The Geopolitics of American Global Decline: Washington Versus China in the Twenty-First Century

[MattSh]

By Alfred W. McCoy, who holds the Harrington Chair in History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the editor of Endless Empire: Spain’s Retreat, Europe’s Eclipse, America’s Decline and the author of Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State, among other works. Originally published at TomDispatch

For even the greatest of empires, geography is often destiny. You wouldn’t know it in Washington, though. America’s political, national security, and foreign policy elites continue to ignore the basics of geopolitics that have shaped the fate of world empires for the past 500 years. Consequently, they have missed the significance of the rapid global changes in Eurasia that are in the process of undermining the grand strategy for world dominion that Washington has pursued these past seven decades.

A glance at what passes for insider “wisdom” in Washington these days reveals a worldview of stunning insularity. Take Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye, Jr., known for his concept of “soft power,” as an example. Offering a simple list of ways in which he believes U.S. military, economic, and cultural power remains singular and superior, he recently argued that there was no force, internal or global, capable of eclipsing America’s future as the world’s premier power.

For those pointing to Beijing’s surging economy and proclaiming this “the Chinese century,” Nye offered up a roster of negatives: China’s per capita income “will take decades to catch up (if ever)” with America’s; it has myopically “focused its policies primarily on its region”; and it has “not developed any significant capabilities for global force projection.” Above all, Nye claimed, China suffers “geopolitical disadvantages in the internal Asian balance of power, compared to America.”

Or put it this way (and in this Nye is typical of a whole world of Washington thinking): with more allies, ships, fighters, missiles, money, patents, and blockbuster movies than any other power, Washington wins hands down.

If Professor Nye paints power by the numbers, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s latest tome, modestly titled World Order and hailed in reviews as nothing less than a revelation, adopts a Nietzschean perspective. The ageless Kissinger portrays global politics as plastic and so highly susceptible to shaping by great leaders with a will to power. By this measure, in the tradition of master European diplomats Charles de Talleyrand and Prince Metternich, President Theodore Roosevelt was a bold visionary who launched “an American role in managing the Asia-Pacific equilibrium.” On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic dream of national self-determination rendered him geopolitically inept and Franklin Roosevelt was blind to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s steely “global strategy.” Harry Truman, in contrast, overcame national ambivalence to commit “America to the shaping of a new international order,” a policy wisely followed by the next 12 presidents.

Complete story at - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/the-geopolitics-of-american-global-decline-washington-versus-china-in-the-twenty-first-century.html

[malthaussen]

1. Good article.

Happens it was posted in Good Reads yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016124170

Different intro, though.

-- Mal

[bemildred]

2. Great article. nt

[swilton]

3. Great article

From another DU thread, this article explains recent evidence of the US-China friction in the South China Sea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016123681#post1

[KoKo]

4. Very Good Read!

[KoKo]

5. BTW: The Question Is: Who allowed China to gain enough wealth to become the powerhouse it now is?

When we off shored our manufacturing to China we created huge hardship here in the U.S. saved only by a brief period when the "Tech Boom" and "Big Pharma" took up the slack by employing people into the vacuum left when steel, furniture, shipbuilding, textile and garment manufacturing were shipped to Mexico, China and elsewhere. That boom helped mask the effects of offshoring critical industries which we now realize left us here in the USA with only Service Industry jobs now that both Tech and Pharma are also off shoring themselves to the cheaper countries.

So...who devised this diabolical scheme to offshore America and contribute to it's inevitable decline?

Was it Greedy American Businessmen seeking to gain enormous profits in league with Think Tanks who would spread their message through media and political legislation and therefore profit, also? Was the misguided, altruistic ideal of "Bringing Freedom & Democracy to the World" some kind of cover for exploiting countries resources that we would abuse with terrible working conditions and pitiful wages and not see the consequences of that folly?

Why wasn't the rise & influence of China, by our actions, foreseen? Or, is the TPP/TPIP and the rest of the "T's" (the ASIA Pivot) only a last desperate attempt to try to undo the consequences of totally irrational foreign policy for decades? If this is our answer than it would explain the frenzy of our President to get the TPP and the rest rammed through. But, if these "Non-Trade" Agreements are as bad as what has been leaked...then how can we expect more of the same to be beneficial?

Anyone have any other speculation....because what I've proposed seems too idiotic to be the real answer.

--------From the Article:

To capitalize such staggering regional growth plans, in October 2014 Beijing announced the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. China’s leadership sees this institution as a future regional and, in the end, Eurasian alternative to the U.S.-dominated World Bank. So far, despite pressure from Washington not to join, 14 key countries, including close U.S. allies like Germany, Great Britain, Australia, and South Korea, have signed on. Simultaneously, China has begun building long-term trade relations with resource-rich areas of Africa, as well as with Australia and Southeast Asia, as part of its plan to economically integrate the world island.

Finally, Beijing has only recently revealed a deftly designed strategy for neutralizing the military forces Washington has arrayed around the continent’s perimeter. In April, President Xi Jinping announced construction of that massive road-rail-pipeline corridor direct from western China to its new port at Gwadar, Pakistan, creating the logistics for future naval deployments in the energy-rich Arabian Sea.

In May, Beijing escalated its claim to exclusive control over the South China Sea, expanding Longpo Naval Base on Hainan Island for the region’s first nuclear submarine facility, accelerating its dredging to create three new atolls that could become military airfields in the disputed Spratley Islands, and formally warning off U.S. Navy overflights. By building the infrastructure for military bases in the South China and Arabian seas, Beijing is forging the future capacity to surgically and strategically impair U.S. military containment.

At the same time, Beijing is developing plans to challenge Washington’s dominion over space and cyberspace. It expects, for instance, to complete its own global satellite system by 2020, offering the first challenge to Washington’s dominion over space since the U.S. launched its system of 26 defense communication satellites back in 1967. Simultaneously, Beijing is building a formidable capacity for cyber warfare.

In a decade or two, should the need arise, China will be ready to surgically slice through Washington’s continental encirclement at a few strategic points without having to confront the full global might of the U.S. military, potentially rendering the vast American armada of carriers, cruisers, drones, fighters, and submarines redundant.

Lacking the geopolitical vision of Mackinder and his generation of British imperialists, America’s current leadership has failed to grasp the significance of a radical global change underway inside the Eurasian land mass. If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly, as Sir Halford Mackinder predicted on that cold London night in 1904, “the empire of the world would be in sight.”

[swilton]

6. Excellent points!

[yurbud]

7. this is the kind of thing that needs to be taught in high schools and colleges

so when kids are adults, they will know when politicians are lying about why they want to go to war.