Goodbye to U.S Hegemony?

[MarkWarner08]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?em&ex=1201496400&en=626eef41b0e68c4e&ei=5087%0A

This is a must-read for any American who is concerned about our nation's geopolitical/economic standing in the world.

[MarkWarner08]

How will we respond us a nation? Will we adapt to our new role in a poli-polar world? Will we recede to an isolationist mindset that refuses accept the end of American political and economic primacy?


This is the situation McCain or Romney or Clinton or Obama will inherit. Will any of the candidates champion an "Innovation Agenda"? Will America prepare for Peak-Oil and become a leader in the fight against anthropogenic  climate change?

[MODU]

It's a bit long for me to read tonight, but the bits I did read mimic what others have said.  I have long since advocated a United States of Europe as well as a strong Africa Union, since I think that will be the way the future needs to be managed.  With those two entities intact, the US would be able to focus more on the Western Hemisphere (as it did so well in the past) while the USE and AU can balance out the Mideast and central Asia.  The far East (Japan, unified Korea, the Phillipines, etc) will continue to cooperate with the US.  The three dominant countries/unions will share international burden and won't be accused of overreaching.

[MarkWarner08]

It's a bit long for me to read tonight, but the bits I did read mimic what others have said.  I have long since advocated a United States of Europe as well as a strong Africa Union, since I think that will be the way the future needs to be managed.  With those two entities intact, the US would be able to focus more on the Western Hemisphere (as it did so well in the past) while the USE and AU can balance out the Mideast and central Asia.  The far East (Japan, unified Korea, the Phillipines, etc) will continue to cooperate with the US.  The three dominant countries/unions will share international burden and won't be accused of overreaching.

That's an intriguing plan. We seem to be headed towards a stronger world government, but a regional plan along those lines would make sense.

[猫主席]

It's a bit long for me to read tonight, but the bits I did read mimic what others have said.  I have long since advocated a United States of Europe as well as a strong Africa Union, since I think that will be the way the future needs to be managed.  With those two entities intact, the US would be able to focus more on the Western Hemisphere (as it did so well in the past) while the USE and AU can balance out the Mideast and central Asia.  The far East (Japan, unified Korea, the Phillipines, etc) will continue to cooperate with the US.  The three dominant countries/unions will share international burden and won't be accused of overreaching.

My guess is that there will be a heirarchy of powers:

USA, Europe (by the the EU has expanded into the Caucasus), and China. Those are the three major, but not dominant, powers.

Lesser powers may still be in the sphere of one of the above, but they still can act as an independent voice:
Russia depends on European cash to survive, but it will still be respected in Central Asia and the Middle East.
India will develop a subsphere and could throw a wrench into any Chinese plan to dominate South Asia and the Middle East.

I don't forsee Africa emerging as a superpower, since by the time it develops to China's level the global power structure may be irreversibly cemented.

Finally there are factors we don't know about: maybe one day pan-Arabism will re-emerge and add another name to the above list. The article also cites the settlement of Siberia by Chinese, and this suggests that borders could be fading altogether. Maybe Chavez's vision of a South American entity could bring another lesser power to being. It's too early to predict anything now.

[opebo]

Sure, sure, there'll be a tripartite world with Rich Europe, the rising leader China, and Sick Man America.  There'll be a few very important secondary powers like India, Japan..

But what ordinary americans need to worry about is the decline in their standard of living, not this power-game their owners play.

[Chief Runs With Scissors]

Do you think there will be a lot of emmigration when other powers become more attractive...for example, Americans repatriating to their old countries in Keynesian Europe?

[jokerman]

Though I would gladly welcome Europe's return to a healtier, more vigorous existence, the rise of China as the dominant power of the world is gloomy.  Is there hope for the westernization of China?  They now have McDonalds and cell phones, but they seem to be content in servility.  Europe may be seeing an economic resurgance right now because of decades of economic prudence and technological innovation, but if its population and cultural institutions do not also rebound then it will not be a sufficient bulwark against the growing Chinese-Muslim threat in the long term.  The rule of the Chinese machine combined with some sort of caliphate-like power over the world would mark a new dark age of history, in my opinion.

[Chief Runs With Scissors]

Though I would gladly welcome Europe's return to a healtier, more vigorous existence, the rise of China as the dominant power of the world is gloomy.  Is there hope for the westernization of China?  They now have McDonalds and cell phones, but they seem to be content in servility.  Europe may be seeing an economic resurgance right now because of decades of economic prudence and technological innovation, but if its population and cultural institutions do not also rebound then it will not be a sufficient bulwark against the growing Chinese-Muslim threat in the long term.  The rule of the Chinese machine combined with some sort of caliphate-like power over the world would mark a new dark age of history, in my opinion.

Depends whether the Muslims or the Chinese become much more liberal. They might...and I am hoping for it. Whether there will be a Dark Age depends on whether America and/or Europe can hold on to power and whether these countries can become more enlightened. Both countries have a history of it, so that makes me optimistic. One progressive and strengthining country is India. I hope they become powerful as well.

[猫主席]

Samuel Huntington's idea of a Chinese-Islamic axis is just a load of BS. In this age, there are no allies; there are only common interests. China is content on crushing Islamic sentiment in the Xinjiang region, and the only reason it's cosying up to Iran and Pakistan is because they have oil reserves or have good geographic positions. Likewise, India often mistreats Muslim minorities, but it's still bribing Iran to supply them with energy. The western powers have thousands of troops stationed in the Gulf region and invests billions to prop up the autocracies around the region, but no one has ever claimed a western-Islamic axis.

It all boils down to one statement: If that country has what we want, we'll do anything to make them say yes.

[frihetsivrare]

I don't know if any of you know this, but the United States are really a part of the North American Union. 

[Chief Runs With Scissors]

Samuel Huntington's idea of a Chinese-Islamic axis is just a load of BS. In this age, there are no allies; there are only common interests. China is content on crushing Islamic sentiment in the Xinjiang region, and the only reason it's cosying up to Iran and Pakistan is because they have oil reserves or have good geographic positions. Likewise, India often mistreats Muslim minorities, but it's still bribing Iran to supply them with energy. The western powers have thousands of troops stationed in the Gulf region and invests billions to prop up the autocracies around the region, but no one has ever claimed a western-Islamic axis.

It all boils down to one statement: If that country has what we want, we'll do anything to make them say yes.

So you foresee a U.S.-E.U.-India-China as more like politicial parties forming coalitions for a round than real allies.

[Trollin' Mode]

I think that if we have a Leftist president we will remain good friends with Europe. With a Conservative president, we continue our current route with leads to no friends, and a host of many enemies.
We need allies, and the best source for them is Europe. Europe might not be our friend now, but we could sway them.

[JSojourner]

It's a bit long for me to read tonight, but the bits I did read mimic what others have said.  I have long since advocated a United States of Europe as well as a strong Africa Union, since I think that will be the way the future needs to be managed.  With those two entities intact, the US would be able to focus more on the Western Hemisphere (as it did so well in the past) while the USE and AU can balance out the Mideast and central Asia.  The far East (Japan, unified Korea, the Phillipines, etc) will continue to cooperate with the US.  The three dominant countries/unions will share international burden and won't be accused of overreaching.

This is just one example of why I really enjoy your posts, MODU.  Creative thinking, but well reasoned.

If it's workable or not is unclear to me but it certainly seems worth much study and further pursuit.

[Colin]

Well I don't think that overall American power will be decreased but that it will be diffused. The world is heading back towards the natural "great power" type of geopolitical setup where you have 5 nations tthat act as great powers and while some may be more powerful than the others all are rough equals. The last time we had a world akin to this was the 19th century while you had a great power in Britain it was constantly beset by other major powers inhibiting it from obtaining a "superpower" status. Russia, Germany, France, the US were all rough equals with Britain in terms of overall geopolitical strength, though some exerted it more than others.

People are becoming all worried because we are heading towards a multipolar world with rising powers like Russia, China, and India equalizing themselves against the old, economic, dominators of the world, America and Europe. Those who cry doom and gloom for America, that we will be a sick man that we are declining that we will be worthless by the end of the century, are delusional. We are a first world country with 300 million people. Demographics alone will cause us to have immense weight upon the world stage, more so than Europe at least in the short term due to our greater cohesion. The problem with Europe is that it can pretend to be united and have similar currencies and laws but the self-interest of France and Germany will still often be in direct conflict with those of Britain and Poland. It will take much longer for a "united" Europe to work through these differences of national self-interests than it will to subvert any national political power or create a unified law system.

Also I always like to point out that everyone forgets about India. They always bemoan the rise of China as some great red authoritarian menace waiting to crush democracy with its hordes of servile workers. Nobody of course mentions the Indians who have been having growth rates only a few percentage points lower than China and continue to have a suitable democracy. While both nations have problems which one do you think will be able to deal with those problems better? The nation which clamps down on its press and its people's knowledge. That allows them no say in government or any way to voice their grievances. Or the nation that has a functioning democracy with a vibrant, and cutthroat, press. Which one will whether the natural instability of economic transition better? The one where these pressures can be given voice through political dialogue or the one in which they are silenced and kept from the people. Inevitability is a bad word when trying to predict the future. The inevitability of Chinese domination, and the complete disregard for India, doubly so.