1. WINTER 20126
NILÜFER GÖLE I BAI TONGDONG I
ERIC X. LI I HENRY KISSINGER I YU HUA
Globalization 2.0
For 500 years the West was on the rise, culminating in Globalizaiton 1.0—the open
system of trade, information flows and the spread of technology on the terms and
in the image of the West. The benefits of that system over the last 30 years have
led to the rise of the emerging economies. As a result we are entering the new era
of Globalization 2.0 characterized by new forms of non-Western modernity and the
interdependence of plural identities. The advent of this new era has been hastened
by the fiscal and financial crisis in Europe and the United States.
Turkey, with its Islamic-oriented democracy that has become a template for
the liberated peoples of the Arab Spring, and China, with its effective neo-Confucian
form of governance, are the most sharply defined new players in this multi-polar
and multi-dimensional world.
In this section, one of Turkey’s most insightful sociologists examines the
post-secular transformation of that nation. One of China’s more provocative
philosophers proposes a hybrid model that combines what has been learned from
the experience of Western and Chinese governance in a way that “enhances
democracy” in both systems.

2. Globalization 2.0
ERIC X. LI is chief executive officer of Chengwei Capital and a member of the 21st
Century Council.
shanghai—Once again the West is at the brink, and along with it, the world is
holding its breath. So soon after 2008, this time the epicenter is in Europe. One week
before the G20 summit in Cannes, European powers struggled to contain the Greek
debt crisis that refuses to go away. Once again, at the wee hours of the morning, a deal
was struck by heads of governments and bankers with weary eyes that involves write-
downs of which details are to be worked out, austerity measures to be implemented
at future dates, and fire-wall rescue funds for which the money needs to be found.
Sound familiar?
President Sarkozy got on the phone with President Hu Jintao to lobby for China’s
investment in Europe’s rescue fund.At the Pre-G20 Summit Forum of the 21st Century
Council, world leaders, such as Al Gore, Gerhard Schröder, Gordon Grown, Ernesto
Zedillo and Pascal Lamy, gathered to discuss the precarious state of globalization and,
again, China was the elephant in the room.Will China, they asked, step up and provide
the public goods for globalization that so far the United States-led Western order has
shouldered? It certainly seems to be China’s responsibility to do so, they say, as it has
ridden, or free-ridden, as many might contend, the Western-provided global economic
and security infrastructure to become the second largest economy in the world.
China’s position is best seen from the request by the Chinese participants, led by
an influential foreign policy adviser to Chinese leaders, for an edit to the forum’s com-
muniqué: the phrase “emergent nations led by China” was to be changed to “emergent
nations including China.” Or perhaps better yet, don’t mention China at all.
Ever since the beginning of globalization at the end of the Cold War, the West and
China have been operating in parallel universes. Two versions of globalization have
been concurrently developing. Globalization 1.0 is globalization as we know it because
it is visible and loud. Globalization 2.0, by contrast, has been invisible and quiet.
From George H. W. Bush’s “new world order” to Bill Clinton’s “moment of
miracles,” from George W. Bush’s “ending tyranny in the world” to Barack Obama’s
“single standard for all who hold power,” from the WTO to the IMF, from Wall Street
to PennsylvaniaAvenue, from Iraq toAfghanistan, from Washington to Oslo, the pro-
ponents of Globalization 1.0 are convinced of a universal outcome for all of mankind:
liberal electoral democracy shall rule every nation, an ever-opening Market (with a
capital M) for both goods and capital will create a singular world economy with the
same rules for everyone, everything and everywhere, and unifying it all are the
Ever since the beginning
of globalization at the end of
the Cold War, the West and
China have been operating in
parallel universes.
WINTER 201240

3. almighty individuals endowed with God-given rights who all want to drink Starbucks
coffee with non-fat milk.
For twenty years now, they have led this drive for their universal vision, empty-
ing the treasuries earned over many generations by their forefathers, mortgaged their
children’s future, expended the lives of their young soldiers, hollowing out their
countries’ industries, with near complete disregard for the integrity of their own cul-
tures and the welfare of their own peoples. For countries in the Globalization 1.0
sphere, the political and commercial elites have reaped the lion’s share of the econom-
ic and political benefits of globalization while the vast majorities are losing ground. In
the United States, the leading nation of Globalization 1.0, Wall Street, SiliconValley,
and Hollywood form a holy trinity that, through its decisive influence on the political
system, is guarding the benefits accrued to them with bailouts and policy paralysis. In
Europe, it is the same quagmire. Little wonder that anger and frustrations are being
taken to the streets.And now the same elites are on television scratching their heads
asking:“Why are we bankrupt?” Perhaps what they confront is much more than finan-
cial bankruptcy. It is potential moral bankruptcy that is facing their version of global-
ization. This is Globalization 1.0—globalization based on universality.
Then there is another version of globalization—Globalization 2.0—that has
been taking place all along. It is quieter, without bold proclamations; it is perhaps not
so coherent in its narrative; it does not get one’s blood boiling or set one’s imagina-
tion on fire with some utopian end in sight for all mankind. It seems to be operating
in the shadow of Globalization 1.0 but stands in fundamental opposition to the meta-
narrative of Globalization 1.0. In fact, it is the anti-meta-narrative. In the last 20
years, it has brought hundreds of millions of people out of poverty; it has industrial-
ized in a speed unprecedented in history; it has indeed modernized without subscrib-
ing to the religion of modernity.
For countries in the sphere of Globalization 2.0, elites seem to recognize that
their responsibility is first and foremost to improve the livelihoods of their own peo-
ples and navigate their nations in a seemingly chaotic but indeed organic world order
to realize that objective.At the core of Globalization 2.0 is the primacy of culture as
the basic unit of human civilization: the belief that each culture or civilization is
unique and should be seen as such from the very rock bottom.There is nothing more
underneath that could somehow unify them and thereby produce something univer-
sal. Cultures are fundamentally incommensurate to each other.And only in recogniz-
ing and respecting this incommensurateness can the convergence of interests among
them be realized and perhaps a more peaceful world order along with it. This is
Globalization 2.0—globalization based on plurality.
WINTER 2012 41
At the core of Globalization 2.0
is the primacy of culture as the
basic unit of human civiliza-
tion: the belief that each cul-
ture or civilization is unique
and should be seen as such
from the very rock bottom.

4. We are at a moment when global problems demand global solutions. The monu-
mental challenges facing human civilization, climate change and the need to rebalance
the global economy among them, seem to indicate a necessary convergence of interests
between the West and the rest. Why, then, are such global solutions not forthcoming?
It is because we are also at a moment when Globalization 1.0 is in trouble and
Globalization 2.0 insists on remaining quiet and invisible.We are stuck in between.But
perhaps 2.0 can no longer be so subdued regardless of its intention. China, the lead-
ing nation in Globalization 2.0, is becoming a beacon for many to see. Not that any
country can emulate China’s path, because it is by Globalization 2.0’s definition not
emulate-able.What is emulate-able, however, is the very idea that there is no emulate-
able universal model and each culture must follow its own path.What political systems
Is the West truly prepared
to accept China as an equal
and legitimate player on the
world stage?
WINTER 201242

5. are most suitable, what economic models fit their developmental stages, and what fun-
damental values should constitute their societies are questions with unique answers to
different places and peoples.Their choices should be respected. Their voices deserve
to be heard, not the least by the very peoples in the sphere of Globalization 1.0, where
their political and commercial elites have, in the name of universality, robbed them of
their heritages and their futures.
Many voices are calling on China to be a more “responsible” player in the global
system. Some have accused China of “free-riding” and not playing a constructive role
in helping rebalance a shattered world economic order. China’s pronounced hesitancy,
and even refusal, to be placed into a leadership role is either noted with resignation
or met with resentment. But this sentiment misses a fundamental question: Is the
West truly prepared to accept China as an equal and legitimate player on the world
stage? Can the West cooperate with a major civilizational power that stands for fun-
damentally different and even opposing values and outlooks? Many in the West have
hidden behind the self-delusion of Globalization 1.0 that as China develops it will
inevitably and eventually adopt Western values that are billed as universal values.
These people need to face the fact: China, rich or poor, powerful or weak, will
NEVER become a liberal electoral democracy with market capitalism and the indi-
vidual as the core unit of its society. The stumbling block to effective convergence of
interests and China taking on the much-needed leadership role is not China’s unwill-
ingness but the lack of consensus in Western societies on that future. Without such
consensus, the rhetoric about responsible behavior and constructive cooperation will
remain empty talks.
Can globalization continue? Does the world face a future of cooperation or con-
flicts? The answer lies in whether the world can smoothly switch the operating system
of globalization from 1.0 to 2.0. It is not as easy as going from Windows to Mac.
The world watches with anxiety.
I
A CENTURY FOR SALE |The Munk Debate in Toronto has in the past three
years become a significant forum for discussing global issues of our age. The most
recent one held in June 2011 (Does the 21st Century Belong to China?) has now been
published as a book with the same title. The debaters were luminaries no less than
Henry Kissinger, Fareed Zakaria (for “No”), Niall Ferguson, and Li Daokui (for “Yes”).
For Dr. Kissinger, it was claimed that this was his first participation in a public debate
on any subject anywhere.
China will succeed but the 21st
century would not belong to
China; it belongs to any and
all who are capable of adapting
to a fast-changing world.
WINTER 2012 43

6. The debate goes off on a strong start with Ferguson,demonstrating his usual mas-
tery of both language and analysis, firing off undeniable facts, past and present, to
make his case that China is well on its way to owning, indeed dominating, the 21st
century: History is on its side; demographics are in its favor; industrial and financial
power makes its strength unstoppable. To top it off, Western decline has opened up
an historic window of opportunity for its rapid and inevitable rise.
Zakaria weighs in with a forceful rebuttal. China would repeat Japan’s derailment
20 years ago when it was thought to be taking over the world. Its faulty political sys-
tem and economic structure would sap its vitality from within and the geopolitical
oppositions from its neighbors backed by America would contain it from the outside.
WINTER 201244
HENRY KISSINGER is a former U.S. secretary of state. His most recent book is
On China. He spoke with NPQ editor Nathan Gardels on November 3.
NPQ | Senior Chinese strategist Zheng Bijian has recently moved on from
his doctrine of “peaceful rise”—a defensive posture which he proposed as a way
of saying China is not a threat to the world—to a doctrine of global engagement:
“expanding the convergence of interests to build a community of interests.”
Do you see this convergence of interests between China and the West? What
are some examples of where this convergence is taking place?
HENRY KISSINGER | There are trends in both China and the United
States and the rest of the West that support engagement around converging
interests. And there are trends that run counter to it.
The obvious places where there is a need for cooperation are in the new areas
of global concern that have appeared: the environment, energy and nuclear pro-
liferation. There is also the need to coordinate the international economic system
and join together to settle conflicts without resorting to war.
NPQ | China is the world’s largest creditor, just as Great Britain and the US
once were. Isn’t China obliged by its own interests, as the Western powers once
were, to become more engaged in the coming decades in shaping the world order?
KISSINGER | In the past, Westerners have talked about Chinese participa-
tion as “responsible stakeholders” in the international system. The implication
was that China should participate in a system we designed according to our inter-
ests at the end of World War II.
China is of the view that a new international system is emerging. That is a
reality. The Chinese want to play a founding role in constructing this new system
in all respects, and not just in the financial management of the world economy.
The G20
Is the Key
Forum for
Adjusting
Global
Power Shift

7. Copyright of NPQ: New Perspectives Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.