The G-Zero
Published in La Tercera
(Chile) on 19 July 2012
by Juan Ignacio Brito (link to original)
(Chile) on 19 July 2012
by Juan Ignacio Brito (link to original)
Translated from
by Jessica Sidlo.
Edited by Heather Martin.
Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, the most important political risk consultancy firm on the planet, describes the current geopolitical situation in his most recent book as the "G-Zero World." This means that, unlike what was happening with the group of the seven most industrialized nations, G-7, or the failed attempt a few years ago to encourage a broader benchmark that included 20 countries, G-20, the international stage now has no clear powerhouse and nobody is in charge — the G-0.
Globalization, says Bremmer, has weakened the U.S., the former dominating power, facilitating the rise of others such as China, India and Brazil. However, these emerging actors are concentrating on their own growth and do not want to assume global responsibilities for the time being. The result is that, despite the existence of problems that require urgent attention, such as those related to the climate, trade liberalization, the financial crisis or Iran's intention to have nuclear weapons, no one makes decisions and serious issues remain unresolved. "For the first time in seven decades," maintains Bremmer, "we live in a world without global leadership."
The metaphor of the G-Zero can also be applied at the domestic level. Many countries today suffer the consequences of weak political leadership, which causes a void that is being filled by highly motivated special interest groups with the ability to mobilize and define the public agenda. Thus problems that are not of general interest or that should receive secondary attention are getting priority. In the U.S., for example, the homosexual lobby has managed to influence several state congresses and courts of justice to authorize marriage between partners of the same sex, even though this is not an issue that is popularly supported, as is demonstrated by the fact that no more than 30 states have voted — either directly or by way of constitutional or legal reform — to approve gay marriage. Meanwhile in Chile, university students and the campuses of the Council of Rectors have shifted the debate toward the problems of post-secondary education, although authorities and experts of all types have been saying for some time now that the most serious obstacle to social quality and social mobility is elementary education, including preschool. However, since fifth-grade students do not gather in the streets, like their older counterparts at the universities, and the Chilean political leaders do not dare to confront the past, we end up discussing problems that are not so urgent and assigning substantial resources to those who need them less than the elementary schools.
At a global level, the consequences of the G-Zero could be catastrophic: Global warming, trade wars, bank runs or nuclear conflicts. On the other hand, the G-Zero on the domestic scale probably will not cause apocalyptic damage here and now; rather, future generations will end up paying for these quiet and persistent losses unless political leaders promptly take responsibility to lead.
Globalization, says Bremmer, has weakened the U.S., the former dominating power, facilitating the rise of others such as China, India and Brazil. However, these emerging actors are concentrating on their own growth and do not want to assume global responsibilities for the time being. The result is that, despite the existence of problems that require urgent attention, such as those related to the climate, trade liberalization, the financial crisis or Iran's intention to have nuclear weapons, no one makes decisions and serious issues remain unresolved. "For the first time in seven decades," maintains Bremmer, "we live in a world without global leadership."
The metaphor of the G-Zero can also be applied at the domestic level. Many countries today suffer the consequences of weak political leadership, which causes a void that is being filled by highly motivated special interest groups with the ability to mobilize and define the public agenda. Thus problems that are not of general interest or that should receive secondary attention are getting priority. In the U.S., for example, the homosexual lobby has managed to influence several state congresses and courts of justice to authorize marriage between partners of the same sex, even though this is not an issue that is popularly supported, as is demonstrated by the fact that no more than 30 states have voted — either directly or by way of constitutional or legal reform — to approve gay marriage. Meanwhile in Chile, university students and the campuses of the Council of Rectors have shifted the debate toward the problems of post-secondary education, although authorities and experts of all types have been saying for some time now that the most serious obstacle to social quality and social mobility is elementary education, including preschool. However, since fifth-grade students do not gather in the streets, like their older counterparts at the universities, and the Chilean political leaders do not dare to confront the past, we end up discussing problems that are not so urgent and assigning substantial resources to those who need them less than the elementary schools.
At a global level, the consequences of the G-Zero could be catastrophic: Global warming, trade wars, bank runs or nuclear conflicts. On the other hand, the G-Zero on the domestic scale probably will not cause apocalyptic damage here and now; rather, future generations will end up paying for these quiet and persistent losses unless political leaders promptly take responsibility to lead.
Next article![]( "The US Will Benefit the World by Solving Shootings")
