Balance of Power and the Next Reallignment

[nc-1701]

Very short background history, I've been thinking about... There have been 4 "epochs" of modern history with very distinct power structures.

Imperialist Era - pre-WW1
Multipolar.
Gradually becoming bipolar as war approached.
Reallignment - WW1
Interwar era - 1919-1939
Unipolar (UK, France, and somewhat America all allied)
Reallignment - WW2
Cold War era - 1945-1990
Bipolar
Reallignment - collapse of Communism
Current era - 1990-present
Unipolar America
Reallignment - ?????

I am not predicting WW3!

But the current unipolar order is threatened at least in PPP China has surpassed America economically and America's hold on the world has slipped lsightly in the past 20 years. China is still nowhere near America's strength, especially considering America's vast web of alliances and economic advantages (reserve currency status, control of IMF, etc.)
But I don't see a strong but isolated China (and to a much lesser extent Russia) as being very stable. If China is on par with america then America's dominant alliance system will be threatened, obviously American leadership would never willingly let such a thing come to pass. Which leads us to wonder of the future...

Assumption: American dominance will not continue unchallenged while China's economy significantly outgrows America's.

My claim is simply that some amount of global crisis is occurring or will occur where either America(+Allies) loses it's position as the unchallenged world power block. Or reasserts itself in a dramatic way, either one leading us to a fifth power structure which is distinct from the post Cold War one.


How might such a crisis occur and develop? What are it's chances of sparking regional wars? Larger wars? Any thoughts, is my whole post just stupid ramblings?

 

[Commodore]

Very short background history, I've been thinking about... There have been 4 "epochs" of modern history with very distinct power structures.

Imperialist Era - pre-WW1
Multipolar.
Gradually becoming bipolar as war approached.
Reallignment - WW1
Interwar era - 1919-1939
Unipolar (UK, France, and somewhat America all allied)
Reallignment - WW2
Cold War era - 1945-1990
Bipolar
Reallignment - collapse of Communism
Current era - 1990-present
Unipolar America
Reallignment - ?????

I am not predicting WW3!

But the current unipolar order is threatened at least in PPP China has surpassed America economically and America's hold on the world has slipped lsightly in the past 20 years. China is still nowhere near America's strength, especially considering America's vast web of alliances and economic advantages (reserve currency status, control of IMF, etc.)
But I don't see a strong but isolated China (and to a much lesser extent Russia) as being very stable. If China is on par with america then America's dominant alliance system will be threatened, obviously American leadership would never willingly let such a thing come to pass. Which leads us to wonder of the future...

Assumption: American dominance will not continue unchallenged while China's economy significantly outgrows America's.

My claim is simply that some amount of global crisis is occurring or will occur where either America(+Allies) loses it's position as the unchallenged world power block. Or reasserts itself in a dramatic way, either one leading us to a fifth power structure which is distinct from the post Cold War one.


How might such a crisis occur and develop? What are it's chances of sparking regional wars? Larger wars? Any thoughts, is my whole post just stupid ramblings?

I don't know what the crisis will be or how bad it will be, but the trend in modern history has been towards greater unification of humanity. So perhaps the next great realignment will actually see some sort of global governmental authority arise. Whether that would be good or bad for the world is, obviously, unknown.

 

[Antilogic]

A question: has there really been a substantial, distinct period of unipolar America after the fall of the Soviet Union that is now leading into a period of realignment, or have we just been realigning since 1990?

 

[jackelgull]

I don't think there is a specific moment that can be pointed to as " America became dominant now," but I believe during the Clinton years, we were the dominant power on the globe, with nothing to do, which lead to the debacle in Somalia and the ignoring of the Rwandan genocide. And I would agree with the assessment that we're heading towards one giant world government. Countries are becoming more specialized within the global economy, with the Middle East being the oil region as one of the more specific examples. Soon, national market structures will be overwhelmed despite government's best efforts and a truly globalized economy will emerge, with a global government not far behind it.

 

[luiz]

The US was at the height lf its global power right after WW1, and then again after WW2 until the Soviets got their own atomic bomb. There is a third peak after the fall of communism which lasts until now, but it's declinining fast, and this peak was never as high as the previous two.

 

[warpus]

I think America will hold on to #1 superpower status for a while (60+ years? 100 years? 150 years?), but eventually we are going to end up in a very interconnected yet multipolar world with America as an important player anyway. There is going to be increased power coming from regions like Brazil and maybe other parts of South America, parts of Africa, and Asia, and if the EU survives I think Europe as well, but either way I see the next couple decades as the rise of influence of the developing world and to a lesser extent to multi-national endeavours such as political entities and corporations. You can expect at least 1 paradigm shift in the next 75 years too. Hopefully it's not violent.

 

[Zkribbler]

A quick correction: The U.S. is not declining. It is continuing to grow in power.

What is happening is that the World Bank, IMF, etc. are working and as a result, the undeveloped nations are developing. Nigeria, India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey and Asian tigers Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea are all gaining economic power faster than the U.S. Although American's plan for a United States of Europe has not occurred, its "Plan B," the EU, is now the strongest economic power in the world. Most of the Soviet Union's former buffer states are doing well. The Gulf states' power no longer comes from just their oil wealth.

Fareed Zarkaria's poorly named book "The Post-American World," describes a world in which the US remains the critical player in the middle of a rising sea of strong players.

One importance difference between today/tomorrow's world and those of previous centuries, is that the various nations are no longer rivals, but partners. Russia stepped off the reservation with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the rest of the world is punishing it economically. With international trade becoming the key to prosperity, those nations wanting to advance have learned (or will quickly learn) that the only way to success is through cooperation.

 

[Colonel]

It should be said in this thread before it goes on that the Chinese "passing" America economically is a facade at best. The Chinese currency is artificially inflated considerably by the Chinese Government. Thus I seriously doubt the numbers are accurate when converted in USD. Secondly, the Chinese are still at best a regional power, they simply do not have the economic or military power projection to be considered a Great, or World Power.

Though I hope it never comes to pass, history tells us that no power will last forever but I would suspect that at the very least the next century will continue with the US being the only World Power both in an economic and military sense. Short of a major theater war.

 

[luiz]

Actually, the Chinese currency is artificially deflated by the Chinese government. Not as much as it was in the past, but still is. That's why the Chinese GDP in current exchange rates substantially underestimates the actual size of their economy.

 

[Hygro]

It should be said in this thread before it goes on that the Chinese "passing" America economically is a facade at best. The Chinese currency is artificially inflated considerably by the Chinese Government. Thus I seriously doubt the numbers are accurate when converted in USD.

China is said to keep their currency artificially cheap, (I guess...) but more important, luiz addressed this in the first post. He cited purchasing power parity, not exchange rates, so it's not about the strength of the renminbi but how much they can make and buy, largely internally.

edit: x-post marks the spot.

 

[Tahuti]

It should be said in this thread before it goes on that the Chinese "passing" America economically is a facade at best. The Chinese currency is artificially inflated considerably by the Chinese Government. Thus I seriously doubt the numbers are accurate when converted in USD. Secondly, the Chinese are still at best a regional power, they simply do not have the economic or military power projection to be considered a Great, or World Power.

The second most powerful country in the world is France.

 

[Hygro]

The second most powerful country in the world is France.

Certainly geopolitically. France is kind of the green/white ranger.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Heh. White ranger. As in, surrender. Because the French like to surrender.

I'll see myself out.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is an RD thread, so i cannot (more openly) make my comment on account of France termed "the white ranger" which would tie US to that other ranger

 

[Hygro]

Heh. White ranger. As in, surrender. Because the French like to surrender.

I'll see myself out.

Go go!


Link to video.

 

[Commodore]

Heh. White ranger. As in, surrender. Because the French like to surrender.

I'll see myself out.

Funny thing is, from my experience it is the Italians that are cowardly in military matters. When I was in Afghanistan, the Italian commander was reprimanded by the NATO theatre commander for not conducting enough patrols. His response was he didn't want to risk his men getting ambushed by patrolling. If they ever did get ambushed out on patrol they wouldn't even try to engage the enemy, but instead high-tail it back to the FOB. Very shameful if you ask me.

The French on the other hand, conducted themselves admirably and did not shy away from engagements with the enemy.

 

[Steph]

The second most powerful country in the world is France.

Based on what criteria?

 

[Kaitzilla]

How might such a crisis occur and develop? What are it's chances of sparking regional wars? Larger wars? Any thoughts, is my whole post just stupid ramblings?

I'd say when fiat currency finally spirals out of control somewhere will be the next major war.

Not like the world economy can grow real wages anymore with oil production plateaued.

 

[Tahuti]

Based on what criteria?

Military, diplomacy and soft power. Of course, this is al hard if not impossible to quantify, but its only a casual discussion.

Funny thing is, from my experience it is the Italians that are cowardly in military matters. When I was in Afghanistan, the Italian commander was reprimanded by the NATO theatre commander for not conducting enough patrols. His response was he didn't want to risk his men getting ambushed by patrolling. If they ever did get ambushed out on patrol they wouldn't even try to engage the enemy, but instead high-tail it back to the FOB. Very shameful if you ask me.

The French on the other hand, conducted themselves admirably and did not shy away from engagements with the enemy.

Good soldiers, bad commanders someone used to say about Italian soldiers.

Anyway, while I do not have a military background at all, for some reason, it does seem to make a lot of sense to NOT patrol when fighting terrorists, as they operate on the premise of the element of surprise. They like to stay as long hidden as possible. Wouldn't it be better to wait until terrorists strike and then counterattack? Patrolling doesn't seem to make a lot of sense at all.

 

[LoneRebel]

If we compare China to the US individually, then yes, China will very likely grow more powerful than the US at some point. Its population is five times larger, so the better question is why it wasn't already more powerful to begin with.

However, we are not comparing China to the US. We are comparing their respective alliance systems with each other. And there is next to no chance that China will be able to put together an alliance system that can match the one the US has built up, which contains just about every developed country in the world. Especially not when one considers how abysmally China has conducted its foreign policy in recent years. A China-India axis would indeed be formidable, but China lost its chance and India will probably align itself more and more with the US and Japan, thus strengthening the US alliance even further. The only other viable great power candidate to align with China is Russia. While the two countries probably will come to some alliance of convenience, if for no other reason than having a common enemy, China and Russia have come to blows in the past and there are too many problems in their relationship for me to see it really working out in the long run.

Not to say that the US will remain sole hegemon forever. The future world will probably be a multipolar one, certainly not one where China is the sole superpower.