But in today's world, a nation's form of government, not its 'civilization' or its geographic location, maybe the best predictor of its geopolitical alignment."
For instance, China and Japan both have shared Asian culture, but at the same time one is a democratic country while the other one follows an autocracy. Thus, Japan will have more in general with another democracy, even though it is not racially same, that it will with China.
He further discussed that the dictatorship are unsafe, not only because they have unfair internal policies, in fact they normally experiencing fast economic growth (Dejevsky, 2008). This permit them to support a more authoritative and threatening military with which to pressurize democracies: like, Russia's flourishing oil wealth had conflicts with the European Union and sent nuclear bombers on training trip on Western side, while China on the other hand makes more and more difficult demands on Taiwan (Dejevsky, 2008). In addition, economic success of China in the absence of democracy has led other countries to follow their dictatorial rule as a way of copying their success, and the response can be seen in places such as Venezuela (Dejevsky, 2008).
Kagan has admitted that there could be friction between autocracy such as Russia and China may mistrust each other over their common objective in Siberia. He also recognized that democracies can have friction with one another like the cynical exchanges between the United States and France on the evening of the Iraq war (Sanger, 2008). However, the author's point-of-view is that when push comes to heave, a democratic state would always take side with a democracy in clash with a dictatorship, while a dictatorship would always take side with a dictatorship in clash with a democratic state (Sanger, 2008).
One of the most controversial things according to Kagan is that the United Nations protects dictatorship in the name of independence. Besides, China and Russia both as permanent Security Council members with the veto protect other client dictatorship such as Sudan and Turkmenistan from United Nation action (Sanger, 2008). In order to resolve this, Kagan supports setting up a "League of Democracies," where countries following democracy could organize policies so as to deal with dictatorship that tribute the United Nation, as a substitute to it (Sanger, 2008).
However, the book is has some weak areas. The first weakness can be seen in the author's plan for a League of Democracies as unconvincing on two stages. First of all, it is quite difficult to see as to how a suggested structure is set up without being seen as a substitute to the United Nations rather than a tribute (Sanger, 2008). Second of all, democratic countries usually have competition and resistance with one another, like for instance France and America have a joint rivalry, as well as harsh recollections of their conflicts before the war of Iraq. As Kagan appears to set aside these as small and unimportant challenges, it is difficult to see as how such clashes would be prevented within his League of Democracies (Sanger, 2008). He claims unconvincingly that democracies will overcome such conflicts & clashes because of the greater uncertainties of the dictatorship.
This is a sensitive and far-sighted assessment on the state of global politics as the decade reaches its closing stages, in the form of an extended composition. He further says in his book that a new alliance of revolt is rising in opposition to the West, which is not led by a mutual ideology except in so far as resentment to the rule of law and democracy has been measured as ideological. Kagan foresees that the future would witness the comeback of nationalism, along with increasing pressure and disagreement between the forces of democracy and dictatorship.
He observes that what concerns the most is a country's nature of government and not its culture, religion or even the geographic location; and this establishes its position internationally. Despite the fact that that he does not give much notice to the threats given by the terrorists time and time again, and doesn't take this into account as a primary danger while the history has proven that modernity has never been defeated against the conventionality signified by the Islamists. To an extent one can consider this as the truth but at the same time terrorism might have unintentional outcomes in the development of agreements and in the growth of any country formation.
The author has given his readers a depiction of the today's world in all its complexity and its simplicity. According to him, we all are living in a world where America has its dominance but cannot dominate, as all are making great efforts and struggling for power, stature and reputation (Sanger, 2008). Even though power is at the service of ideas, but the vital notion involves the idea about power for democracy and dictatorship. In other words, Robert Kagan masterfully position the most imperative questions that is dealing the moderate democratic countries, daring them to decide as to whether they want to shape history or give in others hands to shape it for them. The book consists of hundred pages having overall style, vigor, flair and elegance (Sanger, 2008).
Zakaria; Fareed. The Rise of the Rest. Newsweek. May 2008
Joffe; Joseff. "The New World." Sunday Book Review. New York Times. May 2008
Dejevsky, Mary. The view from Camp McCain: "The Return of History and the End…