Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Sole Superpower in Decline: The Rise of a Multipolar World
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States stood tall -- militarily invincible, economically unrivalled, diplomatically uncontestable, and the dominating force on information channels worldwide. The next century was to be the true "American century," with the rest of the world molding itself in the image of the sole superpower.
Yet, with not even a decade of this century behind us, we are already witnessing the rise of a multipolar world in which new powers are challenging different aspects of American supremacy -- Russia and China in the forefront, with regional powers Venezuela and Iran forming the second rank. These emergent powers are primed to erode American hegemony, not confront it, singly or jointly.
How and why has the world evolved in this way so soon? The Bush administration's debacle in Iraq is certainly a major factor in this transformation, a classic example of an imperialist power, brimming with hubris, over-extending itself. To the relief of many -- in the U. S. and elsewhere -- the Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the striking limitations of power for the globe's highest-tech, most destructive military machine. In Iraq, Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to two U.S. presidents, concedes in a recent op-ed, "We are being wrestled to a draw by opponents who are not even an organized state adversary."
The invasion and subsequent disastrous occupation of Iraq and the mismanaged military campaign in Afghanistan have crippled the credibility of the United States. The scandals at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo in Cuba, along with the widely publicized murders of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, have badly tarnished America's moral self-image. In the latest opinion poll, even in a secular state and member of NATO like Turkey, only 9% of Turks have a "favorable view" of the U.S. (down from 52% just five years ago).
Yet there are other explanations -- unrelated to Washington's glaring misadventures -- for the current transformation in international affairs. These include, above all, the tightening market in oil and natural gas, which has enhanced the power of hydrocarbon-rich nations as never before; the rapid economic expansion of the mega-nations China and India; the transformation of China into the globe's leading manufacturing base; and the end of the Anglo-American duopoly in international television news.
Many Channels, Diverse Perceptions
During the 1991 Gulf War, only CNN and the BBC had correspondents in Baghdad. So the international TV audience, irrespective of its location, saw the conflict through their lenses. Twelve years later, when the Bush administration, backed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, invaded Iraq, Al Jazeera Arabic broke this duopoly. It relayed images -- and facts -- that contradicted the Pentagon's presentation. For the first time in history, the world witnessed two versions of an ongoing war in real time. So credible was the Al Jazeera Arabic version that many television companies outside the Arabic-speaking world -- in Europe, Asia and Latin America -- showed its clips.
Though, in theory, the growth of cable television worldwide raised the prospect of ending the Anglo-American duopoly in 24-hour TV news, not much had happened due to the exorbitant cost of gathering and editing TV news. It was only the arrival of Al Jazeera English, funded by the hydrocarbon-rich emirate of Qatar -- with its declared policy of offering a global perspective from an Arab and Muslim angle -- that, in 2006, finally broke the long-established mold.
Soon France 24 came on the air, broadcasting in English and French from a French viewpoint, followed in mid-2007 by the English-language Press TV, which aimed to provide an Iranian perspective. Russia was next in line for 24-hour TV news in English for the global audience. Meanwhile, spurred by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Telesur, a pan-Latin-American TV channel based in Caracas, began competing with CNN in Spanish for a mass audience.
As with Qatar, so with Russia and Venezuela, the funding for these TV news ventures has come from soaring national hydrocarbon incomes -- a factor draining American hegemony not just in imagery but in reality.
Russia, an Energy Superpower
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has more than recovered from the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. After effectively renationalizing the energy industry through state-controlled corporations, he began deploying its economic clout to further Russia's foreign policy interests.
In 2005, Russia overtook the United States, becoming the second largest oil producer in the world. Its oil income now amounts to $679 million a day. European countries dependent on imported Russian oil now include Hungary, Poland, Germany, and even Britain.
Russia is also the largest producer of natural gas on the planet, with three-fifths of its gas exports going to the 27-member European Union (EU). Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, and Slovakia get 100% of their natural gas from Russia; Turkey, 66%; Poland, 58%; Germany 41%; and France 25%. Gazprom, the biggest natural gas enterprise on Earth, has established stakes in sixteen EU countries. In 2006, the Kremlin's foreign reserves stood at $315 billion, up from a paltry $12 billion in 1999. Little wonder that, in July 2006 on the eve of the G8 summit in St Petersburg, Putin rejected an energy charter proposed by the Western leaders.
Soaring foreign-exchange reserves, new ballistic missiles, and closer links with a prospering China -- with which it conducted joint military exercises on China's Shandong Peninsula in August 2005 -- enabled Putin to deal with his American counterpart, President George W. Bush, as an equal, not mincing his words when appraising American policies.
"One country, the United States, has overstepped its national boundaries in every way," Putin told the 43rd Munich Trans-Atlantic conference on security policy in February 2007. "This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations...This is very dangerous."
Condemning the concept of a "unipolar world," he added: "However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it describes a scenario in which there is one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making...It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And this is pernicious." His views fell on receptive ears in the capitals of most Asian, African, and Latin American countries.
The changing relationship between Moscow and Washington was noted, among others, by analysts and policy-makers in the hydrocarbon-rich Persian Gulf region. Commenting on the visit that Putin paid to long-time U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar after the Munich conference, Abdel Aziz Sagar, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, wrote in the Doha-based newspaper The Peninsula that Russia and Gulf Arab countries, once rivals from opposite ideological camps, had found a common agenda of oil, anti-terrorism, and arms sales. "The altered focus takes place in a milieu where the Gulf countries are signaling their keenness to keep all geopolitical options open, reviewing the utility of the United States as the sole security guarantor, and contemplating a collective security mechanism that involves a host of international players."
In April 2007, the Kremlin issued a major foreign policy document. "The myth about the unipolar world fell apart once and for all in Iraq," it stated. "A strong, more self-confident Russia has become an integral part of positive changes in the world."
The Kremlin's increasingly tense relations with Washington were in tune with Russian popular opinion. A poll taken during the run-up to the 2006 G8 summit revealed that 58% of Russians regarded America as an "unfriendly country." It has proved to be a trend. This July, for instance, Major Gen Alexandr Vladimirov told the mass circulation newspaper Komsolskya Pravada that war with the United States was a "possibility" in the next ten to fifteen years.
Chavez Rides High
Such sentiments resonated with Hugo Chavez. While visiting Moscow in June 2007, he urged Russians to return to the ideas of Vladimir Lenin, especially his anti-imperialism. "The Americans don't want Russia to keep rising," he said. "But Russia has risen again as a center of power, and we, the people of the world, need Russia to become stronger."
Chavez finalized a $1 billion deal to purchase five diesel submarines to defend Venezuela's oil-rich undersea shelf and thwart any possible future economic embargo imposed by Washington. By then, Venezuela had become the second largest buyer of Russian weaponry. (Algeria topped the list, another indication of a growing multipolarity in world affairs.) Venezuela acquired the distinction of being the first country to receive a license from Russia to manufacture the famed AK-47 assault rifle.
By channeling some of his country's oil money to needy Venezuelans, Chavez broadened his base of support. Much to the chagrin of the Bush White House, he trounced his sole political rival, Manuel Rosales, in a December 2006 presidential contest with 61% of the vote. Equally humiliating to the Bush administration, Venezuela was, by then, giving more foreign aid to needy Latin American states than it was.
Following his reelection, Chavez vigorously pursued the concept of forming an anti-imperialist alliance in Latin America as well as globally. He strengthened Venezuela's ties not only with such Latin countries as Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and debt-ridden Argentina, but also with Iran and Belarus.
By the time he arrived in Tehran from Moscow (via Minsk) in June 2007, the 180 economic and political accords his government had signed with Tehran were already yielding tangible results. Iranian-designed cars and tractors were coming off assembly lines in Venezuela. "[The] cooperation of independent countries like Iran and Venezuela has an effective role in defeating the policies of imperialism and saving nations," Chavez declared in Tehran.
Stuck in the quagmire of Iraq and lashed by the gusty winds of rocketing oil prices, the Bush administration finds its area of maneuver woefully limited when dealing with a rising hydrocarbon power. To the insults that Chavez keeps hurling at Bush, the American response has been vapid. The reason is the crippling dependence of the United States on imported petroleum which accounts for 60% of its total consumed. Venezuela is the fourth largest source of U.S. imported oil after Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia; and some refineries in the U.S. are designed specifically to refine heavy Venezuelan oil.
In Chavez's scheme to undermine the "sole superpower," China has an important role. During an August 2006 visit to Beijing, his fourth in seven years, he announced that Venezuela would triple its oil exports to China to 500,000 barrels per day in three years, a jump that suited both sides. Chavez wants to diversify Venezuela's buyer base to reduce its reliance on exports to the U.S., and China's leaders are keen to diversify their hydrocarbon imports away from the Middle East, where American influence remains strong.
"The support of China is very important [to us] from the political and moral point of view," Chavez declared. Along with a joint refinery project, China agreed to build thirteen oil drilling platforms, supply eighteen oil tankers, and collaborate with the state-owned company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA), in exploring a new oilfield in the Orinoco Basin.
China on a Stratospheric Trajectory
So dramatic has been the growth of the state-run company PetroChina that, in mid-2007, it was second only to Exxon Mobil in its market value among energy corporations. Indeed, that year three Chinese companies made it onto the list of the world's ten most highly valued corporations. Only the U.S. had more with five. China's foreign reserves of over $1 trillion have now surpassed Japan's. With its gross domestic product soaring past Germany's, China ranks number three in the world economy.
In the diplomatic arena, Chinese leaders broke new ground in 1996 by sponsoring the Shanghai Corporation Organization (SCO), consisting of four adjoining countries: Russia and the three former Soviet Socialist republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The SCO started as a cooperative organization with a focus on countering drug-smuggling and terrorism. Later, the SCO invited Uzbekistan to join, even though it does not abut China. In 2003, the SCO broadened its scope by including regional economic cooperation in its charter. That, in turn, led it to grant observer status to Pakistan, India, and Mongolia -- all adjoining China -- and Iran which does not. When the U.S. applied for observer status, it was rejected, an embarrassing setback for Washington, which enjoyed such status at the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
In early August 2007, on the eve of an SCO summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, the group conducted its first joint military exercises, codenamed Peace Mission 2007, in the Russian Ural region of Chelyabinsk. "The SCO is destined to play a vital role in ensuring international security," said Ednan Karabayev, foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan.
In late 2006, as the host of a China-Africa Forum in Beijing attended by leaders of 48 of 53 African nations, China left the U.S. woefully behind in the diplomatic race for that continent (and its hydrocarbon and other resources). In return for Africa's oil, iron ore, copper, and cotton, China sold low-priced goods to Africans, and assisted African counties in building or improving roads, railways, ports, hydro-electric dams, telecommunications systems, and schools. "The western approach of imposing its values and political system on other countries is not acceptable to China," said Africa specialist Wang Hongyi of the China Institute of International Studies. "We focus on mutual development."
To reduce the cost of transporting petroleum from Africa and the Middle East, China began constructing a trans-Burma oil pipeline from the Bay of Bengal to its southern province of Yunan, thereby shortening the delivery distance now traveled by tankers. This undermined Washington's campaign to isolate Myanmar. (Earlier, Sudan, boycotted by Washington, had emerged as a leading supplier of African oil to China.) In addition, Chinese oil companies were competing fiercely with their Western counterparts in getting access to hydrocarbon reserves in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
"China's oil diplomacy is putting the country on a collision course with the U.S. and Western Europe, which have imposed sanctions on some of the countries where China is doing business," comments William Mellor of Bloomberg News. The sentiment is echoed by the other side. "I see China and the U.S. coming into conflict over energy in the years ahead," says Jin Riguang, an oil-and-gas advisor to the Chinese government and a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Council.
China's industrialization and modernization has spurred the modernization of its military as well. The test-firing of the country's first anti-satellite missile, which successfully destroyed a defunct Chinese weather satellite in January 2007, dramatically demonstrated its growing technological prowess. An alarmed Washington had already noted an 18% increase in China's 2007 defense budget. Attributing the rise to extra spending on missiles, electronic warfare, and other high-tech items, Liao Xilong, commander of the People's Liberation Army's general logistics department, said: "The present day world is no longer peaceful and to protect national security, stability and territorial integrity we must suitably increase spending on military modernization."
China's declared budget of $45 billion was a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's $459 billion one. Yet, in May 2007, a Pentagon report noted China's "rapid rise as a regional and economic power with global aspirations" and claimed that it was planning to project military farther afield from the Taiwan Straits into the Asia-Pacific region in preparation for possible conflicts over territory or resources.
The Sole Superpower in the Sweep of History
This disparate challenge to American global primacy stems as much from sharpening conflicts over natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas, as from ideological differences over democracy, American style, or human rights, as conceived and promoted by Western policy-makers. Perceptions about national (and imperial) identity and history are at stake as well.
It is noteworthy that Russian officials applauding the swift rise of post-Soviet Russia refer fondly to the pre-Bolshevik Revolution era when, according to them, Tsarist Russia was a Great Power. Equally, Chinese leaders remain proud of their country's long imperial past as unique among nations.
When viewed globally and in the great stretch of history, the notion of American exceptionalism that drove the neoconservatives to proclaim the Project for the New American Century in the late 20th century -- adopted so wholeheartedly by the Bush administration in this one -- is nothing new. Other superpowers have been there before and they, too, have witnessed the loss of their prime position to rising powers.
No superpower in modern times has maintained its supremacy for more than several generations. And, however exceptional its leaders may have thought themselves, the United States, already clearly past its zenith, has no chance of becoming an exception to this age-old pattern of history.




87 Comments so far
Show AllLike it or not, in 25 years, China will be the reigning Super power. They will dominate Africa, then South America and ultimately the U.S. or what's left of it. Glad I won't be here to see the Red army march through town.
What's tragic is that there are so many Americans, with their elitist "I've got mine, screw you" attitude that they are too ignorant to realize they're hastening their own demise.
I don't see a total demise in 25 years, and I don't see that they will need a military to march through our towns, as they will have the economic muscle to determine where our future lies.
The first sign of an empire's decline is arrogance...And the US is at the peak of its arrogance....
Its never a good thing for one country to be dominate--it will always go to its head(s).
China is scary because of its population, its lack of democratic policy(not just politically but culturally), and its speed to westernize. Its pollution is scary enough. Just the fact that one leader says Chinese should drink milk and there is a global spike in prices.
But--the West is to blame since it sent its work overseas. if it wasnt for that--China would not be the next superpower.
But because of its water shortage and pollution i think its reign will be shortlived and very messy.
The first myth of power is power itself.
Power is an illusion...
You can put a gun to my head and kill off my entire family and STILL NEVER CHANGE the IDEAS of FREEDOM I hold dear and teach to others.
To think one can hold power at all is the ultimate arrogance of a fool
Maybe we should just surrender to China now and get it over with. I wonder if Mr. Hu, sitting in the White House, would be more or less of a despot than the current occupant? Hmmm....close call...
And it could have been so different. Had the Americans emphasized global cooperation, sincerely fought world poverty, been neutral in the Middle East, embraced a revised and more humane capitalism, not tried to shove their values down the throats of others, abandoned uninvited interference in the affairs of others, and shown some humility in its relations with the rest of the world, they could have been leaders for a long, long time. I mean, there is a fundamental attractiveness to what America stands for. But it was perverted by its leaders and now America's time is coming to an end. Americans, get used to it!
I opined yesterday relative to colony collapse disorder among bees that the human colony was experiencng the same decline. As the article above indicates this is especially true for the United States. (See Paul Sheehan's "Eerie Saga of the Vanishing Bees" 8/20/07
so there is PetrolChina and peak oil. and also Blessed Unrest and The Great Turning. revolution has and always will come from nature. lets have fun with this one people. take up concrete streets and plant food forests. build tree houses. put living machines in all schools, be creative in the redesign, in the building of our ecological economies/communities...
Well guess that's what happens when you sell WMDs to your future enemies just to make a buck (or Trillions of bucks).. now you are gonna have to use those weapons, and they're gonna wanna use those weapons, and now you have a nice lil world war on your hands. Stupid humans.
Given the war profiteering in the U.S.( example: the avg.private security employee earning in a month what a soldier earns in a year, or 12X),I doubt there is much NET difference in the $45 billion the Chinese invest in their military to our $459 billion.
Also, the xenophobic propaganda of the right-wing, racist Old South in wanting to marginalize and deport undocumented Latinos instead of legalizing and assimilating, may come back to bite us ALL in the posterior at a time when we will need more friends and allies.
Good overview:
One thing I 'd like to add is the big change taking place in Japan. The ruling party of Japan lost the upper chamber ( comparable to the the senate in US) election lat month, the first loss in its history ( since the end of the 2nd world war).
Now the main opposition party ( considered more liberal) and other small parties ( the socialists party , communist party, independent) can form an alliance and control a majority in the upper chamber.
This is a good news.
This will be a big break on remilitalization of Japan and Japan will keep a distance from US .
Once again, I will say the new world order will be based on multi-polar, multi-nation world.
This back-story - about the obvious and inevitable decline of "the sole superpower" - has been clear to honest policy analysts in the CIA for a long time. It has been clear to the neo-con cabal as well, as one can understand when you actually read their documents. They see this point in history as a moment when the United States can stave off this inevitable decline, and create a world in which no rival can even begin to rise.
This opportunity is due to the United States having an overwhelming military dominance over the entire world.
This overwhelming military dominance is due to our massive investment in nuclear and high-tech weapons. The plan is (you can look it up) to expand this nuclear and high-tech dominance into outer space, from where the United States will be able to permanently and unopposably dominate the Earth militarily.
Since this perceived opportunity to create permanent dominance is based on our current overwhelming advantage in nuclear and high-tech weaponry, if push comes to shove as we assert our right to dominate the globe (as there will inevitably be resistance) this scenario only works if the leaders are actually willing to use the nuclear and high-tech military advantage.
This is the reason the current gang in the White House, led by Cheney, is moving toward nuking Iran, escalating global war against potential rivals in Russia and China. They are gamblers, and this is their only chance to win the entire pot, clear the table, and rule everything forever.
United States policy throughout the nuclear age has included the attempt to create the perception of a "credible threat" to use nuclear weapons. The current gang in the White House plans to carry through to the end point of this game. Since, as the above article demonstrates, otherwise, the United States faces a decline into a multi-polar world of shared power and diplomacy among rival powers, these gamblers are - and long have been, you can still look up their documents on the Internet - planning to push for global war. They are convinced the United States will "win" this war, and emerge even more globally dominant than after WWII.
Anyone attempting to understand US policy under this gang in the White House needs to understand this basic truth. They are playing for keeps, for their dream of permanent global domination. You can look it up.
Google "Space 2020", "High Frontier", PNAC, and go to the site of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Get their documentary "Arsenal of Hypocrisy".
The only objection I have to this aritcle is the classification of the US having Economic Hegemony in 1991. That's not even close to accurate. In 1973 the "world economy" was recognized as being tri-polar (The US, Europe, Asia). That's why the Trilateral Commmission was created in the first place.
webwalk,
Totally agree. Cheney and the neocons are willing to risk worldwide thermonuclear war and human extinction in order to fulfill their dreams of unprecedented power and dominance. They find it to be a good gamble from their perspective, and so it is critical that as many other people as possible are informed because it is a horrible gamble for virtually all other Americans (little to gain and everything to lose) and all other people on earth (nothing to gain and everything to lose).
I like the spirit of this article and agree with most of its points. However,
1) US oil production began to decline in the 1970s. It's been awhile since we've been near the top.
2) I strongly dislike China's policy of "looking the other way" with the actions of some African governments. Especially with the Sudan, in which a government is facilitating genocide.
3) Putin is just as staunchly capitalist/fascist as Bush and Chavez needs to get out of the "anybody but America" coalition. The only reason I don't like this kind of mindset is because it puts good revolutionary leaders with fascist murderers like Putin.
Other than that, it's intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that yes, the US is declining. Anybody who studies history can see all the signs.
You may not like Putin, Chavez, or HuzinTao (spelling) but they are still a way better than any politicians in the US.
You all can thank George W. for breaking the US Empire -- probably his only worthy accomplishment though at an unspeakably high price. Russia, India and China will be the most powerful alliance of the near future,(assuming that civilization as we no it does not entirely collapse do to ecological catastrophe) with the EU having infuence as well. Hopefully we will see a prgressive unity forged in South and Central America too.
Sorry, I realize I poorly worded my third point in my last post. What I should've said was "Putin is just as staunchly capitalist/fascist as Bush. Chavez needs to get out of the "anybody but America" coalition."
I like Chavez. He's the closest thing we have right now to a socialist leader (though still a far cry). Remember - hasta la victoria siempre.
Why is Chavez a far cry from a socialist leader?
True socialism doesn't need a leader anyway and if Chavez suceeds in his goals he will render himself a figurehead of the Bolivarian Movement, which runs counter to US claims that he is power hungry and a tyrant. A tyrant doesn't enact policies that run counter to the interests of tyrrany, does he?
Putin is better for Russia than Bush is for the United States. Any time one nation tries to dominate the world, it only stands to reason that other nations will sooner or later band together to try and stop them. I had a discussion witha freind back in the early 90's. He was so happy that the USSR had broken up and that the nuclear threat was no more. I told him that we hadn't spent all that money on those nukes just to have them rot in their silos. I said that at some point in our lifetimes we would see them used. Sure hope I'm wrong.
Thenihilist-
You're right, I keep seeing through that damned American filter. It's all the bad press that Chavez keeps getting that just instinctively paints this bad picture of him. In addition, there is that instinct that makes me think that we need a leader because a capitalist society demands it. I like Chavez, as he is an excellent intermediate stage between capitalism and worldwide socialism.
Actually it's not China's population that is scary; it's its massive industrial capacity. They could stomp America in a world war right now.
And what other nations would be offended if they did? The US is a global pariah.
The neo-cons in BOTH political parties continue to push the US relentlessly toward a global war that cannot be won. Unless the citizens of the US can tear themselves away from their cable TV and their junk food culture and rise up to reform the system, America is doomed.
You may note that I do not refer to the USA using an editorial "we". I honestly no longer consider it to be my country.
It's interesting that this article sketches out the counter-hegemony that is evolving. If the US hadn't taken the darker road after 9/11, global dynamics would have been quite different. However, now the PNAC crowd can point to this as their casus belli for the imperial turn in US politics. Yet their empire will have a hard landing, and the US won't relinquish it's hegemony easily -- rather it will go out in a blaze of atomic glory, rained down by orbiting weapons platforms against all enemies.
The imperial American mlitary is much too large for national defense but much too small to support the empire they are attempting to build and control. And at present we are going into debt to the tune of $3 Billion a week. Time for a new plan. Why not put the military to work building electric cars and solar electric energy farms ?
Bush Sr. talked about a "new world order", but he never said what that was. Now we are beginning to find out and I do not think this is what he had in mind....at least I hope not.
ARA Charleston ,
I believe that the fundamentals of KM should be our guidelines. But we also need to work with less than perfect people or situations.
That does NOT mean that we should work with a complete sold-out pro-war party like the Demos.
Let's hope that Putin doesn't take Chavez's advice and go back to the "ways of Lenin". Didn't work the first time, won't work now.
Paul from Texas-
The problem with that theory is the assumption that the rest of the world would not intervene in a Sino-American war. A lot of the world still does not like China, and would definitely view the US as a "lesser of two evils" (though my personal motto is still "the lesser of two evils is still evil"). I think what would be more likely to happen is that the rest of the world would bank on the hope that the war would cripple both the US and China, and do everything to speed forward that hope.
jspkim-
Very good point. But I can't bring myself to work with warmongers. I hate the Democrats as much as I hate the Republicans. I am officially leaving the Communist Party USA until they cease to back the Democratic Party.
bligh-
The only reason it did not work the first time was that the USSR was constantly harassed by the western world of capitalism. This led to the rise of Soviet dictators like Stalin and later Breshnev. Had the capitalists not interfered, perhaps there would have been an intermediate leader more like Trotsky who would have then facilitated the path to the Permanent Revolution.
Nobody likes a bully.
When we start acting like we have some self-respect we will start to earn respect. When we set a positive example then others will follow.
We are declining because we have no honor.
Glide: "Like it or not, in 25 years, China will be the reigning Super power. They will dominate Africa, then South America and ultimately the U.S. or what's left of it."
One thing we know about the future is that it is never what we expect. Many things could happen with China. If communism falls suddenly, we could see a big internal mess (and don't forget there are so many millions more men than women ...a social crisis to worsen the situation). There's global warming, which might hit China hard (hit everybody hard is more like it). Africa and S. America? What happened to the Europe that dominated Africa and South America? Internal warfare and collapse. China is no more the future than is India or Russia or the EU. Even the United States, for all it's current backwardness, is not about to be marched upon by China. Curb the hyperbole. Everything's still up in the air.
And then a catastrophic global climate change tipping point was crossed, and suddenly playing king of the hill didn't matter as much anymore...
RichM ,
Very good post.
I am concerned about the religious belief in the complete free market and so called 'the invisible hand". The belief in non-existing free market is what brought us to this mess.
But some people still want to give it second ,third , fourth.. endless chances.
Right you are, Frank1569.
August 20th, 6:45 pm, Eastern Standard Time: CNN just reported that 1/3rd of the the CIA is "contracted help"!
The Superpower has become the CORPORATE POWER.
Instead of putting down the USA every way we could, why not try to make it a Superpower that everyone really likes ?
How about changing our government, making this land a powerful progressive nation ?
Rome disappeared but it took centuries for that to happen and nothing much better than that replaced it anyway (Inquisition, dark ages, slavery, you name it).
We should change our nation so it is not the bully it is and it becomes a gentle and caring giant instead.
After all it is a greedy tiny percent of the population here that controls everything and it is causing all the problems. That is the root of all the complaints, domestic and international that we have.
This article is excellent. I knew most of the finer points, but couldn't put it all together. This was very helpful.
I also think, like most of the other posters here, that the evolving world political scene is only part of the puzzle. Historically we have no benchmarks to guage the impact of these changes in a globalized economy. The one thing that no one has brought up is the global financial situation.
China already "owns" the US because it funds the majority of our debt. The only thing that keeps it from cashing in is because it needs America to remain economically healthy so that they have a vast market for their goods. Think WalMart. However, if the US becomes a threat to China, or their access to resources like oil, then all bets are off. I don't know how long it would take for China to cash in and destroy the American economy, but I would guess it would take less than a month.
The last straw for Russia seems to have been BushCo's negotiations to put missiles in Russia's back yard. I mean get real! What would the US do if Russia negotiated with Canada or Mexico to put missiles across our borders? Europe better wake up to the fact that they had better become actively involved in stopping the US from provoking another arms race.
I don't think a nuclear holocost is inevitable. There are just too many variables. But one thing is for sure. The American people had better wake up. FAST!!!
When I look at the political landscape in the US, it's pretty clear that the Repugs and most Dumb's are part of the problem. Kucinich and a few others are the only ones making any sense.
This is all so depressing....I think I'll e-mail this article to Bill Moyers. Maybe he can help more people understand what a mess this is.
The US and all Americans need to be humbled. We think we are entitled to all the worlds wealth. Funny that conservatives rail against "entitlement" programs when they are the ones that have rigged the system because they feel they have some divine right to rule the world.
"It's sadly typical that even after the fiasco of these last 7 years (not to mention the Hiro article above), an American would try to dismiss Lenin with a casual one-sentence flip-off"
Publishers continue to churn out hagiographies of Churchill, Savior of Democracy, and he's always hailed for his 'vision' in starting promoting the war against the USSR immediately after its birth & baptizing the Cold War.
Lenin knew the ruling class & its instruments would never surrender their grip, that the populations of the world would have to be pried out of their cold, dead hands.
As James Bond might have told the neocons, "World domination...same old dream".
As Gandhi said of Imperialism..
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
The US is currently engaging in the third stage of it's ultimate decline. Why can't it learn the lessons of Imperial history from England, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Russia, etc, etc.
Been there, done that, doesn't work.
Go back and read the science-fiction genre posited by William Gibson called cyberpunk. Almost everything he predicted from ecological collapse to rampant corporate dominated government has come true.
I look to the future and all I see are empty cities, abandoned cars, and small subsistance farming. The future is not 'Star Trek'... it is 'Little House on the Prairie'.
Frank1569, "And then a catastrophic global climate change tipping point was crossed, and suddenly playing king of the hill didn't matter as much anymore…"
I HOPE so ... As they say, every cloud has a silver lining. Is it too much to hope for that the end of oil might have that effect also. If no-one can afford the oil to run war planes, or passenger planes, the world might eventually become a big place once again. Nah, the world has too much coal. We will somehow find a way to keep the machinary going until climate catastrophe or atmospheric and oceanic poisoning.
Galen, "The future is not 'Star Trek'… it is 'Little House on the Prairie'".
That would be nice - a sustainable future.
Gloom and doom, I have heard it all before. To be sure America has issues, but it did not start with the Bush Presidency. Seems everybody is concerned about China, well maybe more should read on "Chinagate." We sold practically all of their military Technology for political contributions. Ron Brown, the Commerce secretary was the main front man for these dealings. Then the Senate began investigating these dealings, and suddenly poor Ron Brown died in a plane crash.
"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war."
I believe America is in a decline, but that will end when we get spanked real hard. The decline is fundamentally in our morals. When a sitting president can sell secrets and open our nuclear secrets for the taking because he believes in a multipolar world, and when same president can have extramarital sex in the White House we are in trouble. Everybody points to the extravagent pay of CEOs, but no finger pointing to the extravagent pay of our entertainers(actors and athletes)or how about these extravagent jury awards. We charge on our credit cards for the latest gadgets; we refinance our houses to buy that new car, pay-off credit cards, and whatnot.
It is not only corporate greed, but personal greed, and collectively personal greed is doing as much harm as corporate greed, if not more.
Take a look at how our young girls are dressed; they will do anything to be "popular," have a "boyfriend." They are imitating what they see on TV. Our divorce rate is at record levels while we kill the unborn at record levels. I could go on and on.
Yes, we are in for it, but as is the way with humans, we will come back to our roots after a major catastrophy strikes. We will seek out long lost family members. Get involved in our local community and truly share with the less fortunate members of our society. Last, but not least, we will seek our Creator.
Dutch
All the foreign powers have to do is sit back and watch as the U.S. destroy's itself with G. Bush at the helm. From my perspective it is as if someone figured out the best way to destroy America was not through some military assault but to get elected and then ruin it from the inside. Are these people even working on our behalf? Not in my opinion.
If we had charged Bush with the job of destroying this country in the fastest and most efficient way possible I would have to say he's doing a wonderfull job.
It's probably a false assumption in Western history to even conclude that the US/USSR were at one time, "the two" super-powers. India and China have always been there. And although the Brits enjoyed a despotic rule over India for awhile, it ultimately proved to be the same limit that Alexander encountered.
The West hasn't yet figured that exporting despotism doesn't really qualify as the epitome of civilization.
Galen:
I like your theory, but it'll require some physical space to squat on. So long as they can muster an army of strongarms, they'll force you off your farms, gardens, etc. however small. Ultimately, I picture a world of derelict asphalt parking lots, weeds growing in the cracks, abandoned strip malls, overgrown but fertile farm fields, and people renting in squalor. Billionaires based in undisclosed locations with private armies at their command, and invertebrate civil servants.
They tell us that the anti missile nuke shield is going to work, yet they can not prevent tiles from falling off the space shuttle. After twenty years they still are unable to fix it, no wonder the super power is in decline.
It's a law of nature - for every force there is an equal and opposite force.
When the Soviet Union stepped down I had hoped that the U.S. would also step down. A final end to the Great War for Civilization. We could use the energy for fixing our roads and water and healthcare.
But no, greed and hubrus had their way with us. We waste our labors making weapons while our children languish. We make laws and walls to keep out farmworkers and then complain about the quality of imported foods. We make things in foreign lands for excessive corporate profits and wonder why our former working class can't buy what they need. Neither can the foreign workers. Talk about selling our birthright for a bowl of porrage! All of our troubles can be found in a mirror.
How the Gods must be laughing. They made that law of nature - for every force there is an equal and opposite force - and we are destroying ourself to make it so.
"And it could have been so different. Had the Americans emphasized global cooperation, sincerely fought world poverty, been neutral in the Middle East, embraced a revised and more humane capitalism, not tried to shove their values down the throats of others, abandoned uninvited interference in the affairs of others, and shown some humility in its relations with the rest of the world, they could have been leaders for a long, long time. "
"We should change our nation so it is not the bully it is and it becomes a gentle and caring giant instead."
Couldn't agree with you more .
But it was , is and will continue to be , a non -starter . Simply because it goes against the grain.
Bush had to be "installed" in America to destroy it. This is the only logical explanation for the sheer incompetance of this administration. I mean we are talking about failure beyond the scope here.Every institution in America has been crippled by this administration. All that is left is the military. It used to be called the "military industrial complex", but now even industry has left. All the stench of an empire on the way out. Repel of posse commatitus which made it illegal for the military to engage in domestic law enforcement.Ancient Rome ceasar crossed the rubicon marking the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. History repeats my friends and those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it. Bush must have cut history class LOL. In my opinion all of this blundering is strategically planned, as they say "nothing in politics happens by chance". All these blunders are really just small steps toward the true goal which is a one world government. The EU was the first leg created from the collapse of Europe due to WWI&II. "Global War on Terror"is taking down America so people will be crying for something to be done and Wella!!! Here comes the NAU and the Amero to make everything ok!! Later on to Russia and finally China