Power Paradox
America's divine right to run the world
The balance of global power, who will hold it and how it will be exercised in the future, is a topic of intense speculation, of particular significance relative to Earth’s climate and the breaching of planetary boundaries that keep our world habitable. Politics has become the most watched game in town – the domain in which power is clearly visible, and vanity and avarice too often drive foreign policy. A sphere where human folly is somehow always on show. A sphere where the moral authority once enjoyed by the West has gradually crept East.
In a multipolar world it’s highly unlikely that any single hegemonic force can prevail. Instead, we should expect to see several countries - including the US, Russia, China, Germany, India, and Japan - start to exhibit semi-imperial leanings. Middle powers, too, will become more influential, along with non-state networks and rogue players like Israel that has made it abundantly clear just recently that it does not care about democracy or liberty or rights or universalism or indeed international law. It’s only capital accumulation and imperialism that matters.
That still leaves us for the moment with a battle of minds between the US and China. While the US still imagines its role to be that of a universal policeman, with all that implies, its actual ability to engage and collaborate with such a diverse array of potential players is its achilles heel. Meanwhile China is doing so. Maintaining an edge in technology and cybersecruity, while addressing a fragile domestic infrastructure in spheres like welfare, public education and health, along with the divisive nature of the political landscape, are key for the US. And from a purely American perspective the most demanding of the many issues facing the country is the economy.
The US dollar has reigned supreme in global financial markets since World War II. It accounts for nearly 60% of global foreign exchange reserves and is the primary currency for international trade and transactions. Mounting debt, however, which currently stands at a staggering $32.11 trillion, poses a considerable risk – not just to the US but to the stability of the global economy. Unsustainable debt levels could easily erode confidence in the greenback. Addressing this issue is a tricky political balancing act. For while the public generally supports debt reduction, measures like tax increases and entitlement reforms face resistance, particularly among the elderly.
The US will need to navigate these challenges shrewdly in order to maintain its global authority. The path forward involves balancing economic strength, technological innovation, and effective diplomacy, while addressing domestic concerns. But if the future of continuing US influence depends on prudent strategic choices in a world order established by the conquering powers following World War II, China sees things very differently. For President Xi Jinping, the old world order is evolving rapidly - the era of unipolarity, dominated during the latter half of the 20th century by the US, already at an end.
As China plays a more prominent role in shaping global governance, it will advocate for multilateralism and more radical reforms within existing global institutions like the UN. But alternative models and institutions are also high on the Chinese agenda. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank for example, led by China, challenges the dominance of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. At a more commercial level, the Belt and Road Initiative, China's ambitious infrastructure project that aims to connect most of Asia, Europe, and Africa, also challenges the traditional Western-centric economic model.
Unlike the US, which still regards global trade and influence as a zero-sum game that it must win, seeks to maintain systemic dominance in the world, and views China as its major strategic competitor, China is doing everything it can to emphasize win-win cooperation, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable system in which old neocolonial ties give way to a nondiscriminatory world in which it is easier to maintain peace and stability. The tendency of the US to want to continue controlling and shaping global norms, institutions, and values that serve its own interests, goes against this mindset. This behaviour is the chief reason why the US alarms China and invariably intensifies their rivalry in trade, investment, technology, and military clout.
It is inevitable that these diverging viewpoints will lead to increased tensions over territorial issues, like Taiwan and the South China Sea, and the prospect of China decoupling from old US-dominated models and institutions. Recognising the risk in relying too heavily on the US market for its exports, self-reliance has emerged strongly in China. Technological self-reliance in particular has become a priority, where reduced dependence on US technology, especially in critical areas like semiconductors and artificial intelligence, is viewed as an immediate and ongoing imperative.
At a worldview level, China envisions a world where it coexists with the US, each contributing to global stability and prosperity. In this regard it perceives US hegemony as an outdated and complex interplay of old-world power games in an era that has moved to economic rebalancing and cooperation at scale. This is the overarching context for escalating diplomatic and media worries regarding a possible military conflict between the two powers.
For years, US defense officials have emphasized that China poses the greatest long-term strategic threat to US national security. A recent memo by Air Force General Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, predicted that the US and China would be at war by 2025. He specifically expressed concern about China's potential invasion of Taiwan. Other Pentagon officials have downplayed this piece of political theatre. But that in no way detracts from its impact in the public sphere where rumours and gossip can so easily turn into self-fulilling prophecies.
Numerous war games conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies have confirmed that the US military would suffer heavy losses if it chose to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion. Capricious and unjustifiableinterventions in other theatres during the past 75 years suggests this would probably not deter the White House from engaging in a war. In fact the American cultural identity, shaped by years of Hollywood war movies, along with heroic myths of unmatched American technology and military prowess, would embrace the adventure – at least until the first body bags draped in the American flag arrived back on US shores.
As one might expect, Chinese intentions remain something of a mystery. While China's military has been growing for several years now, its intentions remain unclear and its military spending is still far less than that of the US. While China's forces are certainly strong enough to harass Taiwan, and do so almost every day, it’s uncertain whether China's leaders have decided to invade the island nation. Neither is it clear how an invasion could benefit either China or Taiwan.
Former Democratic Congresswoman and navy veteran Elaine Luria stated that China's future actions are an unknown path, and that observation and inference guide US responses. That comment in itself should be a cause for concern. Given the paucity of cultural and political understanding of China in America that’s not a good sign. The US has a history of acting impulsively based on questionable intelligence that then turns out to be wrong! No better illustration springs to mind than the weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein that led to the disastrous wars with Iraq. Today that crime is brushed off as a mistake.
While premeditated war between the US and China is unlikely, the danger of a mishandled crisis triggering hostilities cannot be ignored. Considering the complexities of their relationship and the global implications of any conflict, both China and the US must tread warily. But given America’s edgy paranoia and penchant for ill-considered invasions and foreign interventions, compared to China’s well-known patience, tolerance for ambiguity, and preference for words rather than weapons, I would be keeping a very close eye on the US in a future it still believes it has a divine right to own and operate.