December 17th, 2013
11:19 AM ET

What I'm reading

By Fareed Zakaria

“Globalization is regularly, and often uncritically, pilloried as a major threat to linguistic diversity,” writes Mark Turin in Yale Global. “But in fact, globalization is as much process as it is ideology, certainly when it comes to language. The real forces behind cultural homogenization are unbending beliefs, exchanged through a globalized delivery system, reinforced by the historical monolingualism prevalent in much of the West.”


“None of these leaders – Mr. Xi, Mr. Abe or Ms. Park – wants a real war. Much of their posturing is for domestic consumption,” argues Ian Buruma in the Globe and Mail. “One reason why they can engage in this dangerous brinkmanship is the continuing presence of the United States as regional policeman. America’s armed forces are the buffer between the two Koreas, and between China and Japan.”

“The U.S. presence allows East Asia’s rival powers to act irresponsibly. The only thing that might change their behavior would be a U.S. military withdrawal. In that case, the three countries would have to come to terms with one another by themselves.”


“There are 37 million more men than women in India, and most of them are of marriageable age given the relatively young population,” writes Sunny Hundal in the New Statesman. “A social time-bomb is now setting off there with terrifying consequences.”

« Previous entry
soundoff (One Response)
  1. j. von hettlingen

    The gender imbalance in China and India would offer their men the opportunity to change their societies and make them more open to foreigners. Due to the lack of female counterparts in marriageable age, they would have to import foreign spouses. Chinese and Indians are known for racial discrimination and cultural patronising.

    December 21, 2013 at 11:57 am |

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Previous entry