Next world power?

Cdt Matteo

Active member
So what do you think is gonna be the next world power? The West is very strong, but all great Empires (lack of a better word) come to an end.

All I can think is China or Russia.

My main concern is what is the world going to be like when the West falls? Probably a complete dictatorship... Oh lord...

When we do collapse: Fight to the last man.
 
I think the more realistic outcome in the near future anyways is a more balanced state of power among several major powers. China, Russia, perhaps even India may become powerful enough to limit US power projection in their regions of the world.
The EU is an interesting concept and so far the Euro's been doing real well. One wonders what the future of the EU will be politically.
 
Russia ? world power ? nah

Why Putin’s rule threatens both Russia and the west
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fec0c678-d...0779fd2ac.html

by Martin Wolf
Published: February 12 2008 18:34

703ecd98-d997-11dc-bd4d-0000779fd2ac.jpg


At least he made the trains run on time. That was said of Benito Mussolini, Italy’s fascist dictator from 1922 to 1943. Much the same is now said of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s authoritarian president. He may have crushed the fragile shoots of democracy, but he has at least restored the economy, the state and his country’s place in the world.

This view is shared by Mr Putin himself. He stated only last week that: “We have worked to restore the country after the chaos, economic ruin and breakdown of the old system that we saw in the 1990s.” But it suffers from a drawback: it is false, as Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss of Stanford University argue in a powerful article*.

True, between 1999, the year before Mr Putin became president, and 2007, the Russian economy expanded by 69 per cent. But the economies of 11 of the 15 former republics of the Soviet Union expanded by more than Russia’s. Indeed, only Kyrgyzstan did markedly worse. A number of the former Soviet republics did, it is true, benefit from an oil and gas bonanza. But so, too, did Russia: its oil and gas exports jumped from $76bn in 1999 to $350bn last year. Even so, the Russian economy expanded by less than Ukraine’s.

Like all post-communist countries, Russia’s economy suffered a steep initial decline, which reached its trough in 1998. Countries that reformed more decisively, such as Poland, bottomed out more quickly and are now far ahead. Again, Russia’s recovery is in no way exceptional: tiny Estonia has done far better. Maybe this is why the Kremlin hates the Baltic state so much.

It is simply wrong to assign credit for the upswing to Mr Putin. Not only did it begin with the devaluation of 1998, but nearly all the reforms that underlay the improvement were initiated, if not brought to fruition, under Boris Yeltsin’s despised rule. Under Mr Putin little progress has been made on structural reforms. That is one of the central points made by Anders Aslund, a distinguished scholar, in a superb new book.

4a274652-d998-11dc-bd4d-0000779fd2ac.gif


n important respects economic reform has gone backwards, particularly with the ever-growing role of the state in vital segments of the economy. This reversal is directly related to the second false claim about Mr Putin, that he has restored the state. This is true only if one accepts his definition of a strong state: a behemoth subject neither to law nor to political competition.

Mr Putin has eliminated all independence in television and most of it in the press; he has destroyed the autonomy of regional government; he has emasculated parliament; and he has eliminated competition for power. The political divergence between Ukraine, increasingly free, and Russia, increasingly despotic, is as clear as it is disturbing.

The result is not an effective state, but an overweening one. Corruption is rife. Mr Putin himself tells us so: “The state system is weighed down by bureaucracy and corruption and does not have the motivation for positive change, much less dynamic development.” But this is inevitable when so much unaccountable power is concentrated in one person’s hands. By destroying independent institutions, the state has mutilated itself: it is a blind and crippled giant.

In 2006, Russia ranked a mediocre 96th out of 175 in the World Bank’s “ease of doing business” index, its worst ever position. In the World Bank’s governance indicators for 2006, the effectiveness of Russia’s government was ranked in the 38th percentile from the bottom. Its rule of law ranking was in the 19th percentile, well behind Ukraine’s 27th and Poland’s 59th. If one judges a state by its ability to serve the people and protect them from the powerful, including itself, Russia’s is ineffective. That vast numbers of Russians like such a state makes this no less true, merely more depressing.

Russia’s neighbours – at least those in which the people may express their opinions – are more hostile. The KGB-state is unable to understand that fear and respect are antitheses, not synonyms. Mr Putin has made no secret of his regrets about the collapse of the Soviet empire and his resentment at the subsequent expansion of the European Union and, even more, of Nato. What seems absent from his discourse is why these countries, so familiar with beneficent Russian rule, should have handed over their futures to bodies whose central powers are Germany and the US, respectively. Why, too, as Edward Lucas of The Economist notes, are Russia’s friends a “rogue’s gallery” of tinpot despotisms?

48a6bd30-d998-11dc-bd4d-0000779fd2ac.gif


In place of erstwhile hopes for the emergence of a pro-western Russian democracy, we have proto-fascism: aggrieved nationalism; bullying of smaller nations; a cult of the strong leader; suspicion of enemies within; and resentment of foreigners.

Yet Russia is also a nuclear-armed state with vast energy resources. That makes this development worrying, as well as depressing. Russia has chosen the statecraft of fear over the promise of freedom. No doubt, mistakes by the west helped bring this about. I agree with Mr Aslund that the biggest error was the decision to focus on the ridiculously insignificant issue of post-Soviet debt, in late 1991 and early 1992, instead of the challenge of assisting the political and economic transition. But this is now history. It was, in any case, the decision of Mr Putin and associates to turn Russia from the aspiration for a law-governed democracy towards autocracy.

Mr Putin then is a failure, not a success. But he is a dangerous failure. The regime he has created is unpredictable: nobody can know how the post-election duumvirate will work. But it is unlikely to provide sustained improvements in prosperity.

The west must again form a concerted policy: it must resist efforts to divide westerners against themselves; it must insure itself against over-dependence on Russian energy; and it must make the price of revanchism high for Russia itself. But it must also repeat a powerful truth: the west is no enemy of the Russian people. On the contrary, nothing would be more desirable than for a vibrant and self-confident Russian democracy to take its place in the world of western values. And, yes, that must include membership of Nato.

Let us rid ourselves of illusions. This is no new cold war, not least because Russia offers no enticing new ideology. But it is a cold peace. That is a tragedy. It is also a reality. It is one the west must live with, probably for a long time to come.

*The Myth of the Authoritarian Model, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2008; **Russia’s Capitalist Revolution (Peterson Institute for International Economics), 2007; ***The New Cold War (Bloomsbury), 2008
 
Interesting information and it brings a new perspective on the whole thing with Russia.
Yeah, probably another case of overestimating the capabilities of what you don't know.
 
So what do you think is gonna be the next world power?
China, Islamic States, India. Both West and Russia seems to loose their positions demographically. Chinese, Arabian and Hindu people just will outnumber Western World, and overtake it with more or less peaceful immigration, which will be tolerated by West because of need to keep economy in tact.
 
Islamic States?
You've got to be joking.
Why not? They have:
1) Resources;
2) Cultural background, i.e. religion;
3) Potential for reproducing themselves.

I'm not sure will they become one of the world's superpowers of the future, but they without doubts have some potential for it. If they would obtain some geopolitical ambitions, consolidate under certain charismatic leader or just organize in pan-islamic EU-type federacy... all the chances.
 
Let me put it this way.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea have far less of any of those three factors than Indonesia does. Guess who's more powerful and wealthy?
I rest my case.

Plus your case for number 2 is pretty weak. As in they will fight more fanatically for a cause or as in somehow it will help them turn out better cars?
In terms of "culture" it's not like they have some kind of exemplary world renowned work ethic, addiction to education or any of those factors that make for an effective and highly skilled work force.
So quite honestly I don't see what you're getting at.
As for their resources, other than Indonesia and Malaysia, most of these resources you're talking about is oil. Well, there's so much demand to move away from that stuff that eventually we will. Then what they have after that is a whole lot of sand.

Population is important but it doesn't guarantee anything. Again, I cite Indonesia. Largest Muslim population in the world. And then again, the guys with all the money there are Chinese.
 
Let me put it this way.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea have far less of any of those three factors than Indonesia does. Guess who's more powerful and wealthy?
Power and wealthiness is consequences of Westernization of this region. Wasn't Taiwan a British colony for a while, and S-Korea and Japan received both material help and Western influence from USA after WW2 and Korean war.
the_13th_redneck said:
Plus your case for number 2 is pretty weak. As in they will fight more fanatically for a cause or as in somehow it will help them turn out better cars?
No. Religion or any other ideology CAN unite a population, motivate it for a development. The main benefit of islam is birth rate for now, which is quote important for civilization (in opposition to Western world, where birth rate is a problem).
the_13th_redneck said:
As for their resources, other than Indonesia and Malaysia, most of these resources you're talking about is oil. Well, there's so much demand to move away from that stuff that eventually we will. Then what they have after that is a whole lot of sand.

Population is important but it doesn't guarantee anything. Again, I cite Indonesia. Largest Muslim population in the world. And then again, the guys with all the money there are Chinese.
Of course, there is no guarantee for anything. However I think the Chinese has better chances to become a world power, since they have much higher technological potential than islam states. I have not seen lot of things, made in islam states, but there are plenty of Chinese-made things.

* * *
Edited: I foresee that after fall of Western civilization the Chinese and Islamic civilization will compete for domination over the world.
 
Last edited:
Actually Japan initially did not receive western aid when it first developed under the Meiji Restoration. That was all their own work. So again, your theory doesn't hold. What America did give South Korea was mostly destroyed during the Korean War so again, direct Western help is being over played. I'm not that familiar with Taiwan so I can't really say much about that. Most American help towards South Korea was in fact military more than anything else (Free fighter jets!!).
As in uniting a people... you overestimate how strongly united the Islamic communities are. They are very much fractured, more so than you could possibly believe. When they do unite, it's because there is some kind of incident that causes a common outrage. I've seen it happen in many different countries. I have seen it in the United States, in South Korea and in Indonesia. Despite the peoples' differences, there are certain things they have or hold in common and when these are disturbed, especially by an outsider/foreigner or foreign power there is a common outrage that gives the IMPRESSION that they are all answering to the same person.
During these times, charismatic and often inflammatory leaders will take to the stage, get captured by the press and give the impression that they wield more power than they actually do. No doubt they possess significant power but largely it is political theater designed to bring in more supporters in their local front.
There isn't even a real "Islamic Civilization."
Extremists are out there of course but believe me, the common folk in Islamic countries DO NOT welcome them. But they are afraid to speak out because if they do, their lives and the lives of their families will be terminated pretty damn quickly.

You don't have to take me seriously if you don't want but consider the fact that I have grown up in Muslim countries for just about my entire teenage years and have had Muslim friends from Egypt, Syria, Malaysia etc. and Palestinians too. Yeah and I listened to what they had to say.
I think you should stick to topics you know best.

Edit: I didn't say it but I looked it up and it confirmed what I first knew, Taiwan was never a British Colony. Stick to topics you know about.
 
Last edited:
Actually Japan initially did not receive western aid when it first developed under the Meiji Restoration.
Didn't receive western aid initially or at all?
the_13th_redneck said:
What America did give South Korea was mostly destroyed during the Korean War so again, direct Western help is being over played. I'm not that familiar with Taiwan so I can't really say much about that. Most American help towards South Korea was in fact military more than anything else (Free fighter jets!!).
And there was no aid to S-Korea after Korean war? No investments, too?
the_13th_redneck said:
As in uniting a people... you overestimate how strongly united the Islamic communities are. They are very much fractured, more so than you could possibly believe. When they do unite, it's because there is some kind of incident that causes a common outrage. I've seen it happen in many different countries. I have seen it in the United States, in South Korea and in Indonesia. Despite the peoples' differences, there are certain things they have or hold in common and when these are disturbed, especially by an outsider/foreigner or foreign power there is a common outrage that gives the IMPRESSION that they are all answering to the same person.
During these times, charismatic and often inflammatory leaders will take to the stage, get captured by the press and give the impression that they wield more power than they actually do. No doubt they possess significant power but largely it is political theater designed to bring in more supporters in their local front.
There isn't even a real "Islamic Civilization."
I didn't say muslim people are highly united today. I'm afraid they are not. If they were, the US lead invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't be tolerated. However, my point was islam could become such uniting element under conditions. It has potential, not more. And there is nothing related to extremists.

If there is no `Islamic civilization`, there is no such `Christian civilization` too...
the_13th_redneck said:
Edit: I didn't say it but I looked it up and it confirmed what I first knew, Taiwan was never a British Colony. Stick to topics you know about.
That's a detail in sense of topic. Taiwan as anti-communist forepost near the Chicoms also should receive some help from US in Cold War era. Just other way of Western influence.

I.e. - South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong-Kong - their success is consequence of their westernization.
 
Japan's Meiji restoration was their own work. No they did not receive foreign aid. So shut up already. Not like I'm a big fan of Japan myself.
As for South Korea receiving foreign investments. I think most countries have had some sort of foreign investment. Some countries like South Korea have made the most of them and have managed to be successful while others have failed to make any use of them (mostly either due to corruption or internal conflict). So it's not like it was given some sort of unfair boost. There are more international investments in Indonesia than there are in South Korea. Again, which country is better off? As for aid, not significantly. If you think the IMF package is an aid, well, the US also received their help back in the 70s I believe.
As for your argument about the potential of unity of Muslims... your argument is weak. Yes I argue there is no "Islamic Civilization," and I also agree that there is no "Christian Civilization." The average church forms a faction and splits into two after it has reached a membership between 200 - 300. A Christian in South Africa will not take orders blindly from a priest in Taiwan just because they are Christian. It's a common faith (with variations) but it's not like a massive civilization where Christianity is the predominant factor. You'd say that Islam has more control over its people than Christianity does. This is true. But this is also largely because most Islamic countries are quite poor. As their standard of living goes up, the religious control that governs them dissipates just the same.
Westernization = modernization. At least in the 20th century.
Do you not think Islamic countries are not westernized to a degree? They all are. Have you even set foot in a Muslim country before? Have you even set foot in any of these countries you're talking about?

P.s. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt are all countries who have received aid from the West. Many of these countries have received more aid and more investments than any of those East Asian countries you have mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Westernization = modernization. At least in the 20th century.
Westernization also includes increase of personal freedom and values of liberalism. In this aspect most Muslim countries are far from westernization, in terms of prohibition of alcohol, certain dress codes (especially for women).
the_13th_redneck said:
Do you not think Islamic countries are not westernized to a degree?
Some are, most successful example could be Turkey.
Have you even set foot in a Muslim country before? Have you even set foot in any of these countries you're talking about?
I guess Malaysia is Muslim country? Than yes, I have been in Muslim country.

* * *
However, the fall of Western world as superpower is quite obvious and if there won't be a miracle, Western world eventually will loose its dominant role. Generally due to demographics, because birth rate of Western world natives is too low and integration of immigrants is slower than their birth rate and inflow.

The same problem threats Russia as potential superpower, since it also has too low birth rate. So far right?

So the potential superpower can arise only from remaining parts of the worlds. Generally - Chinese and Muslims. Chinese have better chances, since they already are united in one country. When Muslims need to unite in federation/coalition first, which, as You state, is quite unlikely (i.e. they do not have sufficient predictions to form federation or coalition united enough). So far right or not again? If no, WHERE is flaw?
 
None of what you have answered so far gives me good reason to believe that these "Islamic states" will become the next major power.
I don't disagree the relative power of the West will go down at least for a while.
Muslims again you clump into one group but again it's a false catagorization.
Also, although Islam condemns alcohol, people make moonshine in their own homes and have some pretty intense binge sessions. In Indonesia, they have their own brand of beer and Muslims actually drink it.
Don't believe me? I know a guy who used to work a project in Iran. He was there for a good 5 years I think. Said almost every house he had has moonshine. The houses often have high fences if they have a garden and basically inside the walls they're just like anyone else. The women dress whatever, they drink their moonshine, gamble even.
My point is, the whole Islamic sphere isn't like you think it is. It's just that the crazy nuts make all the headlines.
Actually Superpowers don't have to come from the remaining parts of the world. Old powers can make a comeback. For example, the US could be in a twenty or thirty year decline which it could recover again. It's possible that other potential powers may not be able to exploit this relative decline as well. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
A large population is usually a prerequisite for a country being a superpower but it is far from a guarantee. You have to be able to use it properly.
Are you arguing against yourself in the end? Because I think you're now saying the Muslims probably won't unite into one cohesive force. In which case the "Islamic States" being a super power in the future doesn't hold a lot of weight.
Either way, so how long were you in Malaysia? Do you speak Malay?
Anyways I think I've argued this subject to death and I hope you can stay to the point. All you've done here is confirm what I said. Yet somehow you're saying you're right.
 
Are you arguing against yourself in the end? Because I think you're now saying the Muslims probably won't unite into one cohesive force. In which case the "Islamic States" being a super power in the future doesn't hold a lot of weight.
Let's say it depends from both political ambitions and will of leaders of richest and most influential Muslim states. At the moment I do not see anyone with ambitions and will enough, Osama bin Laden does not qualify :) But there is no guarantee that such ambitions won't arise in future. United States in the very beginning of 20th century also hadn't any political ambitions to be a superpower of the world.
 
the war between islam and chirist will be continued
Maybe, but not in form it was ~1000 years ago. More likely it could be rebirth of racist ideas and movements - part of native Europeans which dislike immigrants from South and East, exists. The question is how large this part is and will it increase or not.
 
Back
Top