New American Century

With the fall the of the Soviet Union, the US became the sole superpower and without a rival to compete and challenge the US started to reduce its military investments... until Sept 11 2001.

NATO was losing relevance, Trump was trying to extricate the US from its commitments to NATO, and so were other members of NATO... until Feb 24, 2022.

[Video: Can the US continue to be the Police of the World - Visual Politics EN]

In the meantime, many "prophets" predicted the end of "Pax Americana" and the "Rise of the Asian Century", China's Rise, and subsequently, the "Rise of the Pacific Century" when China would surpass the US and be the new world leader.

Except that it may not. Or won't. 

Certainly, a selective understanding of world events would point to a declining US -- The 2008 global financial crash sparked off by the sub-prime mortgage collapse in the US; US withdrawal from and the complete collapse of the US-installed government in Afghanistan, as well as the election of Donald Trump and his actions/inaction (on ameliorating climate change, support for NATO, pandemic response, and China relations).

And a cursory understanding (or buy-in) of the Chinese narrative (propaganda?) of their "achievements" might suggest that China is approaching, or achieving the "Pacific Century" - GDP growth, military strength particularly naval assets and having the second largest carrier fleet after the US. 

But about a year ago, this blog was already sceptical of China's Rise and the Pacific Century. 

Part of the reason, a major part of the reason for scepticism was China's belligerent bullying behaviour. A rising power would not feel insecure, and does not need to bully, does not need to threaten or coerce. China's bullying belied her insecurity, and suggested that her rise, was not as assured (as we might think), that the basis of (the belief in) her rise was arguable at best, and possibly illusory.

What the US had done for the last 30 years, in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union and the US's position as the sole Superpower, was to lead the world in a Pax Americana - a peace enforced by the US sole superpower status. 

China and her apologists will attempt to paint the US "dominance" as "imperialism", or new-colonialism, or western arrogance or chauvinism.

China's pursuit of "superpower" status seems more suspect. I do not believe that they would act as the world's police. Witness Russia invasion of Ukraine. Rather than criticise the aggressor, China chose to be officially neutral, while expressing empathy for Russia's pretext for invasion. China's partiality can be understood as being in line with China's (or Xi's) stated intent to take Taiwan by force if necessary. 

China's "Wolf Warrior Diplomacy" points to an inclination towards belligerence, rather than diplomacy. Even when diplomacy or at least diplomatic language is called for, China plays to her domestic audience, rather than meet her obligations (and expectations?) as a member of the international community. 

Which is not to say that the US ALWAYS act on principle. The recent "reset" to US-Saudi Arabia relations even though Biden affirmed his belief that Crown Prince Mohd bin Salman was responsible for the murder of Khashoggi, is evidence that political expediency would trump moral principles. Biden was hoping that Saudi Arabia could help with the high fuel prices at the pump.

The reality of politics and international relations is that no country can afford to act always in accordance to strict principles. Diplomacy and negotiations invariably requires some give and take, some compromise, some concessions. 

At 15:30 the video summarises the situation: 

"Put another way: The United States is improving its alliances both in the Pacific, and the Atlantic. Meanwhile, the rest of the powers that could confront it, China and Russia, are scaring their neighbours off."

It may all come down to who scares you and who offers a friendly hand. If China was trying to win friends and influence people with the Belt and Road Initiative, it was not an unqualified success. It was sometimes met with suspicion, and where it was welcomed, it was often by corrupt or corruptible political leaders. To be fair, China's BRI was not "debt trap diplomacy". (Much of the BRI terms often required work to be done by China or Chinese companies using Chinese materials and equipment. In other words, China loan money to countries so that they could buy Chinese equipment, material and use Chinese companies to build BRI infrastructures. The BRI was not about impoverishing countries and putting them in a debt trap. It was simply to continue to grow the Chinese economy - provide sales and jobs for Chinese companies so that they can continue to show a profit. China had already built all the high speed rails that China could possibly need and quite a few that it does not need. Now it had to go to other countries to continue to grow!)

And Russia had to invade Ukraine. Not that Russia was in the contention to replace the US as World Police. And (almost) the whole world sanctioned Russia - banking sanctions, trade sanctions, even businesses pulled out of Russia. The "special military action" that was going to take a few days -- two weeks, tops! -- is now in the 6th month. Ukraine may not win eventually (or it might!), but every day Russia is getting weaker.

And China... is in an unenviable position. 

Russia is their ally, both on the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (Russia oppose the US), and the principle that when faced with a strong opponent, you would want as many friends as you can find. But Russia is weakening every day they are engaged in Ukraine. Maybe they will win in the end, but they will be diminished, and what is the worth of a diminished Russia to China?

And China does not have a bright future. Their ascendency over the last 4 decades has been on the back of a demographic dividend -- their huge population of working age adults.

Which they undermined with their one-child policy, which has prematurely aged their society, and sabotaged their population pyramid. China's population will decline within the next 2 decades. And before their population decline in numbers it will age.

China will grow old before it grows rich. And then it will be faced with an aged population that will need aged care, but there will not be enough young people to support them in their old age.

And these are just the obvious problems. 

So China cannot challenge the US as a superpower, let alone take over as World Police, if China even has the slightest inclination to do so.

Can the US continue to be the Police of the World? There is a need for it (or some country) to perform that function (and it has the assets and logistics, and organisation, and ideological inclination to do so.) But the main threat is whether the US will descend into a second Civil War that will serve to draw the attention and focus of the US govt. Yes, there is a a need for the US to continue to be the Police of the World. The question is would the US be able to if its own house is not in order. We shall see after 2025.