Geopolitics

[neverdie]

It won't matter in the coming years since nation states themselves are slowly going away. In fact, we are now in a slow motion disintegration of the post WW2 order. There will probably be many more wars in the near future as the system comes under pressure.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree. It's going to be an insane decade or two going by the current trajectories in geopolitics. The consensus you get is fecking bleak.

 

[nickm]

Not much of this is incorrect but it's a different point from what I'm saying.

Nobody denied that most of the countries ostensibly in the American fold have benefitted from doing so. Though it's worth pointing out that none of them, with the exception of Japan for a brief period, ever had any potential of challenging the USA's status so have either fallen in line almost pathetically (UK) or tried to band together on a continental level (France).

But it is completely without doubt that the Americans and it's allies project power as they wish, regionally and globally, mostly under the international rules they themselves set and similarly flout them when it's not to their liking.

The underlying principle here is that the only country that should ever be allowed to project power is the USA. This is of course great if you're western European (generally), often less so in other parts of the world. And most of us on this board benefit from this global system.

It's fine to think that the USA should be the only one able to do so because we benefit from that in the west (which is an argument I think you've made in the past),another to seemingly suggest that it should only ever be the USA for other reasons? I may be mistaken.

A fully democratic China may still find itself at odds with a democratic USA (same with a democratic India) and looking to project power globally.

I agree though as I said that China's diplomacy has aggravated its neighbours unnecessarily.

I think it should have been possible to bring China in to the rules based system and modify it according to their interests so a rule based system that worked for everyone was maintained, but I don't believe china under Xi wanted that. It's also worth pointing out that China's modern success was very much founded on American decisions in the 90s and 00s around trade liberalisation, access to markets, finance and technology. I dont blame the US or its supposed hegemony for Chinese behaviour, that is on china.

 

[africanspur]

I think it should have been possible to bring China in to the rules based system and modify it according to their interests so a rule based system that worked for everyone was maintained, but I don't believe china under Xi wanted that. It's also worth pointing out that China's modern success was very much founded on American decisions in the 90s and 00s around trade liberalisation, access to markets, finance and technology. I dont blame the US or its supposed hegemony for Chinese behaviour, that is on china.

-China is already in the rules based system.
-There was no way the USA was going to alter the system to help a country that has the potential, democratic or otherwise, to overturn it as the superpower.
-There is no 'supposed' about the USA's hegemony.
-I didn't blame the USA for China's behaviour so not sure where that comment has come from?

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I also think people grossly exaggerate US global hegemony.

It's at best a two continental hegemony with influence in a few others with almost no influence in certain areas:

Europe and North America are firmly in the hands of US hegemony that is certain.
Parts of East Asia, Japan, Korea, etc.
A small chunk of the Middle East.
North Africa, to an extent.

Even in South America, the "Monroe doctrine" is over, as Secretary of State Kerry declared. You have countries that are outright hostile to the US (Venezuela), to countries that have taken direct policy to be anti-american, such as Bolivia, to countries that happily engage with US geopolitical rivals such as Lula's Brazil.
Most of Africa is a combination of French post-colonial hangover, Chinese dominance or corporatism free for all. Most of Asia is a combination of Chinese generated rump states, none aligned countries or India. Then you have the Russian aligned former CCCP 'stans'.

For a so called Global hegemony, it's influence basically extends to the Anglosphere, Europe, some parts of Asia, some parts of North Africa and some middle eastern dictatorships.

From a total population perspective, Less than 1.5 billion, or about 1/5th of the world's population actually fall under some form of US hegemony.