US global dominance 'set to wane'

[MontyB]

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 National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.
It also says the dollar may no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.
However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.
It will make sombre reading for President-elect Barack Obama, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.



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

"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.
Washington will retain its considerable military advantages, but scientific and technological advances; the use of "irregular warfare tactics"; the proliferation of long-range precision weapons; and the growing use of cyber warfare "increasingly will constrict US freedom of action", it adds.
Nevertheless, the report concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."
Nuclear weapons use
The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.
But the latest Global Trends report says that rising economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multi-polar international system.



NIC REPORT
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
The EU is meanwhile predicted to become a "hobbled giant", unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle.
A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.
Global warming, along with rising populations and economic growth will put additional strains on natural resources, it warns, fuelling conflict around the globe as countries compete for them.
"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.
"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while - such as over resources - could re-emerge."


Such conflicts and resource shortages could lead to the collapse of governments in Africa and South Asia, and the rise of organised crime in Eastern and Central Europe, it adds.
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, the report says, as "rogue states" and militant groups gain greater access to them.
But al-Qaeda could decay "sooner than people think", it adds, citing the group's growing unpopularity in the Muslim world.
"The prospect that al-Qaeda will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," it says.
The NIC does, however, give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent the emergence of new conflicts.
"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.
And, our correspondent adds, it is worth noting that US intelligence has been wrong before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm


Oddly enough the BBC report is not as interesting as the report it quotes though...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_11_08_2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf

 

[Ted]

"increasingly will constrict US freedom of action"

I specifically like this one sentence. It is about time that the US seizes to be the world's hegemon. I hope that the believe in cooperation will overcome the will do their own bidding. In a growing global village we can't have one master, like feudal times. The need to compromise with others make for far better neighbors than doing what you want, when and where you want. Perhaps the US will do her allies the courtesy of telling them what they are about to do because they need these allies. Friendship is based on equality and not dominance. So let's see what happens...

 

[A Can of Man]

I bet Ted masturbated reading this article.

 

[The Other Guy]

I bet Ted masturbated reading this article.

sour grapes.

I believe that the US will still be a world power, only if we get our heads out of our *ss and acknowledge that our allies aren't just supporters of us, but that we should support them in their times of need as well. (i.e. Georgia)

 

[Ted]

I bet Ted masturbated reading this article.

Let me start off by saying I could go many ways with this. For instance:
1) Nope Redneck, I am a virile man and got it off three times!

2) This is exactly the attitude that left the US so many friends in Europe.... about zero. Just some opportunists that pay you lip service.

3) Well alright then, keep doing everything by yourself, including paying for all the fun. It won't be long before every institution is bought by some oriental power and the time to pay for that enormous international debt is up.....

or

4) Read my first post again and comment on the friendship based on equality and not dominance. We have had to tip toe through the last four centuries, making compromises here and there. And you what, we are doing quite alright nowadays. Equal friends are those you can count on when the doodoo hits the ceiling. The other ones leave you out to dry whenever it suits them.... I hate to rely on those so called friends. .

 

[Del Boy]

I have pointed out here long ago that we just might have to face a world where America was not longer able or willing to lead as it has done.

I just cannot the celebrations some demonstrate over this.

If USA becomes isolationist just watch this space, all you bandwagon creeps and ingrates out there:roll:

 

[MontyB]

Guys rather than starting a fight over nothing can I suggest you read the report (pdf at the bottom) as it is a very interesting breakdown of global trends and problems that are going to face the world.

I know it is a lot to ask expecting people on this board to read further than the heading but in this case it is worth it.

 

[senojekips]

Good , bad or indifferent,... it does seem to be the way things are going, and if so it is not necessarily all bad, either for the USA or her Allies.

 

[Chukpike]

As an American I see no problem with this report. We often tell people that "Freedom isn't Free" it is about time the citizens of other countries earn their own freedom by dieing instead of American soldiers doing the dieing for them. If China, Russia, India, or a United Europe want to be more involved that's OK. It seems that the United States took on a roll of International Police that we never wanted anyway.

Other countries can have the level of freedom that they desire and do not have to meet the standard that we enjoy in the United States. If they want more freedoms then earn them.

China may not have the human rights that Americans enjoy but it is their country. Maybe through more free exchange of ideas over time this would change. The best way would probably be from internal change.

I am sure that their are some Germans and Japanese that wish the United States had not interfered years ago. There are people in other countries who would probably disagree. I think that most Germans and Japanese are more satisfied with the system of government they developed after the past disagreement.

I do not have a problem with leaving Iraq to the Iraqis. When they get tired of killing each other I am sure who ever is left will come to some kind of agreement with each other. (Not trying to be mean spirited here but think eventually this is what will happen).

As a Vietnam veteran I have learned that our government isn't all ways right. While I still support the US government as one of the best systems in the world, I don't think it is perfect. With the state of the world economy being what it is, it is time the US pull back and clean up our own internal messes.

I don't mean we should be isolationists just more realistic when dealing with other countries.

 

[senojekips]

^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself^^^

It appears that even those of us who were lied to and then piddled upon, about Vietnam, gained something from it, even if it was just a very healthy suspicion about Political agendas.

 

[MontyB]

^^^ I couldn't have said it better myself^^^

It appears that even those of us who were lied to and then piddled upon, about Vietnam, gained something from it, even if it was just a very healthy suspicion about Political agendas.

I agree although I have to admit I am less interested in how this affects the USA and more interested in predictions of global insecurity and the formation of power blocks through resource depletion and I am very interested the prediction of Al Qaeda becoming ostracised due to being too extreme even for the Muslim world.

One other area that interested me was mention of corporations playing a major role in world security issues, it was all starting to sound very "Robo-cop".

 

[A Can of Man]

I wouldn't count on China changing that drastically. You're assuming people actually value the same things. Logic, rights, treating people like people... it's not universal. We take it for granted today because it has spread under the influence of European thought and philosophy and more so from America's influence abroad.
No, you can't trust the government, but the private sector hasn't proven to be anything better. Because of the lack of checks and balances, currently they are often worse.
As for Al Qaeda... well... you have to understand that for some groups of people there is this obsession, "I'm more Muslim than you are." They won't be ostricized that easily, at least, not everywhere. Furthermore, people do fear them. And when people fear something enough, they will find a justification for its existence and perhaps even dominance. Al Qaeda may not be able to hold that sort of influence if the Muslim world percieves that they have been largely powerless after the 9/11 attacks which is how they are somewhat seen. Give Al Qaeda a sweeping victory anywhere and turning on Al Qaeda may become a very very long term thing.
Overall, US power is declining and I think it'll usher in a new era of serious conflict. Many countries around the world (obviously Iraq isn't one of them) are in times of peace due to Pax Americana (and the nukes that come with it). Remove that, and you'll have plenty of sides ready to slug it out with one another.
Interesting times.

 

[perseus]

These are probably the two most worrying shorter term consequences mentioned in this report.​

The relative power of nonstate actors—businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and even criminal networks—also will increase.

​

Episodes of low-intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict.
​

​

​

​

 

[Del Boy]

I wouldn't count on China changing that drastically. You're assuming people actually value the same things. Logic, rights, treating people like people... it's not universal. We take it for granted today because it has spread under the influence of European thought and philosophy and more so from America's influence abroad.
No, you can't trust the government, but the private sector hasn't proven to be anything better. Because of the lack of checks and balances, currently they are often worse.
As for Al Qaeda... well... you have to understand that for some groups of people there is this obsession, "I'm more Muslim than you are." They won't be ostricized that easily, at least, not everywhere. Furthermore, people do fear them. And when people fear something enough, they will find a justification for its existence and perhaps even dominance. Al Qaeda may not be able to hold that sort of influence if the Muslim world percieves that they have been largely powerless after the 9/11 attacks which is how they are somewhat seen. Give Al Qaeda a sweeping victory anywhere and turning on Al Qaeda may become a very very long term thing.
Overall, US power is declining and I think it'll usher in a new era of serious conflict. Many countries around the world (obviously Iraq isn't one of them) are in times of peace due to Pax Americana (and the nukes that come with it). Remove that, and you'll have plenty of sides ready to slug it out with one another.
Interesting times.

I agree with the above post.

I also agree with the post below:-

MontyB quotes:-

"more interested in predictions of global insecurity and the formation of power blocks through resource depletion ."

And "Such conflicts and resource shortages could lead to the collapse of governments in Africa and South Asia, and the rise of organised crime in Eastern and Central Europe, it adds.
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, the report says, as "rogue states" and militant groups gain greater access to them". end quote.


Did the world become a safer place after Russia lost its position of power on the world stage?

That could be a flea-bite compared with the possible chaos.

• "The global economy. This time it really is the economy, stupid. 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.
• The decline of U.S. leadership. The American century was brief. China and India have emerged as increasingly strong global players--a trend that will only intensify in the coming decades. Similarly, continuing a process that began more than 60 years ago, the European Union is emerging as a more coherent international actor--especially on security issues. New leaders such as Brazil, Nigeria, Iran, Indonesia, and Australia are also emerging at the regional level, which is checking U.S. influence on policies in the regions where these countries reside. Some of these regional powers are extending their economic power; others may seek greater military strength by expanding their military capabilities or seeking nuclear weapons. "

"In many ways, these challenges are mutually reinforcing. The economic challenges reinforce the weaknesses in governance and exacerbate underlying identity conflicts. Regional powers may seek to exploit terrorist capabilities to extend their influence or try to shape new economic or security regimes that don't involve the United States. Each of the five challenges is also massive, surpassing the ability of any single country to find solutions or provide the resources that can shape the solution.

Beginning in January, the next administration needs to come to grips with these challenges. Not one of them can be ignored, and they must be treated together. The new president also must recognize that unilateral efforts to impose U.S. national security policies will fail and accelerate the deterioration of global U.S. leadership, making it impossible for Washington to influence the way in which these challenges should be addressed."

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

Wow America already done after about 250 years? - that's a short time from a european viewpoint. At least you managed to have deep impact on history
Well seriously- i think it's displayed a little bit dark here, I read the full article in german and there's some truth in it but it doesn't consider events like 9/11 or new technologies, as far as one can really say any country on the globe has the potential to become a global power.

 

[A Can of Man]

Interesting times up ahead. The wane in dominance of America at least in the short term won't be a good thing at all. For the long term, well anything's possible.

 

[perseus]

There seems to be a recurring theme in the rise and fall of Empires. They eventually either become decadent relying on their past endeavours, or the competition adopts their methods and applies them with even more effectiveness and vigour.

There are a number of reasons why the Far East could dominate over the West.

• As their vast population becomes educated it generates a vast supply of brains outstripping the West not only in mass production but also innovation and quality.
• Controversial evidence suggests that there are real differences in intelligence between races, and the Far Eastern peoples seem to have a slight edge on the Anglo Saxon's in conventional IQ tests at least.
• The Far East are still emerging and have a vast resource of young hard working people who have not been brought up in a culture of relying on parents for support and inheritance.

Of course to counter this, the West can absorb Far Eastern and other immigrants to form a Multicultural society and perhaps the mix in such centres such as London and New York, could allow them to retain their status as powerful centres of commerce and cultural influence.

 

[Del Boy]

Perseus - I think this is a nice, neatly tied package you have. Iwish I could see it that way; an organised sitting round the table reshaping of the world order. That is a western way of looking at things. Without America in the chair, all bets are off. The world will be a far more dangerous place.

Bluntly, I see chaos; I smell fire.

 

[A Can of Man]

Perseus, in Far East, you mean the Chinese.

 

[mmarsh]

All empires eventually wane and die. From the Greeks <2000BC, to the Romans 200BC-300AD, the French 14th-16th Century, British Empire 16-19th Century, so on and so forth for.

So when people say the American Power is waning that's probably true, but its not such a big deal.