much more important than horizontal
relations that have predominated over the past. This is a very important fact that will
create different roles for different countries and will increase the visibility of the countries
that have the parameters of being able to dialog with many other interlocutors.
In relation to the work ethic, this is a complex issue of course. You can ask, if in Europe,
you have the work ethic of the Chinese. When in fact, the Chinese come to say that we
don’t have earn the work of currency, you earn the work of people and I’ve heard the
Chinese say that. We work sixty hours a week, we work thirty five, how can you question
our currency? This is not fair. In Latin America, we work much more than thirty-five hours
a week. Of course, it is difficult to involve the cultural aspects of this. I’m not very keen on
the Catholic versus Protestant issue, although Latin America is divided. Brazil is definitely
predominately Catholic. But I think the issue is different cultural influences. The
indigenous influences in some countries is very important. They contribute to a different
kind of work ethic. But I can tell you, even within Brazil we have this discussion between
people from San Paulo and people from Rio de Janeiro. And the fact is, that, if you want
to have fun, you go to Rio, if you want to work, you go to San Paulo. [Laughter]
But the fact is, karaokes as I work very hard as well.
Very glad you said that. Thank you. Rana Mitter, you wanted to comment on the work
ethic issue?
Yes, briefly. With all the praise that’s been given to Chinese work ethic. I’m reminded of a
restaurant I visited in China not that long ago when I waited ages and ages and they
wouldn’t serve us any food. They said that it was dinner time and they were very busy
with their own meal than anyone else’s. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that this is
typical. What I think is really important in one of these kind of red herrings, the idea that
there is some sort of religious or ethnic or culturally dividable way of understanding work
ethic. I think misses the major point, which is to do with economics. At the moment, the
Chinese government is worried that the Chinese people have an overly strong work ethic.
Because, for the time being, Chinese people are producing a great deal for the export
driven economy and are not consuming nearly enough. So, if as they wish, China is going
to have to develop a very powerful domestic consumer economy to keep that growth rate
going.
The Chinese people are going to have to learn to play a little bit more and work a little bit
less. And of course learn to have a bit of a welfare driven system that enables them to not
to have to work every hour to make sure that they money to pay for hospital or educational
or pension type of bills. So, in a sense, I suspect that one of the things we are going to
see in the next twenty years that will add to China’s economic growth, is the lessoning
rather than the increasing of the work ethic in the classic sense and a bit more of a
consumption, I think.
Just put your hands up if we’ve got more contributions to come. While we’re waiting for
that, sorry, Gideon, why don’t you come in on this.
Yes, one question that was raised from the floor and the talk and the big question that
people always raise about China is an unstable political system. Certainly in America if
you talk about the rise of China the first thing or maybe the second thing people will say is
“well, it’s all going to blow up isn’t it because this isn’t a stable country?” And I think they
have half a point. I don’t think that China has made the political transition that it has to and
I’m sure there is a lot of instability in store for China. And yet I don’t think that should then
lead you to the conclusion that oh well, this is some kind of mirage, the Chinese miracle. It
certainly isn’t that. This is a country that through Tiananmen Square and through the
Chinese financial crisis and now the global financial crisis has continued to grow pretty
fast. It’s had recessions and so on. Even if there is a very difficult political transition, I
don’t think it will mean that China is suddenly taken off of the map geographically. Just to
finish, a comparison, if you look at Germany, its rise began in the middle of the 19th
century. Talk about turbulent, they had two world wars, a great depression, hyperinflation,
etcetera. They were still a major economic power by 1950.
Thank you. Let’s take a question there. Then we’re going to come over here.
Hi I would like to ask Gideon Rachman in which basis do you argue that Latin America
won’t even lead intellectually? And, does China have any of it’s universities in it’s top
twenty of the world? Or do they do not have violence problems as well?
Thank you. There’s someone waiting patiently here. Then it’ll be you?
Hi, my question or comment is about a documentary I saw recently which was focused on
Brazil. In that documentary, there were two things that came out from it. One of it was
showing schools in Brazil, I don’t know if they were British-American or Brazilian schools,
but there were compulsory Mandarin lessons which were taught by teachers that were
employed by the Chinese government that were teaching and living in Brazil. The second
comment was about how local businesses in Brazil, particularly those that supply
incidentally bikinis, were going out of business because of the influx of cheap Chinese
goods and this was, in fact, the most touristic products in Brazil were actually made in
China. So, I’d to invite the panel to comment on those two things.
Thank you. Somebody’s way up there. We’ve got a couple here. If you can be quick, we
can get all of you in. If we can get the microphone to the chap that’s waiting here, that’ll be
it.
Yes, I wanted to ask about ambition. The U.S. has manifest destiny, which I mean thinks
in millennial terms, or the middle Kingdom. Indians really want a nuclear bomb, led the
nonaligned nations. Does Latin America have the ambition? I think not and that’s why
they’re more fun to have a drink with. But, for the purposes of the debate?
Thank you. Somebody waiting just behind you. Thank you.
I don’t doubt Latin America’s intention to become a world superpower and obviously you
mentioned the U.S. taking them quite seriously in Obama being there. But Cameron has
visited India and China since he’s been in power. European kings do business with China.
Africa is looking to China for investment. How to you change people mentality to look west
in order or South America to become the 21st century superpower?
Thank you. No one else there? Yes, you. I think you’ll be the last one and then we’ll go
back there.
Gideon touched on it a second ago. I’m against the resolution. I think the inevitability of
the rise of the East is on a sailable momentum. However, there’s one crack in the dam for
me and that’s the potential or even pending revolution in China as they arm their middle
class with education, personal property and personal wealth. And I’m surprised the
affirmative side did not explore and use that argument to a greater degree.
Thank you. That’s going to be it for questions. What we’re going to do now is move to
closing speeches. But, I’m going to ask our speakers to address some of those. Gideon,
there were some directed specifically to you. We’re going to do the speeches in reverse
order. Just while you’re working out that, I’ll just give you a refresher on the questions
asked.
Gideon, I’ll come to the questions when I come to you. But, the products in Brazil made in
China. Does Latin America have the ambition to do this? Isn’t it just reality that Europe
and Africa are looking to China? How do you persuade them otherwise? And isn’t China
vulnerable because of pending revolution and therefore maybe that gives South America
an advantage. So, again we’re going in reverse. In closing remarks, maximum of really
one and a half, two minutes. Rana Mitter.
Well, let me pick up with the very last point that was made. It’s not hard to find out what’s
going to happen with the Chinese middle classes because they’re all around us these
days. At the university where I work, at Oxford, the second largest nationality of students
that I teach from any country on the undergraduate level is China. Just a generation ago,
it would’ve been the Republic of Ireland just for obvious geographic reasons. Now, the
U.K. is number one, but China is number two. And I can see, particularly in theoretical
terms that a rising middle class will cause a revolution, particularly because of events in
North Africa is an attractive one. But that isn’t, so far, the overall message that comes
from the Chinese side. Clearly they are more politically aware in some ways. But, that’s a
different thing from arguing that there’s going to be absolute overthrow of the system. It’s
probably in that area that the continuing rise of China as well as of Indian and the
continuing importance of Japan and the other powers of the Asian side make the case for
us. In the last resort, we do have here these blocs which have some sort of collective
identity and as someone said in the audience, an aspiration. Whatever someone said
about China and India today, it’s very clear that they have the intention of making their
weight known in global society. If you go to India, I was just in India last week, on the back
of any scooter or truck or car that is front of you in the traffic jam which there are many of
still in India, there will be a hand-picked sign saying “My India is great.” Just next to the
sign that says “Horn please, danger.” So, this is something that clearly sits in the cultural
psyche. I am not convinced from what I’ve heard that this exists on the Latin American
side. I’m less convinced that this is going to move into cyberspace and those other areas
where I think these battles are going to be fought and won in the next century. This is not
to endorse the rise of China, India, or Japan to say it is a good or bad thing, just as
someone has said that the moment the weight of the evidence sits there in the end rather
than on the side of Latin America.
Thank you very much. Two points, when boxes are going around now for you two vote.
It’s very obvious if you want to vote for or against on the slip. But, if you are a “don’t
know,” please put the entire ticket in the ballot box. Those people who are even
considering leaving, how could you bear the suspense. You have to wait to find out the
result until the end of this vote. So, don’t even think about it. We’re going to go to our
second, we have a lock-in. Gideon Rachman’s very democratic idea, to sit you here and
force you to vote and stay for the result. Perhaps he’ll be the next recipient of the Gaddafi
Prize for Human Rights? Who knows? [Laughter]
Our second speaker to sum up is Ambassador Juagaribe and there was a specific
question for you ambassador. Brazil, a lot of the products you see are made in China.
Does that underline China’s strength?
Yes, well thank you very much. I think there are many issues related to the problem of
competitiveness of Chinese exports and manufacturer. In the case of Brazil, there’s also
the big issue of the over-evaluation of the currency which presents an imbalance in our
competitiveness in the commodity agricultural setting and difficulty in coping of the
evaluation of our currency in the industrial sector. This is not a structural issue. We can
see the German case, which has a continuous history of valuation of their currency and
has maintained their effectiveness. There are possible alternatives to that. But there are
no possible alternatives to you. We can do without bikinis, but nobody can do without
eating. Eating is continuously going to mobilize the countries that are going to be able to
be competitive producers. Latin America, South America in particular, are going to
continue to be the most competitive producers of agriculture in the world, doing away with
the substitutes that some countries utilize. I think that the question as a summarization, I
believe that Latin America lacks the implacability to become and to wield a superpower in
a traditional sense of what a superpower is. We don’t have the implacability of what is
associated with superpowers. But, we have the ability to bring and impress the world in
different way, which are going to be increasingly worthwhile and they related to dialog,
they relate to seduction, they relate to convincing people and then telling people that they
were wrong. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The ambassador offering a modified 21st century definition of what
a superpower is and on that definition, Latin America will be it. The next speaker to sum
up, Gideon Rachman. The questions that were specifically to you was what’s your
evidence for suggesting that Latin or South America can’t lead intellectually and a question
was: Does China have a university in the global top twenty and I’m sure there’s violence in
those places too. But you’ll have other points you’ll want to make as well.
On leading intellectually, now obviously I’m not suggesting that there won’t be major
intellectual contributions from individual Latin Americans and so that would be absurd. I
don’t think there is, yet for all that we’ve heard, ideas about the promotion of social
democracy, the emergence of dialog. I don’t think there’s much of a sense in the rest of
the world that there’s a distinctive Latin American way that people can emulate or learn
from yet. People say that there are interesting things going on in Brazil, followers of social
welfare reform are interested in what Lula’s done and so-on. But there is, to be honest, no
real global discussion of a Latin American way. By contrast, there is considerable interest
in the Chinese model. People are conscious that there’s an extraordinary story going on
there. The Chinese themselves have begun to pick up this talk of a Beijing consensus and
try to develop it. So I think that in terms of a continent being identified with a certain way
of doing things, there isn’t much evidence that Latin America is getting there yet, certainly
by comparison to Asia. In a more conventional intellectual way, in terms of, as you say,
are there Asian universities in the top 20? I don’t know. Certainly in the top fifty. On the
other hand, it is a Chinese ranking, so perhaps there would be. But, so let’ take perhaps a
more reliable statistic. Numbers of engineers. China is producing as so is India, huge
numbers of engineers, computer technicians. If you go to Brazil, you talk to multinationals,
it’s one thing they’re very concerned about. It’s hard to find skilled labor at the moment.
So, these university rankings are picking up on something that is genuine. To conclude, I
think it does all come back in terms of clout, political clout, economic clout, to the size of
these economies and the rate at which with their growing. It must be true, I read it in The
Economist, the Chinese economy is going to be on current growth projections, the largest
economy in the world by 2019, bigger than that of the United States. The Brazilian might
be the fifth largest economy in the world. We’re not really talking about the same thing.
Thank you. Next to make his pitch for his vote, which you’ve already cast, nevertheless, to
speak for the motion in summing up fashion up fashion, Oscar Guardiola-Rivera.
For:Oscar Guardiola-Rivera:
Let me just quote William Hagg, November 2010, “Now is the time for Britain to at last,
think afresh about Latin America in many measures. Latin America matters.” For
example, thirty five percent of global resource of fresh water and twenty five percent of the
worlds cultivatable land, sixty two percent of the remaining rain forest in the world are in
Latin America, forty percent of global biodiversity is in South America. Latin America is a
commodity powerhouse. Thirteen percent of oil and growing, thirty-four percent of copper,
fifty-nine percent of coffee, forty-seven percent of sugar, the proven largest gas resource
in the world, and last but not least and I hear a lot about the Chinese model. Let me say
this, today all South American countries enjoy democracy and human rights. Let’s leave it
at that.
Thank you. Just let me tackle one question there because it’s a question that came from
the floor, the notion that even if you’re right, how can you go about persuading, the man
mentioned was David Cameron, but even Africa to look to Latin America rather than the
questioner said, they are at the moment, rightly or wrongly, looking to China? Just add
that on to your remarks.
For: Oscar Guardiola-Rivera:
Very modestly. You write books about it, such as “What if Latin America Ruled the
World?” And people like Gideon have very kindly recommended them to their readers in
the Financial Times. That’s how you change people’s minds. Everywhere I go, I’m asked,
“Ok, what if Latin America ruled the world?” I always half-jokingly answer, “Well, we would
all dance better.” That’s how you change people’s minds.
Thank you. Our next summar-upper is speaking against the motion, Bill Emmott.
Well the first thing I would say is, that something of the atmosphere of some of the
questions and some of the comments up here on the panel suggest that it’s really still all
about us, which countries our leaders go to, whether we intervene in them, whether we will
invest. The fact is that the 21st century is not all about us. It’s no longer something that
should or I hope will revolve all around is. It should revolve a hell of a lot of countries in
the world. Above all, I believe it will, and I hope it will, revolve an enormous amount
among the part of the world that contains more than half of the world’s population, namely
Asia. The growth and development of Asia over the past century, but especially since
1945, has been extraordinary and a wonderful period of human and political development.
Most important, it’s been a period of steady democratization. 1945 there were no
democracies in Asia, unless I’ve forgotten one. Now, many of the countries of Asia are
democracies and they keep of democratizing bit by bit as dictatorships move into a more
mature, affluent period and democratization has happened, in South Korea, in Taiwan. In
1998, in Indonesia where the Asian equivalent of Egypt, where popular overthrow country
dominated by a family, led by a military which was considered the only working institution
in the country became a democracy after some troubles, after difficulties, but it did become
a democracy. With that background, why would be pessimistic about the prospects in
China, the prospects in other Asian countries, to develop in the same way. The
experience so far suggests that they move in a positive direction. Latin America, we
should certainly hope we should have great optimism that Latin America will succeed, will
grow, will develop. But let’s be clear, the growth and success of Latin America is
extremely recent. We have something called the Latin American debt crisis in my first
decade as a journalist. At that time, no one would have ever of spoken as Latin America
as a potential superpower. When we look at Latin America today and we say that
everyone is a democracy, we might remember Cuba. We might look at Venezuela and
wonder about the human rights all over. We might look at the military saber rattling that’s
taking place in recent years between Colombia and Venezuela and wonder if we should be
absolutely certain that this is the continent of peace and of benign development. I hope it
will be, I hope that Latin America will succeed, but above all, I hope that the world will
progress in a multi-polar way which has been discussed. We shouldn’t look west, we
shouldn’t look east. We should look everywhere.
Thank you very much. Thank you. I have in my hand a piece of paper but before I reveal
what’s inside it, the last word. Perhaps, Parag Khanna, you might address the question
about whether Latin America has the ambition to be a superpower? That was a question
that came from the floor? Just a closing minute from you.
For: Parag Khanna:
Great. Well, we’ve made the argument that South America should be considered a
superpower based on it’s economy, it’s resources, and the fact that it’s peaceful, it’s
demographics as well. With an economy that is in fact as large as China’s, how could we
really rule it out? It’s impossible not to take into account all of it’s latent resources and that
the fact that it is, through it’s ambition, beginning to actualize them. On the question about
why the world isn’t looking more at Latin America? That is in fact what’s happening.
Everybody wants what Latin America has. That’s exactly what the Ambassador’s point
was that through the relocation of outsourcing so much into Latin America, so the world is
looking very much to South America today. Secondly, regime type really matters.
Normally, in geopolitics, we’re really agnostic about whether a country is a democracy or a
dictatorship, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter because authoritarian regimes are
very unstable, in answer to the question from the floor. In fact, South America is largely
democratic and stable and possesses a strong capacity for social integration the term that
the ambassador used. Meanwhile, in Asia, you find a great amount of demographic
instability. In fact, you find it’s not always a blessing. If you look at India and China, they
both have a tremendous amount of difficulty for different reasons in managing such
overwhelming populations. There’s very little evidence to suggest that they are going to
be able to, in China’s case, to become rich before they become old. And in India’s case,
to employ such a large population. We cannot ignore the factor of containment, internal
and external in the Asian case. The United States in trying very hard to constrain China’s
rise and Asian powers are really hedging against it through their military expenditures. But
most of all, we should think not just in terms of continents, but in terms of culture. Not just
about South America, but the West as a whole. Not just the United States and Europe, but
including South America in that in a real strategic triangle of the West. A collective,
peaceful superpower constellation. In fact, it could very well be South America’s ambition
that could revive more of the West.
Thank you very much. Thank you. So, did the arguments on my right prevail, or did those
on the left triumph? Just a reminder, the vote before the debate, as we can in, those for
the motion that, yes we should look west not east, there were two-hundred thirty six for,
two-hundred seventy nine against, and two-hundred one “don’t knows.” The don’t knows
have now gone down from two-hundred one to forty-nine. So, where did those one-
hundred fifty go? Those for the motion that yes, we should look west, not east, that South
America will be the 21st century superpower, two hundred-four. Those against it, four-
hundred and forty-seven. So, the motion has been soundly defeated. Hold on. I’m sure
you’re going to want to, ask we lick our wounds, those who have been defeated, that
you’re going to want to thank our stellar line up of speakers: Oscar Guardiola-Rivera,
Parag Khanna, Gideon Rachman, Bill Emmott, Rana Mitter, Roberto Jaguaribe
Thank you very much.
End Audio
[1:57:58]

Debate: 'South America Will Be The C21st Superpower' 22 March 2011 - Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate: 'South America Will Be The C21st Superpower' 22 March 2011 - Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For your information (details on the event)

Speakers for the motion

Speakers against the motion

Tuesday March 22nd, 2011

Tuesday March 22nd, 2011

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

For: Parag Khanna

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Bill Emmott

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

For: Oscar Guardiola-Rivera:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Gideon Rachman:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

For: HE Roberto Jaguaribe:

Long-term impediments to continued growth: demography is one, natural resources is

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Rana Mitter

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Speaker from Audience:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #2:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Just explain what your doubt is?

Audience Speaker #2:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #3:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #3:

Not at all, I asked the panel to comment on that.

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Bill Emmott:

You can’t see it from Alaska.

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Bill Emmott:

I know, that’s right!

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Parag Khanna, do you want to come in on this particular point?

For: Parag Khanna:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

For: HE Roberto Jaguaribe:

But the fact is, karaokes as I work very hard as well.

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Rana Mitter

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Gideon Rachman:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #4:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #5:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #6:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Thank you. Somebody waiting just behind you. Thank you.

Audience Speaker #7:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Audience Speaker #8:

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

Against: Rana Mitter

Chair: Jonathan Freedland

For: HE Roberto Jaguaribe: