NYTimes.com: Waving Goodbye to Hegemony

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting article about the decline of US influence. Frankly, I would much prefer a world dominated by the US than one dominated by totalitarian China - however, given the collapse of US influence in South America and the rapid rise of China in the Far East, Central Asia and Africa, and China's economic rise, this really is going to be the Asian century.

link

that's like saying that Germany would dominate the world, if you look at the papers in 1906...

It's still the early innings, don't count us out yet...

Fortunately for the rest of the world, the Germans blew it twice. German domination was, in 1906, a perfectly realistic scenario. Of course, the Chinese could still blow it, like the Germans did. But just continuing current trends (note that, while the US enters recession, Chinese economic growth is actually accelerating) means that in fifteen years or so China will have the largest economy in the world - given what Iraq and Afghanistan have shown about the limits of US military power, that will be sufficient to make China the dominant world power - especially given Washington's addiction to Chinese credit.
The most dramatic example of current trends is Latin America - it used to be a US protectorate with the lone exception of Cuba. Now, the US, China, Spain, Venezuela and Brazil are all competing for influence. China has won in Chile (probably the most developed country in the region), Venezuela is winning in gas-rich Bolivia, etc. Mexico (the region's second-largest economy) is still firmly in the US camp, but Spanish political and economic influence are rising very rapidly, as are Chinese imports. Only in war-torn Colombia and some parts of impoverished, feeble Central America is the US as firmly in control as it was a couple of decades ago throughout the region.
In Africa it is Europe and China that are the relevant powers - oil-rich Angola is a Chinese colony in all but name. Anecdotally, some of the African countries that opposed the Iraq war in the UN had more aid and trade with France than they did with the US.

Ya, China has over a billion people and yea, their economy is growing very fast. I dont think their people will ever have the resources us Americans will have. Their nation is polluted horribly by coal burning, many MANY people are still poor and at this point China cannot even defend their natural resources in the event of some enemy attack, their military, tho strong in numbers is weak in technology, weapons and know-how and experience.

I think China will be a huge threat in the next 100 years, but I dont think China will be the dominate force on Earth, a balance of power between the EU, US, China and Russia will hopefully enshure peace and prosperity this century and hopefully cooperation.

But their military is getting better (and getting bigger budgets all the time) and is nuclear (so they can certainly deter attacks from any normal nation-state, including the US), and the country is increasingly able to produce its own technology. China is, relative to its economic capacity, probably the most generous country in funding research (the US and Switzerland being less generous, Britain is stingy and France and Germany are complete misers; there are Chinese research labs as well-funded as rich labs in the US) - they're not racing the rest of the world to the bottom, they're racing it to the top. Basically, unless they blow it, in a couple of decades they'll have an economy bigger than that of the US or the European Union (and India may well be the second largest), and probably the most powerful military in the world as well. Russia is becoming de-populated, the Chinese are colonising the resource-rich Asian part (Asian Russia may well end up as a de facto Chinese colony), and it is entirely dependent on oil and gas, so I don't think it will become significantly more powerful than it is now.
The main point the article makes is that it's not just China, it's also the increasing integration in the European Union (the euro is gaining ground against the dollar as the reserve currency of choice, for example) and that, due to high commodity prices, the Third World is increasingly able to demand and get better terms, and to play the leading economies against each other (this last factor has been particularly critical in South America).

I'm reading a book right now about military preparedness, and who our 'real' enemies are. Nation-states are not as dangerous as rouge sets of warriors (mercenaries, rebel armies, etc) that destabilize individual nations.

in China's case; If a man owes you a pound, you are his master. If he owes you a million pounds, he is your master... Yup, there will be 'friction', as Clauswitz would say. But remember the 80s? The Japanese are 10 feet tall? They're unstoppable, their economy is white hot!...they..uh...well, we saw where that went... In the 70s, the Russians are 10 feet tall! They're unstoppable, they're...oh, they're 5'6"...

The Chinese economy is white hot now, and they look unstoppable. But if we go into a recession, and suddenly we're not buying the lion's share of their products, things will look very different.

I will say that our place in the world in 100 years will be very different from where we are today (once all us 'boomers' are out of the way.. but there's no telling how things will turn out. In 1906, the middle East was owned by Europe and the Ottoman Empire, China was ruled by the last Emperor (Henry Pu Yi), and there were 46 states and 4 territories here in the US. That's a lot of history. One thing that has saved us is our ability to adapt, and no matter what happens, we will adapt in some fashion. But it's way too early to figure that out...

if you need more credit, then you still need to suck up to your banker - it's only if you're no longer borrowing and have huge debts that you can really bargain. Especially if you want to continue borrowing at low rates.
Asthe US goes into recession, China's economic growth is accelerating - this and the previous post-dotcom slowdown show that China does not go into recession when the US goes into recession.
Other would-be sole superpowers have blown it, that is true, and the Chinese might do the same - but again, it's not just China that is changing the balance of power.
Post WWII Japan was always militarily feeble and blew it economically with the recklessness of the 'bubble economy', and Soviet Russia was never economically succesful. Germany is a better comparison.
Incidentally, China understands the Third World (including the resource-rich parts of it) - Beijing does not need or want grand treaties, dramatic gestures or lofty rhetoric, all they care about are facts on the ground, they're pragmatists, and to the extent that they have a diplomatic rhetoric it's all about respect for national sovereignty, mutual benefit and 'peaceful rise.' I can think of no better strategy for a would-be superpower to approach the Third World.

I don't think you're correct with some of that. China's growth is forecast to slow, from what I've read. Also, the US is one of the largest markets for Chinese exports, so recession in the US will affect China. Indeed, recently Asian markets have been reacting strongly to news about the US economy.

we're still the lion's share of their exports. Right or wrong, and to whatever degree, we will have an effect on them.

I'm not entirely sure they're up to the 'take over the world' bit. And they're not always as welcome in Africa as you'd think; there's a whole middle class over there seething about being cut out of the picture by China, much like us.

It will come down to China or the US. We still have potential, we just need to fix a few things. The Chinese, even with population control, have to create 20 million new jobs every year to keep the whole country going.

And you never know, Russia could always get it's act together. I can almost hear Putin saying "we will do you a great service, we will restore to you an enemy".

But, we're not even clear of the 1st decade of the 21st century, they'll be looking back on us and going "what WERE they thinking?" no matter what we do...

It is true that a long or severe recession in the US will harm China's economy, but the latest data I know of is that the Chinese economy is still picking up speed, and past experience is that it is surprisingly resilient to US economic problems (they will affect it, but China is not Mexico).
I agree that it's down to China or the US.
The African middle class (like Third World middle classes in general) appears rather feeble, so I'm not sure their opinion of either the US or China makes much difference in practice. There is hostility towards China in some resource-rich parts of the Third World (like Mexico, whose rulers have fixations with the US and Spain) but the US is also unpopular in many places.

So I suppose we're left with only one option: Blow up China. Just kidding.

I have taken some economics classes in collage. Indeed China has a booming economy that is not nessissarily stable. The US is far more stable and its an important part of the cycle to have slight rises in falls in the economy. Now China has MANY poor people who are becoming more wealthy, the US does not have this. Producivity is stable in the US, China productivity is EXPLODING. I am willing to bet China will continue to grow economically and militarily. I am willing to bet China will be the dominate economic force in the world someday, they should be they have 1.3 Billion something people to the USA's .3 billion!!

None the less, in the world someday unless we want to destory all human civilization, the US and China better learn to deal with eachother peacefully, cause neather nation wants war with the other that is for certain. But as long as I am alive in a war I have my money on my nation the USA, assuming we dont have any more military blunders overseas. I just dont think the Chinese military is "world renoun" and wont be for quite some time. I honestly doubt they could even take back Tiawan without getting their asses handed to them and they are a tiny island nation. AT least ATM.

China has one big problem.

They have a one child policy, and thats causing a looming labour force shortage. They will begin to slip as a cheap manufacturer, and increasingly become an import country like the US. Further more, military forces depend on a good pool of youthful labourers too. They have a real bottle neck coming in terms of a labour shortage.

It will be the reverse of the Baby boom in the western world.

China has a smaller, but also large problem. They dont have the energy resources they need to properly develop their country.

Expect two things: The chinese yuan currency will climb in value, and that they will grow as consumers and fall as producers. They may try to sell off the American debt they hold as well as export debt like America does.

Assuming a western standard of living, you need 2.1% births to sustain your population. That means that 2.1 people out of 100 have a child in any given year.

China doesnt realistically expect a birthrate of 1.0, that is just their target. I'm sure the real goal is 1.9 to 2.0, with an eye to increasing lifespans in china. A child tax is used to manipulate this. Depending on their overall mortality rate, 2.1 may not even sustain them.

If they suddenly increased to 2.1, it would take at least 30 years to double their population. AS they become bigger consumers, expect the chinese government to further tax excessive births to fight inflation and debt. At the same time, single birth children are being spoiled with the gifts that several would normally receive, thus enhancing their lifestyle of increased consumer goods.

For example, Canada's birth rate is 10.5 per 1000 people, or 1.5 per 100 people.. We are slowly shrinking, but it would take decades to drop to half our population; maybe 100 years. America is 14.16 births/1,000 population..

Overpopulation causes problems of its own. In parts of the US, water is becoming a problem because of the growing population. Japan is physically running out of living space. The last thing any Third World country needs are more mouths to feed. China has vast reserves of labour in her destitute rural areas, so the factories aren't facing a labour shortage anytime soon; Cina currently has far more labour than she has any use for. Developed countries either developed while acquiring more living space (the US) or exported their surplus population (much of Europe) or population growth was kept in check by war (post-WWII Germany and Japan).
It is true that China is not self-sufficient in energy, but neither are the US, India, Japan or most developed countries. For this reason the Chinese are busy securing oil supplies, or taking steps to secure oil supplies, from Angola, Central Asia, Sudan, Iran, etc.

For how long? China enacted its one child policy in 1979. Thats 30 years ago(or pretty close). Assume that someone has a 40 year period in which they can do useful manual labour. By this we mean repetitive lifting and fine eye/hand coordination work. Assuming a pre 1979 birth rate around 2.0, That means that most(2/3) of the labourers in China are now 30+ years of age, with the oldest approaching 60 and the youngest almost 30.

In fact, 70% of Chinese are between the ages of 15 and 65. 20% are under 15, so you can see the effects of one child policy. With a life expectancy of 70 years, the median age is somewhere around 35.

So here is what we do. Add 30 years to the median age. Result is that in 30 years, 1/2 of the current Chinese will be dead or otherwise out of the labour pool. The youngest of the current labour force(15 in 2007) will be 45. The youngest today (zero) will be 30. The current generation of youth will be aged 30-45. Assuming that birth rates are allowed to rise to sustainable levels, you will have the following numbers.

projected population 2037
00-14 20% - if parents generation perfectly replaces itself
15-44 20% - 2007 census of Chinese youth
45-70 60% - 2007s labour force.

Assuming they start working right at 15, most people will be retired 40 years later at age 55, so in 2037 expect that 1/2 of those Chinese alive today would will be retired/not working or engaged in light duties.

The problem is that the high unemployment is in the rural areas; manufacturing is urban. These areas are also the areas that are prone to high birth rates, so relocating people to cities burdens the food and resource production, and reduces the birthrate of those relocated. China does not currently have a problem feeding its self.


I am unable to find what portion lives rurally and urban, but CIA world handbook states that 200 million left the countryside to find work in the cities. Since they technically need permission to do that, its assumable that relocation is sustainable without hardship to either food production or employment within the cities. Urban unemployment seems to be around 6-7 percent, and the chinese government wouldnt allow an influx of people to raise that by much. Relocating more might though.

Just as Empires and Institutions have waxed and waned, so does the influence of nation-states and political groups.

As one Example, take The Labour Party (centre-left wing) and The National Party (right wing), the main political groups in New Zealand. The longer one party holds power, the more likely the other will get a majority vote. Also the labour party tends to get power when the national party screws up, and the national party tends to get power when people tire of the labour party (or think they've fixed enough).

That said, Labour have had an unprecedented 4 terms in power, after the Former Governor of our Reserve Bank, Don Brash, became the new leader of National then accepted donations from the "Exclusive Brethren" (an Christian sect, which had claimed to have no interest in political affairs), which also funded a campaign to badmouth an opposing party. When questions arose, Mr. Brash denied everything, and lost credibility when the truth emerged. People have since ran from National to Labour, but now it looks like it will swing back.