Global Trends 2025

In the November 1, 2009 Salon article "America the superpower melts down," Michael Klare warns "American preeminence is disappearing 15 years early. Get ready to be an ordinary nation." (The article previously appeared at TomDispatch.com.)

Memo to the CIA: You may not be prepared for time travel, but welcome to 2025 anyway! Your rooms may be a little small, your ability to demand better accommodations may have gone out the window, and the amenities may not be to your taste, but get used to it. It's going to be your reality from now on.

OK, now for the serious version of the above: In November 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an affiliate of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued the latest in a series of futuristic publications intended to guide the incoming Obama administration. Peering into its analytic crystal ball in a report titled "Global Trends 2025," it predicted that America's global preeminence would gradually disappear over the next 15 years -- in conjunction with the rise of new global powerhouses, especially China and India. The report examined many facets of the future strategic environment, but its most startling, and news-making, finding concerned the projected long-term erosion of American dominance and the emergence of new global competitors. "Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor [in 2025]," it stated definitively, the country's "relative strength -- even in the military realm -- will decline and U.S. leverage will become more constrained."

That, of course, was then; this -- some 11 months into the future -- is now and how things have changed. Futuristic predictions will just have to catch up to the fast-shifting realities of the present moment. Although published after the onset of the global economic meltdown was under way, the report was written before the crisis reached its full proportions and so emphasized that the decline of American power would be gradual, extending over the assessment's 15-year time horizon. But the economic crisis and attendant events have radically upset that timetable. As a result of the mammoth economic losses suffered by the United States over the past year and China's stunning economic recovery, the global power shift the report predicted has accelerated. For all practical purposes, 2025 is here already.

Many of the broad, down-the-road predictions made in "Global Trends 2025" have, in fact, already come to pass. Brazil, Russia, India and China -- collectively known as the BRIC countries -- are already playing far more assertive roles in global economic affairs, as the report predicted would happen in perhaps a decade or so. At the same time, the dominant global role once monopolized by the United States with a helping hand from the major Western industrial powers -- collectively known as the Group of 7 (G-7) -- has already faded away at a remarkable pace. Countries that once looked to the United States for guidance on major international issues are ignoring Washington's counsel and instead creating their own autonomous policy networks. The United States is becoming less inclined to deploy its military forces abroad as rival powers increase their own capabilities and non-state actors rely on "asymmetrical" means of attack to overcome the U.S. advantage in conventional firepower.

No one seems to be saying this out loud -- yet -- but let's put it bluntly: less than a year into the 15-year span of "Global Trends 2025," the days of America's unquestioned global dominance have come to an end. It may take a decade or two (or three) before historians will be able to look back and say with assurance, "That was the moment when the United States ceased to be the planet's preeminent power and was forced to behave like another major player in a world of many competing great powers." The indications of this great transition, however, are there for those who care to look.

Six way stations on the road to ordinary nationhood

Here is my list of six recent developments that indicate we are entering "2025" today. All six were in the news in the last few weeks, even if never collected in a single place. They (and other events like them) represent a pattern: the shape, in fact, of a new age in formation.

1. At the global economic summit in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24 and 25, the leaders of the major industrial powers, the G-7 (G-8 if you include Russia), agreed to turn over responsibility for oversight of the world economy to a larger, more inclusive Group of 20 (G-20), adding in China, India, Brazil, Turkey and other developing nations. Although doubts have been raised about the ability of this larger group to exercise effective global leadership, there is no doubt that the move itself signaled a shift in the locus of world economic power from the West to the global East and South -- and with this shift, a seismic decline in America's economic preeminence has been registered.

"The G-20's true significance is not in the passing of a baton from the G-7/G-8 but from the G-1, the U.S.," Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University wrote in the Financial Times. "Even during the 33 years of the G-7 economic forum, the U.S. called the important economic shots." Declining American leadership over these last decades was obscured by the collapse of the Soviet Union and an early American lead in information technology, Sachs also noted, but there is now no mistaking the shifting of economic power from the United States to China and other rising economic dynamos.

2. According to news reports, America's economic rivals are conducting secret (and not-so-secret) meetings to explore a diminished role for the U.S. dollar -- fast losing its value -- in international trade. Until now, the use of the dollar as the international medium of exchange has given the United States a significant economic advantage: It can simply print dollars to meet its international obligations while other nations must convert their own currencies into dollars, often incurring significant added costs. Now, however, many major trading countries -- among them China, Russia, Japan, Brazil and the Persian Gulf oil countries -- are considering the use of the euro, or a "basket" of currencies, as a new medium of exchange. If adopted, such a plan would accelerate the dollar's precipitous fall in value and further erode American clout in international economic affairs.

One such discussion reportedly took place this summer at a summit meeting of the BRIC countries. Just a concept a year ago, when the very idea of BRIC was concocted by the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, the BRIC consortium became a flesh-and-blood reality this June when the leaders of the four countries held an inaugural meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia.

The very fact that Brazil, Russia, India and China chose to meet as a group was considered significant, as they jointly possess about 43 percent of the world's population and are expected to account for 33 percent of the world's gross domestic product by 2030 -- about as much as the United States and Western Europe will claim at that time. Although the BRIC leaders decided not to form a permanent body like the G-7 at this stage, they did agree to coordinate efforts to develop alternatives to the dollar and to reform the International Monetary Fund in such a way as to give non-Western countries a greater voice.

3. On the diplomatic front, Washington has been rebuffed by both Russia and China in its drive to line up support for increased international pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program. One month after President Obama canceled plans to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe in an apparent bid to secure Russian backing for a tougher stance toward Tehran, top Russian leaders are clearly indicating that they have no intention of endorsing strong new sanctions on Iran. "Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive," declared the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, following a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Moscow on Oct. 13. The following day, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that the threat of sanctions was "premature." Given the political risks Obama took in canceling the missile program -- a step widely condemned by Republicans in Washington -- Moscow's quick dismissal of U.S. pleas for cooperation on the Iranian enrichment matter can only be interpreted as a further sign of waning American influence.

4. Exactly the same inference can be drawn from a high-level meeting in Beijing on Oct. 15 between Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Iran's first vice president, Mohammed Reza Rahimi. "The Sino-Iran relationship has witnessed rapid development as the two countries' leaders have had frequent exchanges, and cooperation in trade and energy has widened and deepened," Wen said at the Great Hall of the People. Coming at a time when the United States is engaged in a vigorous diplomatic drive to persuade China and Russia, among others, to reduce their trade ties with Iran as a prelude to toughened sanctions, the Chinese statement can only be considered a pointed rebuff of Washington.

5. From Washington's point of view, efforts to secure international support for the allied war effort in Afghanistan have also met with a strikingly disappointing response. In what can only be considered a trivial and begrudging vote of support for the U.S.-led war effort, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced on Oct. 14 that Britain would add more troops to the British contingent in that country -- but only 500 more, and only if other European nations increase their own military involvement, something he undoubtedly knows is highly unlikely. So far, this tiny, provisional contingent represents the sum total of additional troops the Obama administration has been able to pry out of America's European allies, despite a sustained diplomatic drive to bolster the combined NATO force in Afghanistan. In other words, even America's most loyal and obsequious ally in Europe no longer appears willing to carry the burden for what is widely seen as yet another costly and debilitating American military adventure in the Greater Middle East.

6. Finally, in a move of striking symbolic significance, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) passed over Chicago (as well as Madrid and Tokyo) to pick Rio de Janeiro to be the host of the 2016 summer Olympics, the first time a South American nation was selected for the honor. Until the Olympic vote took place, Chicago was considered a strong contender, especially since former Chicago resident Barack Obama personally appeared in Copenhagen to lobby the IOC. Nonetheless, in a development that shocked the world, Chicago not only lost out, but was the city eliminated in the very first round of voting.

"Brazil went from a second-class country to a first-class country, and today we began to receive the respect we deserve," said Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at a victory celebration in Copenhagen after the vote. "I could die now and it already would have been worth it." Few said so, but in the course of the Olympic decision-making process the U.S. was summarily and pointedly demoted from sole superpower to instant also-ran, a symbolic moment on a planet entering a new age.

On being an ordinary country

These are only a few examples of recent developments that indicate, to this author, that the day of America's global preeminence has already come to an end, years before the American intelligence community expected. It's increasingly clear that other powers -- even our closest allies -- are increasingly pursuing independent foreign policies, no matter what pressure Washington tries to bring to bear.

Of course, none of this means that, for some time to come, the U.S. won't retain the world's largest economy and, in terms of sheer destructiveness, its most potent military force. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the strategic environment in which American leaders must make critical decisions, when it comes to the nation's vital national interests, has changed dramatically since the onset of the global economic crisis.

Even more important, President Obama and his senior advisers are, it seems, reluctantly beginning to reshape U.S. foreign policy with the new global reality in mind. This appears evident, for example, in the administration's decision to revisit U.S. strategy on Afghanistan.

It was only in March, after all, that the president embraced a new counterinsurgency-oriented strategy in that country, involving a buildup of U.S. boots on the ground and a commitment to protracted efforts to win hearts and minds in Afghan villages where the Taliban was resurgent. It was on this basis that he fired the incumbent Afghan war commander, Gen. David D. McKiernan, replacing him with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, considered a more vigorous proponent of counterinsurgency. When, however, McChrystal presented Obama with the price tag for the implementation of this strategy -- 40,000 to 80,000 additional troops (over and above the 20,000-odd extra troops only recently committed to the fight) -- many in the president's inner circle evidently blanched.

Not only will such a large deployment cost the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars it can ill afford, but the strains it is likely to place on the Army and Marine Corps are likely to be little short of unbearable after years of multiple tours and stress in Iraq. This price would be more tolerable, of course, if America's allies would take up more of the burden, but they are ever less willing to do so.

Undoubtedly, the leaders of Russia and China are not entirely unhappy to see the United States exhaust its financial and military resources in Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Vice President Joe Biden, among others, is calling for a new turn in U.S. policy, forgoing a counterinsurgency approach and opting instead for a less costly "counter-terrorism" strategy aimed, in part, at crushing al-Qaida in Pakistan -- using drone aircraft and Special Forces, rather than large numbers of U.S. troops (while leaving troop levels in Afghanistan relatively unchanged).

It is too early to predict how the president's review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will play out, but the fact that he did not immediately embrace the McChrystal plan and has allowed Biden such free rein to argue his case suggests that he may be coming to recognize the folly of expanding America's military commitments abroad at a time when its global preeminence is waning.

One senses Obama's caution in other recent moves. Although he continues to insist that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is impermissible and that the use of force to prevent this remains an option, he has clearly moved to minimize the likelihood that this option -- which would also be plagued by recalcitrant "allies" -- will ever be employed.

On the other side of the coin, he has given fresh life to American diplomacy, seeking improved ties with Moscow and approving renewed diplomatic contact with such previously pariah states as Burma, Sudan and Syria. This, too, reflects a reality of our changing world: that the holier-than-thou, bullying stance adopted by the Bush administration toward these and other countries for almost eight years rarely achieved anything. Think of it as an implicit acknowledgment that the U.S. is now descending from its status as the globe's "sole superpower" to that of an ordinary country. This, after all, is what ordinary countries do; they engage other countries in diplomatic discourse, whether they like their current governments or not.

So, welcome to the world of 2025. It doesn't look like the world of our recent past, when the United States stood head and shoulders above all other nations in stature, and it doesn't comport well with Washington's fantasies of global power since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. But it is reality.

For many Americans, the loss of that preeminence may be a source of discomfort, or even despair. On the other hand, don't forget the advantages to being an ordinary country like any other country: Nobody expects Canada, or France, or Italy to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, on top of the 68,000 already there and the 120,000 still in Iraq. Nor does anyone expect those countries to spend $925 billion in taxpayer money to do so -- the current estimated cost of both wars, according to the National Priorities Project.

The question remains: How much longer will Washington feel that Americans can afford to subsidize a global role that includes garrisoning much of the planet and fighting distant wars in the name of global security, when the American economy is losing so much ground to its competitors? This is the dilemma President Obama and his advisers must confront in the altered world of 2025.

Iceland says goodbye to the Big Mac

In the October 26, 2009 article "Iceland says goodbye to the Big Mac," Associated Press writers Gudjon Helgason and Jane Wardell report that economic conditions are causing the closure of Iceland's three McDonald's restaurants.

REYKJAVIK, Iceland – The Big Mac, long a symbol of globalization, has become the latest victim of this tiny island nation's overexposure to the world financial crisis.

Iceland's three McDonald's restaurants — all in the capital Reykjavik — will close next weekend, as the franchise owner gives in to falling profits caused by the collapse in the Icelandic krona.

"The economic situation has just made it too expensive for us," Magnus Ogmundsson, the managing director of Lyst Hr., McDonald's franchise holder in Iceland, told the Associated Press by telephone on Monday.

Lyst was bound by McDonald's requirement that it import all the goods required for its restaurants — from packaging to meat and cheeses — from Germany.

Costs had doubled over the past year because of the fall in the krona and high import tariffs on imported goods, Ogmundsson said, making it impossible for the company to raise prices further and remain competitive with competitors that use locally sourced produce.

A Big Mac in Reykjavik already retails for 650 krona ($5.29). But the 20 percent increase needed to make a decent profit would have pushed that to 780 krona ($6.36), he said.

That would have made the Icelandic version of the burger the most expensive in the world, a title currently held jointly by Switzerland and Norway where it costs $5.75, according to The Economist magazine's 2009 Big Mac index.

The decision to shutter the Icelandic franchise was taken in agreement with McDonald's Inc., Ogmundsson said, after a review of several months.

McDonald's, the world's largest chain of hamburger fast food restaurants, arrived in Reykjavik in 1993 when the country was on an upward trajectory of wealth and expansion.

The first person to take a bite out of a Big Mac on the island was then Prime Minister David Oddsson. Oddsson went on to become governor of the country's central bank, Sedlabanki, a position that he was forced out of by lawmakers earlier this year after a public outcry about his inability to prevent the financial crisis.

Lyst plans to reopen the stores under a new brand name, Metro, using locally sourced materials and produce and retaining the franchise's current 90-strong staff.

Ogmundsson said it was unlikely that Lyst would ever seek to regain the McDonald's franchise with Iceland still struggling to get back on its feet after the credit crisis crippled its overweight banking system, damaging the rest of its economy, last October.

"I don't think anything will happen that will change the situation in any significant way in the next few years," Ogmundsson said.

It is not the first time that McDonald's, which currently operates in more than 119 countries on six continents, has exited a country. Its one and only restaurant in Barbados closed after just six months in 1996 because of slow sales. In 2002, the company pulled out of seven countries, including Bolivia, that had poor profit margins as part of an international cost-cutting exercise.

Examples of Good Mind Maps

The following two mind maps were created by students in John Budd's labor relations course at the University of Minnesota.

This mind map illustrates a moment in the history of labor unions:
(Click the image to enlarge it.)

This mind map summarizes the diverse impacts of labor unions:
(Click the image to enlarge it.)

A good mind map will:
*use different colors to represent different branches;
*illustrate the maps with images; and
*use single words because phrases or full sentences can limit their ability to create associations.
(Avoid full sentences. Phrases are acceptable if a single word does not express the concept effectively.)

A darker side of Columbus emerges in US classrooms

In the October 11, 2009 article "A darker side of Columbus emerges in US classrooms," Associated Press writer Christine Armario reports:

TAMPA, Fla. – Jeffrey Kolowith's kindergarten students read a poem about Christopher Columbus, take a journey to the New World on three paper ships and place the explorer's picture on a timeline through history.

Kolowith's students learn about the explorer's significance — though they also come away with a more nuanced picture of Columbus than the noble discoverer often portrayed in pop culture and legend.

"I talk about the situation where he didn't even realize where he was," Kolowith said. "And we talked about how he was very, very mean, very bossy."

Columbus' stature in U.S. classrooms has declined somewhat through the years, and many districts will not observe his namesake holiday on Monday. Although lessons vary, many teachers are trying to present a more balanced perspective of what happened after Columbus reached the Caribbean and the suffering of indigenous populations.

"The whole terminology has changed," said James Kracht, executive associate dean for academic affairs in the Texas A&M College of Education and Human Development. "You don't hear people using the world 'discovery' anymore like they used to. 'Columbus discovers America.' Because how could he discover America if there were already people living here?"

In Texas, students start learning in the fifth grade about the "Columbian Exchange" — which consisted not only of gold, crops and goods shipped back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean, but diseases carried by settlers that decimated native populations.

In McDonald, Pa., 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, fourth-grade students at Fort Cherry Elementary put Columbus on trial this year — charging him with misrepresenting the Spanish crown and thievery. They found him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison.

"In their own verbiage, he was a bad guy," teacher Laurie Crawford said.

Of course, the perspective given varies across classrooms and grades. Donna Sabis-Burns, a team leader with the U.S. Department of Education's School Support and Technology Program, surveyed teachers nationwide about the Columbus reading materials they used in class for her University of Florida dissertation. She examined 62 picture books, and found the majority were outdated and contained inaccurate — and sometimes outright demeaning — depictions of the native Taino population.

The federal holiday itself also is not universally recognized. Schools in Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles and Seattle will be open; New York City, Washington and Chicago schools will be closed.

The day is an especially sensitive issue in places with larger native American populations.

"We have a very large Alaska native population, so just the whole Columbus being the founder of the United States, doesn't sit well with a lot of people, myself included," said Paul Prussing, deputy director of Alaska's Division of Teaching and Learning Support.

Many recall decades ago when there was scant mention of indigenous groups in discussions about Columbus. Kracht remembers a picture in one of his fifth-grade textbooks that showed Columbus wading to shore with a huge flag and cross.

"The indigenous population was kind of waiting expectantly, almost with smiles on their faces," Kracht said. "'I wonder what this guy is bringing us?' Well, he's bringing us smallpox, for one thing, and none of us are going to live very long."

Kracht said an emerging multiculturalism led more people to investigate the cruelties suffered by the Taino population in the 1960s and '70s, along with the 500th anniversary in 1992.

However, there are people who believe the discussion has shifted too far. Patrick Korten, vice president of communications for the Catholic fraternal service organization the Knights of Columbus, recalled a note from a member who saw a lesson at a New Jersey school.

The students were forced to stand in a cafeteria and not allowed to eat while other students teased and intimidated them — apparently so they could better understand the suffering indigenous populations endured because of Columbus, Korten said.

"My impression is that in some classrooms, it's anything but a balanced presentation," Korten, said. "That it's deliberately very negative, which is a matter of great concern because that is not accurate."

Korten said he doesn't believe such activities are widespread — though the lessons will certainly vary.

In Kolowith's Tampa class, students gathered around a white carpet, where they examined a pile of bright plastic fruits and vegetables, baby dolls, construction paper and other items as they decided what would be best for their voyage.

"Do you think it would be good to take babies on a long and dangerous boat ride?" he asked the class. "No!" they replied.

Fifteen miles away, in Seffner, Fla., Colson Elementary assistant principal Jack Keller visited students in a colonial outfit and gray wig, pretending to be Columbus and discussing his voyages. The suffering of natives was not mentioned.

"Our thing was to show exploration," he said.

Meanwhile, Crawford's Pennsylvania class dressed up as characters from the era, assigned roles for a mock trial and put Columbus on the stand. Out of a jury of 12 students, nine found him guilty of the charges.

"Every hero is somebody else's villain," said Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, a scholar and author of several books related to Columbus, including "1492: The Year the World Began."

"Heroism and villainy are just two sides of the same coin."

Names for U.S. citizens

"Names for U.S. citizens" from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Different languages use different terms for citizens of the United States, the people known in English as Americans. All forms of English refer to these people as "Americans", derived from "The United States of America", but there is some linguistic ambiguity over this due to the other senses of the word American, which can also refer to people from the Americas in general. Many other languages use cognates of "American" to refer to people from the United States, but others, particularly Spanish, primarily use terms derived from "United States". There are various other local and colloquial names for Americans.

Development of the term

The adjective "American" originally referred to the landmass known as the Americas or America. "Americans" originally referred to the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and later to European settlers and their descendants. English use of the term "American" for people of European descent dates to the 17th century; the earliest recorded appearance is in Thomas Gage's The English-American: A New Survey of the West Indies in 1648. "American" especially applied to people in British America, and thus its use as a demonym for the United States derives by extension.

The United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 refers to "the thirteen united States of America", making the first formal use of the country name; the name was officially adopted by the nation's first governing constitution, the Articles of Confederation, in 1777. The Federalist Papers of 1787-1788, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison to advocate the ratification of the United States Constitution, use the word "American" in both its original, Pan-American sense, but also in its United States sense: Federalist Paper 24 refers to the "American possessions" of Britain and Spain, i.e. land outside of the United States, while Federalist Papers 51 and 70 refer to the United States as "the American republic". People from the United States increasingly referred to themselves as "Americans" through the end of the 18th century; the 1795 Treaty of Peace and Amity with the Barbary States refers to "American Citizens", and George Washington spoke to his people of "[t]he name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity…" in his 1796 farewell address. Eventually, this usage spread through other English-speaking countries; the unqualified noun "American" now chiefly refers to natives or citizens of the United States in all forms of the English language. Although "American" may refer to all inhabitants of the continent, this is generally specified with a qualifier such as "Latin American" or "North American."

International use

International speakers of English refer to people from the United States as "Americans", while cognates of "American" are used in many other languages. French, German, Dutch, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, and Russian speakers use cognates of American (Japanese: アメリカ人 roma-ji: amerika-jin), (Russian: американец, американка,) (Mandarin Chinese: pinyin- měiguórén, traditional- 美國人, simplified- 美国人) to refer to U.S. citizens. Spanish and Portuguese, however, chiefly use terms derived from Estados Unidos, the cognate of "United States" – estadounidense and estadunidense, respectively. The same linguistic ambiguity that occurs in English use of the term "American" occurs in the other European languages: to compensate for this, French (predominantly Quebec French) and Italian speakers may refer to U.S. citizens respectively as états-unien and statunitense, though this is less common, and German speakers may distinguish an Amerikaner as a U.S.-Amerikaner. This confusion is also present in Portuguese, as people from the United States may alternatively be referred to as americanos in that language. However, in Spanish, americano chiefly refers to all people from the Western Hemisphere, and using it in the United States sense may be considered offensive; the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas de la Real Academia Española advises against using it in this sense.

Alternate terms

The only officially and commonly used alternative for referring to the people of the United States in English is to refer to them as citizens of that country. "Yankee" (or "Yank") is a common colloquial term for Americans in English; cognates can be found in other languages. While "Yankee" may refer to people specifically from New England or the Northern United States, it has been applied to Americans generally since the 18th century, especially by the British. The earliest recorded use in this context is in a letter by Horatio Nelson in 1784. The word "gringo", often used pejoratively, is common in Spanish and has entered into other languages including English, in which language it is recorded as early as 1871. More generically, they may be specified as "U.S. Americans". Several single-word English alternatives for "American" have been suggested over time, including "Usonian", popularized by Frank Lloyd Wright, and the nonce term "United-Statesian". The writer H. L. Mencken collected a number of proposals from between 1789 and 1939, finding terms including "Columbian, Columbard, Fredonian, Frede, Unisian, United Statesian, Colonican, Appalacian, Usian, Washingtonian, Usonian, Uessian, U-S-ian, Uesican, United Stater." Nevertheless no alternative to "American" is common.

Spanish and Portuguese speakers may refer to people from the United States as norteamericanos and norte-americanos respectively ("North Americans"), though this term can also include Canadians and sometimes Mexicans. The fact that citizens of the United States call themselves "Americans" causes discomfort for many Latin Americans, who see it as an appropriation of the collective identity of all peoples and countries of the Western Hemisphere. However, this usage has historical roots. Other languages which optionally distinguish the two uses include Japanese, French, Finnish, Italian, and Navajo. Other languages, such as Chinese, Korean, Swahili, Vietnamese, and Esperanto, have different terms for U.S. citizens and people from the Americas.

Retrieved October 8, 2009.

See also:
Santos, Luis Claudio (March 2006). "American, United Statian, USAmerican, or Gringos?". AmeriQuests 2 (1).

The power of China's big checkbook

In the October 7, 2009 article "Amid the global economic crisis, China rises," Associated Press business writer Joe McDonald reports:

BEIJING – The auto-parts maker Delphi Corp. is headquartered in Troy, Mich., in the heart of the region that made the United States the car capital of the world. It's a place where the phrase "buy American" is right at home.

Now the 3,000 employees of Delphi's brake and suspension unit are getting a new boss. Battered by weak sales, Delphi is selling the unit to investors led by a company named Shougang Corp.

Shougang is a steel maker owned by the government of China — a government that calls itself communist but espouses a "socialist market economy" as it marches down globalization's road toward a capitalistic future.

"Everyone's so desperate for cash that the Chinese show up with a checkbook and people say, `Yes, please'," says Arthur Kroeber, managing director of Dragonomics, a Beijing research firm.

Explosive growth in China and India, coupled with Japan's clout as the world's No. 2 economy, has long been expected to shift economic power from the United States to Asia as this century progresses. The financial crisis and resulting Great Recession are accelerating that process.

"China certainly comes out of the crisis stronger rather than weaker, and it's the opposite for the United States," says Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia.

Even some Americans have begun declaring this the "Chinese century" since it began nearly a decade ago. But while they and others fear the rise of China in international relations and the global economy, the reality is less dramatic: Beijing is still getting its own sprawling, chaotic house in order and is in no position to supplant the United States as global leader in the near future.

At the same time, Beijing's power remains undefined: On an unfamiliar global stage, it is unsure what role it wants to play.

For decades, China followed the dictum of its late supreme leader, Deng Xiaoping, to keep its head down abroad and focus on development at home. But earlier this decade, emboldened by success and mindful that their globalized economy needs stability, communist leaders started pressing for a place among the nations that manage world affairs.

These days, Beijing is claiming a bigger voice in global economic forums such as the Group of 20 and is getting more deference in the United Nations, which could mean protection for friends such as Iran and Myanmar. Its military spending is the world's second-highest, behind that of the United States.

"China is very likely to be the second-most-powerful country — if it isn't now, then within a decade," says Kenneth Lieberthal, director of the Brookings Institution's John L. Thornton China Center in Washington.

For the United States, it's a mixed blessing. The American and Chinese economies are intertwined, and the success of one depends on the health of the other.

The United States is China's biggest trade partner. China sent $338 billion in goods here last year. Beijing is Washington's biggest creditor, with more than $800 billion invested in government debt. American automakers look to China's growing market to propel future sales.

The financial crisis set back U.S. growth by years and will add trillions to the federal debt over the next decade. But China avoided the worst of the crisis. Its banks are healthy and, with the help of a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus, this year's economic growth is on track to top 8 percent.

Already, demand from China can affect oil prices, and it is starting to influence what products are available worldwide. Western jobs are tied to Chinese spending, from British auto factories to Australian iron mines. Chinese money is financing development of oil fields from Venezuela to Central Asia.

And China's role as Washington's lender-in-chief is altering the dynamic of the countries' relationship.

At a meeting in London in April, President Barack Obama assured his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, that Washington would cut its budget deficit — a promise no American leader ever had to make to a Soviet leader.

Washington's three-year-old strategic dialogue with Beijing has long been dominated by U.S. trade grievances. But the latest round in July, overshadowed by America's need for China to keep buying its debt, became a discussion between equals.

China, a major destination for foreign investment, was starting to reverse the flow and invest abroad before the financial crisis. The crisis accelerated that and has led to a flurry of deals. In some cases, Chinese companies have stepped in to save Western jobs — a notion unthinkable a decade ago.

In Britain, China's Nanjing Automobile Group plans to reopen the Longbridge factory idled by the collapse of MG Rover to make limited-edition MGTF sports cars. And in Sweden, Beijing Automotive is joining a bid to buy Saab from General Motors, while Geely Automobile wants to acquire Ford's Volvo unit.

"It's better to be part of the race than to watch it from the stands," says Paul Akerlund, a union representative at Saab. "We see advantages in gaining access to the Chinese market, which is the fastest-growing auto market in the world."

In diplomacy, China is only starting to stake out positions on a wide array of global issues. It has used its influence in the United Nations to help allies such as Sri Lanka resist Western pressure on human rights. But Chinese leaders have yet to decide what overall political and military role they want abroad.

"They clearly want to be a country of some gravitas both regionally and globally," Lieberthal says. "But there are a lot of aspects of the American approach — too ready to interfere, to tell others what to do — that the Chinese criticize as `hegemonic.'"

Even as it is on track to overtake the American economy in size as early as 2030, China is burdened by enormous problems of corruption, poverty and pollution. Measured by income per person, China ranked 130th out of 210 economies in a World Bank survey last year, behind most of Latin America and parts of Africa.

"China's foreign currency reserves are huge. But that does not mean we are a rich country," says Cho Tak Wong, chairman of Fuyao Group, which produces glass for Chinese and global automakers. "We are about 100 years behind the United States."

China also has become a fast-growing market, and the financial crisis has only increased its importance to global companies.
Chinese demand affects everything from global steel prices to the design of consumer goods. Cadillac created its 2008 CTS with China in mind, adding a deeper back seat for Chinese buyers driven by chauffeurs.

Other countries' urgent need for cash has created opportunities for Beijing to make deals for resources to drive its booming economy. State companies have struck oil deals in Brazil, Venezuela, Russia and Africa and bought stakes in Australian and Canadian miners.

Delphi turned to Chinese buyers for its remaining brake and suspension operations after it sought bankruptcy court protection four years ago. The buyers are Shougang and two partners — the Beijing city government and an auto-parts maker, Tempo Group. Delphi says the $90 million sale should close in November, seven months after it was announced.

Contrast that with 2005, when Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. tried to acquired Unocal Corp. CNOOC offered to pay more than a rival American bidder but withdrew after critics in Washington said the sale might threaten U.S. energy security.

Still, the United States has many strengths that China lacks. The U.S. remains the world center for innovation in many areas and a magnet for smart, ambitious immigrants.

"Europeans may hope that the U.S. has been knocked down a peg or two, but even if that is so, they could be in for a nasty surprise," says Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners, a London brokerage. "Never underestimate the ability of the American people to rise to a challenge."

Peak Oil - A Mind Map

Click the image above to enlarge the concept map of peak oil.