US global dominance 'set to wane'

[perseus]

Perseus, in Far East, you mean the Chinese.

I think this applies to a large number of 'Tiger economy' states, but mainly China in terms of population.

Japan, South Korea emerged some time ago. From what? no great sources of energy or mineral wealth unlike Europe and America, they had to do it from sheer effort and brainpower. What happens when China achieves the same level of production per capita? That is if there are enough raw materials to go around and it doesn't cause an environmental disaster in the process, a big if admittedly.

 

[A Can of Man]

Without America's military presence, the Korean peninsular at least will fall to the Chinese in record speed.
China does have its serious issues but they will probably overcome. One of the major issues at this point is erosion. They're just not taking care of their arable land very well and this could have some serious consequences for them. Basically what happened to North Korea except at a greater scale. North Korea can't produce enough food for itself due to erosion.
But as long as the Chinese are able to sort those things out and if the Americans leave, this side of the world will take its orders from Beijing.

 

[Del Boy]

This is what people overlook when considering the achievements of the Korean and VietNam wars. At great sacrifice, Chinese ambitions were discouraged and held until now. Time was certainly won, at a key moment in history. Now the scenario moves on, and the world order is once again challenged. The strong will prevail, not necessarily the best.

Anybody want USA on their side? Anybody rather kick USA into touch? I guess that depends upon whether you are at the sharp end or not.

I note that Germany has just warned Russia not to mess with NATO; feeling strong? Tensing muscles? Whose muscles?

 

[MontyB]

This is what people overlook when considering the achievements of the Korean and VietNam wars. At great sacrifice, Chinese ambitions were discouraged and held until now. Time was certainly won, at a key moment in history. Now the scenario moves on, and the world order is once again challenged. The strong will prevail, not necessarily the best.

You seem to be alluding to the old domino effect which never happened, Vietnam and China fought each other (and still do) over disputed territories, there have been lots of "scenario's" in South East Asia where China could have gone on a conquest rampage but havent and lets face it the domino effect proved to be a inaccurate.

Anybody want USA on their side? Anybody rather kick USA into touch? I guess that depends upon whether you are at the sharp end or not.

You know this is a very American argument and I think it has been exposed rather badly by George Bush's "if you are not with us you are against us" comments, it manifests itself on these boards in the form of "if you don't agree with us you are "anti-American".
Here is my take on this, people want the USA on the team but they do not necessarily want it to dominate the team nations are looking for a partner not always a team leader.
Most of the world has long ago realised that it is possible to agree on a problem and disagree on a cure without it becoming a "they hate me" argument.

I note that Germany has just warned Russia not to mess with NATO; feeling strong? Tensing muscles? Whose muscles?

Umm to be perfectly blunt I think German muscle alone would be enough to prevail in a defensive action against Russia, throw in the rest of European NATO and Russia could not hope to defeat Europe in a conventional war and would probably lose on defence as well, the days of the mighty Russian military are well and truly over as they have neither the numbers nor the technical ability to compete anywhere on the battlefield now.

 

[Ted]

I can't agree more then I do now over Monty's words. Spot on! Will South Korea fall to the Chinese if the US left? And will it be a military domination or an economic one? I am under the impression that the Chinese like the color of money too. And to be perfectly honest, who cares if South Korea will "fall". This is bound to happen anyway and perhaps it isn't half so bad as expected. The US doens't mind the Chinese economic input into their economy either, so why would that Koreans mind?

 

[A Can of Man]

I can't agree more then I do now over Monty's words. Spot on! Will South Korea fall to the Chinese if the US left? And will it be a military domination or an economic one? I am under the impression that the Chinese like the color of money too. And to be perfectly honest, who cares if South Korea will "fall". This is bound to happen anyway and perhaps it isn't half so bad as expected. The US doens't mind the Chinese economic input into their economy either, so why would that Koreans mind?

Yeah too bad. Should have let the Germans keep Holland. After all, their youths were only too eager to join the SS.
The fact that you even suggest the Chinese having dominance is the same as the Americans shows just how naiive you are. Do you have any idea how these guys treat their own people? How do you think they will treat others? I'm sure you enjoy your freedom, your freedom of press, speech etc. Once they have a free reign here, that party's over in this side of the world. Guantanamo Bay is a holiday resort compared to what the Chinese do. People make the mistake of thinking that the principles of compassion, rights and justice are universal. They are not. Yes, even those who believe in those values often get it wrong, but when they get it wrong and the public knows about it they feel ashamed and go to great lengths to fix it. Not in China.
It's not Chinese economic input. Actually, screw it, I'm probably just wasting my time.

 

[Ted]

I give you full points on the repression issue in China. Eventhough their government has a digit in all businesses, I have a hard time believing that they are still as bad as during Mao's revolution. But who are the US to bring their freedom to other countries and present it as "the" universal freedom. Isn't freedom at it's best when you fought for it yourself? You did so during your war with Britain and we did so with our war against Philip of Spain.

And yes, I am forever grateful for what the US have done during WW 2. But after the liberation they left Holland for the Dutch... And that is what I appreciate best. I consider sacrifice at it's greatest when you die fighting for someone elses freedom. I visit the US and commonwealth fields of honor on memorial day when ever I can. I pay my greatest respect to the para's that fought and died during Market Garden. But the freedom that was won should be given shape by the people who live in the liberated countries. What is the difference when you replace an occupier with your own troops. Occupation remains occupation by any other name!

 

[A Can of Man]

Ted, you don't understand the first thing about the Chinese.
"not as bad as under Mao" is hardly a good indicator because that was just about as bad as things could ever get. Mass famine, gunfights in the streets ("continuous revolution"), countless executions of dubious nature. Yeah I'd say they're doing better. But their control of information (censorship and propaganda with all counter-arguments deemed illegal), mass executions (1010 in 2006... but has dropped to around 400 after outcries), the selling of organs of executed criminals (means there's a friggin' market and a demand for people to get executed)... it's not the China that we're shown every day and their PR efforts have been very successful, which is also our fault because we do business with them and don't want it to look like we're dealing legitimate business with such people.
American presence here still keeps the peace and gives the smaller countries here who have adopted democracy and instilled excellent human rights standards (Korea, Japan, Taiwan) a chance of staying that way. If you ask me, those things are pretty darn important.
If China was truly a country with a basic sense of honor and upheld values we deem important (at least even in principle) then no, I wouldn't mind being friends with the Chinese. Hell, I even wish the Chinese weren't so damned evil so we could benefit from having a powerful neighbor so close by. No worries of invasion, period! At least for a long time and money spent on more productive things than the GIGANTIC military we have (compared to the population anyway). But that is not the case.
Just because you don't agree with what the US military's been doing in the middle east doesn't mean their presence elsewhere is entirely at the same level. America has been doing a lot of good over here. Even if the dumbass commies in this country don't realize it.

 

[Del Boy]

You seem to be alluding to the old domino effect which never happened, Vietnam and China fought each other (and still do) over disputed territories, there have been lots of "scenario's" in South East Asia where China could have gone on a conquest rampage but havent and lets face it the domino effect proved to be a inaccurate.


You know this is a very American argument and I think it has been exposed rather badly by George Bush's "if you are not with us you are against us" comments, it manifests itself on these boards in the form of "if you don't agree with us you are "anti-American".
Here is my take on this, people want the USA on the team but they do not necessarily want it to dominate the team nations are looking for a partner not always a team leader.
Most of the world has long ago realised that it is possible to agree on a problem and disagree on a cure without it becoming a "they hate me" argument.

Umm to be perfectly blunt I think German muscle alone would be enough to prevail in a defensive action against Russia, throw in the rest of European NATO and Russia could not hope to defeat Europe in a conventional war and would probably lose on defence as well, the days of the mighty Russian military are well and truly over as they have neither the numbers nor the technical ability to compete anywhere on the battlefield now.

Hi Monty B.

My case is that the domino effect was not an inaccurate proposition; it never succeeded because of American intervention and the time gained by their efforts in that region.

2nd point - I was not pursuing an American agenda, just stating my belief that such peace and such freedoms gained post WW11 has been due to American support, leadership, sacrifice, and presence.
This may be about to fade, and I believe that the cries of derision will soon become cries for help.

I do not believe that NATO without USA amounts to anything, Germany has no basis for making itself spokesman on this Russia issue. It is USA muscle they are expressing. And if your part of the world were ever under threat that is exactly where you would be looking for help.

I speak from my own Brit point of view on these world issues, and I suggest that USA input is severely undervalued.

There are three sides to every argument; this is mine.

 

[Chukpike]

US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.


The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant
Global Trends 2025

Nevertheless, the report concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."

"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th Century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion and military rivalries," the report says.

It has been interesting reading the posts in this topic. Seems a number of comments reflect a believe that the US will not be a major player in the next twenty years. Nothing in the original post suggests this.

It is interesting to note the the EU is not listed as a possible major player. I would assume that is a reflection of the very loose bonds between the countries forming the Union. The goals of the Union seem to revolve around economic interests with little concern for global affairs. Kind of a "what's in it for us" attitude.

Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs.

China will become more of a player as it develops it's economy, and it is happening. With the length of China's history they may not even be interested in a world dominate position in the short term (20 years is very short).

The length of time the United States has been dominate in world history would not merit a full paragraph in a world history book. (Not sure it would merit a complete sentence).

As an American I not sure I see anything negative for the US in these reports.

 

[MontyB]

Hi Monty B.

I do not believe that NATO without USA amounts to anything, Germany has no basis for making itself spokesman on this Russia issue. It is USA muscle they are expressing. And if your part of the world were ever under threat that is exactly where you would be looking for help.

I speak from my own Brit point of view on these world issues, and I suggest that USA input is severely undervalued.

There are three sides to every argument; this is mine.

There is a problem with this argument and it is that it relies heavily on having a credible enemy, the only nation that has the potential to threaten the "free" world is China simply because they have the manpower and industrial base to do so, however they lack quality on top of this they also need an economy to fuel their own growth so what is more likely, China goes off on a militaristic "world domination" rampage destroying their markets and overseas possessions or that they achieve dominance through economic success?

The problems facing the world these days are not ones of an expansionist nature but ones of an economic and social nature (the ever growing power of industry and terrorist groups, gangs organised crime etc.) and for that you do not need America's firepower you just need a functioning police force.

The USA thrived while the world had a real enemy that required nations to get together in defence pacts, the day the USSR died American military influence began to wane and nations switched to economic alliances (free trade agreements and the like).

The one outlier in all of this is the potential for military conflict as raw materials move into short supply but even these will be fueled by economic reasons.

It has been interesting reading the posts in this topic. Seems a number of comments reflect a believe that the US will not be a major player in the next twenty years. Nothing in the original post suggests this.

It is interesting to note the the EU is not listed as a possible major player. I would assume that is a reflection of the very loose bonds between the countries forming the Union. The goals of the Union seem to revolve around economic interests with little concern for global affairs. Kind of a "what's in it for us" attitude.

Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs.

China will become more of a player as it develops it's economy, and it is happening. With the length of China's history they may not even be interested in a world dominate position in the short term (20 years is very short).

The length of time the United States has been dominate in world history would not merit a full paragraph in a world history book. (Not sure it would merit a complete sentence).

As an American I not sure I see anything negative for the US in these reports.

I agree completely, I think it is a very interesting report.

 

[A Can of Man]

No, a Chinese threat would be more regional so the EU won't have anything to do with it. It's close enough for America to be concerned but as far as Europe, it's not their deal. If they do get involved, it'll probably be in order to aid Australia.

 

[Ted]

Just because you don't agree with what the US military's been doing in the middle east doesn't mean their presence elsewhere is entirely at the same level. America has been doing a lot of good over here.

Okay, granted that is a good point you made!

Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs.

I don't quite agree with you. Certainly Europe maintains a much lower profile on the world's theater. But you have to bear in mind that almost 70% of all EU trade is with other EU members.
We are a lot less dependent on other global players to earn a descend living. And if you look at the Dutch major export products, heck we are hardly depend on foreign oil etc. We deal in tulips, cheese and building dams all over the planet. So we are principally working in the primary and tertiary economic sector. We leave to producing of things to others....

 

[Del Boy]

MontyB - ref your :-

"There is a problem with this argument and it is that it relies heavily on having a credible enemy. "


I rather see the challenges below, which I have already posted on this thread; leading to chaotic situations that have not, in scale, been experienced before. This is where I see USA being sadly missed, if indeed, they are to be in a position of withdrawal from leadership and major influence. You have to admit that eyes are already focussing on Obama regarding world challenges.


The global economy. Energy supplies and prices are stressing all industrialized economies, and they risk undermining less developed and weaker economies. To say nothing of how the global crisis in food production and soaring prices for agricultural commodities could exacerbate conflict in Asia and Africa. Then there's the critical issue of the uneven distribution of wealth and persistent poverty in a belt of countries stretching from southern Africa, across the Middle East and South Asia, to parts of Southeast Asia. Not to mention, a growing instability of international financial markets. The next president cannot ignore these things. Energy, finances, commodities, and poverty are a witches' brew capable of undermining other national security objectives and creating new conflicts to worry about. Therefore, they demand new and imaginative approaches.
Inadequate governance. Governments throughout the world are struggling to ensure the security of their citizens and keep order within their boundaries. Some states have failed; some are fragile; and some are so brittle that they could collapse with a hard push. The consequences of failed states are multiple--sudden or endless migrations, increased poverty, ethnic strife, and civil conflict--and can prove destabilizing both regionally and globally. It's a problem that goes far beyond the distracting fascination with "promoting democracy." Effective and efficient governance that even modestly responds to citizens' needs would put many countries further along the development path than they currently reside.
Identity as a source of conflict. It's too often wrongly assumed that conflicts over ethnicity, nationality, and religion are a reflection of an underlying economic or political clash, with identity simply being manipulated to play out that more fundamental struggle. If anything, the last 20 years worth of conflict in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia have made clear that identity has its own standing as a source of conflict. Identity may be connected to economic and political disagreements, but it can be an equal cause of such disagreements. As such, it needs to be addressed in its own right.
The weakening of national boundaries. A growing share of today's challenges are transnational, problems which, by their nature, flow across national boundaries. They include the current wave of terrorist attacks by organizations that are generally organized independently of states, are often funded privately, and act without state permission or approval. They also involve fundamental cross-national challenges such as migrating populations, international crime and narcotics trafficking, infectious diseases, and a degraded environment and climate change.

 

[Chukpike]

No, a Chinese threat would be more regional so the EU won't have anything to do with it. It's close enough for America to be concerned but as far as Europe, it's not their deal. If they do get involved, it'll probably be in order to aid Australia.

Okay, granted that is a good point you made!

"Europe seems to let the US do the heavy lifting as far as keeping resources flowing world wide. Europe having few natural resources left must rely on imports to keep their economy afloat. Therefore, they have to maintain an attitude of neutrality to stay in the good graces of countries with the resources Europe needs." Quote Chukpike.

I don't quite agree with you. Certainly Europe maintains a much lower profile on the world's theater. But you have to bear in mind that almost 70% of all EU trade is with other EU members.
We are a lot less dependent on other global players to earn a descend living. And if you look at the Dutch major export products, heck we are hardly depend on foreign oil etc. We deal in tulips, cheese and building dams all over the planet. So we are principally working in the primary and tertiary economic sector. We leave to producing of things to others....

It is interesting to note the the EU is not listed as a possible major player. I would assume that is a reflection of the very loose bonds between the countries forming the Union. The goals of the Union seem to revolve around "Their" economic interests with little concern for global affairs. Kind of a "what's in it for us" attitude.

I think I rest my case. Europe does not see any need to get involved with global affairs. That is why the reports at the beginning of this topic left the European Union out of the mix.

 

[perseus]

Conflict with large economic nations that have allies (as opposed to bullying ones that are small or unpopular) is bad for economies. China, the US and the EU are dependent on one another and don't want to upset the apple cart. I think the days of large scale conflict between dominant economies are unlikely if only because they can gain more through trade rather than conflict.

 

[Ted]

I think I rest my case. Europe does not see any need to get involved with global affairs. That is why the reports at the beginning of this topic left the European Union out of the mix.

Europe most certainly sees the need of getting involved globally! Why else do we have so many multi national company HQ's in Amsterdam.... and London, Berlin, Paris and Brussels. We do however interpret "serving our interests" differently. Holland has gone to war once trying to uphold our interests abroad. And it was under American pressure we stopped fighting in Indonesia. We have other means nowadays to do this. But the content of many diplomatic letters never reach the public.

 

[Chukpike]

I think I rest my case. Europe does not see any need to get involved with global affairs. That is why the reports at the beginning of this topic left the European Union out of the mix.

Europe most certainly sees the need of getting involved globally! Why else do we have so many multi national company HQ's in Amsterdam.... and London, Berlin, Paris and Brussels. We do however interpret "serving our interests" differently. Holland has gone to war once trying to uphold our interests abroad. And it was under American pressure we stopped fighting in Indonesia. We have other means nowadays to do this. But the content of many diplomatic letters never reach the public.

I agree with you. I was only looking at the original post and trying to understand why the EU was not mentioned.