A Post-Hegemonic Future

Jamais Cascio, recently appointed Global Futures Strategist for CRN, offers a thought-provoking article on his blog:

What happens after the United States is no longer the dominant global power?

This is a question that doesn't get asked often. Public figures who even mention some possible far-off future date when the US is no longer #1 are excoriated for their lack of patriotism. And when there are no obvious contenders for a new #1, it's easy to think that the status quo is how it shall ever be.

But anyone who has taken a world history class can tell you that no king of the mountain ever stays there. States that may once have led the world can later be relegated to geographic footnotes; even nations that might dominate for more than a century -- Pax Britannica, anyone? -- eventually fall by the wayside, becoming, in the words of Johnny Rotten, just another country.

Eventually, the US, too, will become just another country. This is not a partisan position, but a historical observation. And as fundamental changes to the international power structure rarely happen without major disruptions, it's wise to think through what might lead us to a world where the US is no longer king of the hill.

Jamais proposes a four-box set of scenarios to analyze a future where the US loses its position of dominance from either absolute decline or relative decline, and where future global competition comes from either traditional nation-states or from non-state actors.

I encourage you to read his whole analysis. It's really outstanding.

One point that Jamais doesn't mention is also conceivable -- in fact, probable, in my view -- which is that by 2030 some form of global governance may emerge that effectively replaces the nation-state as the key entity in geopolitics.

And finally, as I've said before, the best book by far that I've read on this subject is America as Empire, by Jim Garrison. Highly recommended.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Phillip Huggan]

"What happens after the United States is no longer the dominant global power? "

Is this meant economically or militarily? Economically it will happen within a decade in a half. I would hope China and the rest of the devloping world pick up some of the $400+ billion annual tab America presently pays for via R+D spending.

Militarily, I think America's influence has been slightly destabilizing over the last 30 years. The USA spends more than the rest of the world combined (just like Britian's navy once did) so I wouldn't expect the USA to be eclipsed here in the next two decades at least. I suppose China would do a worse job of being the world's superpower, and I would expect India to do a better job. Quite frankly if the PNAC maintains influence in America's government (their influence will only grow as social security is progressively more cut), I'd much rather have MNT originate outside of the USA. Russia would be far worse but most other nations would probably exercise greater human rights recognition. I mean c'mon, America has just taken away rights for *global* citizens gained at the time of the Magna Carta, 700 years ago!!

[Jan-Willem Bats]

The US is far from #1 already.

Bill Maher explains it best.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vfR54fs26c8

(begins at 2:10)

[Tom Craver]

Great civilizations seem to take off because they've developed or discovered some principle of government that gives them a great advantage, sets them apart from others of the time.

Then, at some point, about half-way through the span of that civilization, they break with that initial principle, and from that point go into slow decline. They may still achieve great things, even grow in military might and conquer other nations after that - but their direction is already set.

For the romans, it was breaking the republic and becoming an empire.

For Great Britain, it appears to have been limitations on the power of the state over its subjects, in the form of "Rights of an Englishman". At some point that principle was broken - probably not first in the US colonies - and they started into decline, despite continuing to gain/hold power.

For the US, the key principle was government by the consent of the governed - and that was broken at the start of the Civil War.

Most consider that war wholly justifiable, and obviously great achievements and growth in power have come after it. But once we violated our fundamental principle, breaking it again and again became easier and more common, to the point where now the Bill of Rights is being stripped away faster and faster, and where we think attempting to force our form of government on another country somewhat justifies or makes up for invading it.

Yeah, I'm afraid we're well past our peak as a civilization, and well past our peak of "greatness" (about 1969, I'd say) as well. The only question remaining is when, and how bad the collapse will be. 2010 or 2030? Mere depression and loss of our "world power" status? Or a nasty war that ends the US as a nation?

[Phillip Huggan]

It is really important to clarify what specifically is meant by: loss of greatness. It might as well be lamented that America no longer can dominate international baseball or basketball tourneys.

A nasty war that ends the USA has been possible since the late 50's, but isn't nearly as likely in the near future. The only flashpoint I see in the years ahead is Taiwan, and there would be plenty of advance notice in the form of a Chinese amphibious assault vehicle buildup. The USA has entirely friendly land borders unlike Russia, China and India.

America's foreign policy has been primarily concerned with ensuring access to foreign natural resources or ensuring stable trade relations. Sometimes this has been good for other countries, sometimes it hasn't. In any event it requires a bloated, expensive military budget (greater than that of the rest of the world combined). This has the ancillary effect of distributing weapons everywhere.

A decline in America's military prowess would probably be a moderatley good thing for the world, and a very good thing for the long-term health and welfare of America's middle and lower classes. A decline in America's economy...well I never did like the consumer culture anyway.

[Tom Craver]

Phillip -

The consumer culture is the mechanism by which real wealth (goods, services) is distributed to the masses. You'll miss the consumer culture when it's gone, and you're desperately seeking work to put food on your table. It's no coincidence that GWBush's main request to Americans post-911 was "keep spending" - i.e. keep the engine of wealth distribution rolling.

You seem to assume it'll be some nation other than the US that is motivated to start the nasty war.

When the dollar collapses, the world will suffer - but the US will find we can no longer borrow to import oil, at the same time that the dollar price of oil and all other imports soars dramatically.

Americans will become scared and angry - ripe for a power-predator who is willing to tell them who to blame.

[Phillip Huggan]

Tom, what sort of nasty war do you mean could be the end of the US? I suppose a chain of events could occur where a nuclear scientist named Borat employed by Kazakhstan sells a Soviet nuke to a terrorist where it is smuggled in a container-ship to the Eastern seaboard...America retaliates and Russia somehow becomes involved. Or maybe an Islamic coupe d'etat in Pakistan where America once again becomes involved, perhaps squared off against India or China. But these are unlikely scenarios.
Are you refering to excessive military spending crippling America like it did the USSR?

I didn't mean to attack the concept of the distribution of consumer goods; the economic system whereby price conveys supply-chain information (something communism lacks and thereby kills communism) is safe. If you look around even China and other traditional geopolitical US adversaries are now using it.

I meant to attack the concept of consumer goods/services that are purchased primarily as status symbols rather than enjoyed for other reasons. I'm attacking the swoosh on the runners rather than the runners themselves.
Now you could argue an SUV or some ritzy couch makes the purchaser happy, so let them have it. But it is the culture of advertising/media that causes the conspicuous consumer to want the "value-added" good in the first place rather than the generic product. This is a tremendous drain on the world's economy, especially since children are exposed to this mild brainwashing at a very early age. I guess I'm just suggesting advertising budgets be limited to whatever wealth creating R + D budgets are, or maybe advertising/media companies be forced to fund mandatory consumer choice/behaviour programs in public schools, rather than it being only a university elective. Sorry if I gave the impression I was calling for the downfall of capitalism, at least before we get an exponential industry base.