You're right, the world could easily get more chaotic as more regions become
united economically and/or politcally. But I have doubts about how successful
this South American union will be, as did the writer of that BBC article I think.
But assuming that somehow they and the African Union become as united
and integrated as the European Union is today, it would probably be good for
the standard of living of the South Americans and Africans, though at the
same time could lead to more confrontation between them and the current big
powers, like the U.S. and China. And it sounds almost like the world
described in Orwell's 1984, with Eurasia, Oceania, and whatever the third
power was called.
Speaking of Orwell, has anyone read his semi-autobiographical book Down
And Out In Paris And London? I just finished it, it was very interesting.
On the other hand, things are already pretty chaotic right now. If there was, for
example, one African government, that government could probably easily end
the violence in Darfur.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@y...> wrote:
> I just finished my International Political Economy class last week.
> It's now almost a consensus in academia that isolationism and
> protestionism will not work, as seen in the sound defeat of Dick
> Gephardt earlier this year. (No disrespect. Dick is a good man.)
> What worries me is that as these trade blocs continue to form, the
> transition from a unipolar to a multipolar system can get chaotic
> and out of control. The US will, again, play a crucial role in this
> post-modern world.