Chapter 5 Chapter 2 In the future world, who will control the ups and downs?

How the current pattern of "one superpower and many powers" will change depends first on the development prospects of the "one superpower" in the United States.Judging from the current development goals and development conditions of various countries, the United States will still be the only superpower by 2020, and it will maintain its leading position in all aspects of its comprehensive strength.However, the power gap between the United States and other major powers will not widen, but narrow.The gold content of America's "one super" will decrease, and relative decline is a reality that the United States has to face.

The comprehensive strength comparison between "one super" and "many strong" in the current "one super and many strong" structure is like the "pentathlon" in sports competitions. The United States is the champion in every event.If you only look at military strength, the United States is far and away the super champion.Driven by the new technology revolution, the United States has experienced 10 years of prosperity, and its military power has also been significantly enhanced accordingly, making it even more unrivaled. Its military expenditure has exceeded that of the next 15-20 countries with the largest defense expenditure. sum.At the end of the Cold War, the military expenditure of the United States was the sum of the next six countries.

Scholars have conducted research on the power status of the United States from different angles, but they have drawn similar conclusions.American scholar Walter Clemens used nine parameters to compare the comprehensive strength of the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan and China. These nine parameters are: basic resources, economic power, political cohesion, military power, intelligence, culture, Ability to influence international institutions, domestic harmony, and external harmony.He used three scales, high, medium, and low, to measure countries' performance on each parameter.According to his research results, in 2000, except for the United States' political influence and domestic harmony, the other seven items were all high.As for the other top four, the European Union has five high and four medium; Japan has four high and five medium; Russia has one high, five medium and three bottom; China has seven medium and two bottom.

Professor Wang Jisi, a well-known expert on international issues, used seven indicators to measure the strength of the United States at the end of the 20th century. These seven indicators are: economic strength and international competitiveness, military capability, scientific and technological level, education level and talent flow, social cohesion, and ideology and cultural influence and the image of the United States, its dominance over the international order and international organizations, and its ability to self-regulate.Among the seven indicators, except for social cohesion and cultural influence and image, the United States is in a strong position.After the "9.11" incident, the social cohesion of the United States was restored.Of course, America's cultural influence and image have suffered even more because of the Iraq war.

Both experts' assessments of US power were made before the "9.11" incident.Then, after "9.11", has there been any fundamental change in the strength of the United States?Is it beginning to decline, as Wallerstein believes?Dr. Yuan Peng, a well-known expert on American issues and from the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, deeply analyzed the power status of the United States after "9.11", and believed that the main factors affecting the national power of the United States, such as political system, economic system, social system, unique geography The location, the constant tradition of change, the periodic wars, the will and spirit of expansion, the continuous stream of emigration of the good, have not changed fundamentally; although some factors have changed, not necessarily negatively, nor necessarily Get out of the established track.

It can be said that Dr. Yuan Peng's analysis is reasonable. The post-9.11 U.S. power status has not fundamentally changed compared to before.The question is what is the future trend of change?By 2020, can the United States lose its status as the "first superpower"? If we use the analytical framework of Professor Wang Jisi to predict the changes in the strength of the United States in the next 10-20 years, we can draw some preliminary judgments.First, in terms of economic strength and international competitiveness, military capability, scientific and technological level, educational level and talent flow, the United States will still maintain its leading position in the world.In terms of economic strength, the GDP of the United States is twice that of Japan, which ranks second, and five times that of Germany, which ranks third. It can be predicted that by 2020, no country’s GDP can catch up with the United States. It is still the world's largest economic power.Although the U.S. economy has been sluggish since the Bush administration took office, it will not experience the Great Depression in 1929-1933 or the long-term stagflation in the 1970s-1980s.Judging from the current development trend of the world economy, even if the U.S. economy is in a downturn for a long period of time (for example, 10 years), it is impossible for any country to catch up with the U.S. in terms of economic strength by 2020.Second, judging from the two indicators of the United States' dominance over the international order and international organizations and its ability to self-regulate, the ability of the United States will not decline significantly.From the perspective of the relationship between the United States and international organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, the Group of Eight, and the World Trade Organization, as long as the United States is willing to cooperate with them, the United States can maintain its influence over these organizations, and its dominance over the international order will not be limited. will be lost.Judging from the performance of the United States in responding to the "9.11" incident, the United States still has a strong ability to self-regulate.Third, the social cohesion of the United States declined after the Cold War, racial conflicts intensified, and social centrifugation tended to increase. However, the "9.11" incident created an opportunity for the United States to revive social cohesion, and Americans' patriotic enthusiasm greatly increased.It is expected that in the context of anti-terrorism, the social cohesion of the United States will not be significantly weakened.Fourth, the ideological and cultural influence of the United States and the image of the United States have been severely damaged by the Iraq War, but it has not yet reached an irreparable level.The United States has had this experience in history.The Vietnam War had greatly damaged the cultural influence and international image of the United States, but only a dozen years later, it was restored during the Reagan period.

In general, the formation of the United States' "superior" status is the result of the combined effects of many factors, and it is not achieved overnight, so it will not decline easily.The main factors that contributed to the strengthening of the United States are still in play today, and the possibility of a fundamental reversal in 10-20 years is very small.Therefore, in 2020, the United States will still bear the crown of "First Super League", and it will still be the all-around champion in terms of comprehensive strength comparison. There are two opposing viewpoints in the United States regarding the current status of US power.One is the pessimist represented by Wallerstein's "Eagle Down", who believes that the United States is declining.However, this view is not mainstream in the United States and has little influence on decision-makers.The other is the proponents of the "New Empire Theory", who believe that after "9.11", the strength of the United States has further improved and reached an unprecedented level.This view may be called optimism. The article "Unipolar Age" by Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for Time Magazine and The Washington Post, systematically and comprehensively explained the views of the new imperialism.Kirchner believes that the "9.11" incident did not fundamentally damage the strength of the United States, but instead strengthened the asymmetry of the power balance between the United States and other powers in the world.This strengthening is reflected in three aspects: first, and most obviously, "9.11" enabled "the US military power that has been hidden until now to be displayed".Although the Kosovo War demonstrated the US air strike capability and the huge gap between the US and Europe in military capabilities, the Afghanistan War has fully released the US military capabilities.Taking Afghanistan was something Britain and the Soviet Union wanted to do but failed to do. "If there was no '9.11', this behemoth might have slept for a longer time. The world may have known the size and potential of the United States, but it did not know its ferocity and strength." Second, "9.11" showed the United States There is also a new form of power, the resilience of American power. 9/11 shattered the myth of America's invulnerability, but it also demonstrated America's resilience.The life of the American people returned to normal only a few days after "9.11", which reflects the deep foundation of the American economic and political system.This shows from another perspective that the United States is indestructible.Finally, "9.11" accelerated the reorganization of the existing major powers, and a major trend of this reorganization is to follow the United States.In the 1990s, America's main ally was NATO.A decade later, its coalition base includes former Warsaw Pact members, but some major powers, such as Russia, China, and India, still distance themselves from the United States. After "9.11", these forces all moved closer to the United States.The strengthening of this asymmetry of power has made the United States a "superpower" (hyperpower), not just a "superpower".

Of course, there is a third view on the power status of the United States.The most representative is Joseph Nye’s “Three-dimensional Chessboard Theory”, that is, “military one pole (the United States), economic multipolarity (US, Europe, Japan, China), and political diversity (big powers, national groups, non-state forces, etc.)”.This view recognizes the superpower status of the United States, especially military superpower, but does not deny the economic and political power status of other centers of power, especially the "soft power" of the United States is not as good as before.Another well-known strategist, Samuel Huntington, also put forward a view similar to Joseph Nye's, that is, the theory of "unipolar plus multipolar".He believes, "Now there is only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar." coexist.In fairness, this view is more objective.

The Iraq war once again demonstrated the super military strength of the United States, which seems to have added arguments for the "new empire theory".However, things are not that simple.If we take a wider view, we can see that the unipolar world is getting farther and farther away from human beings, rather than getting closer. The overall strength of the United States has not been significantly enhanced by the "overthrow of Saddam". Although the "overthrow of Saddam" has strengthened the military strength and geostrategic advantages of the United States, the economic strength, which is the most basic element of comprehensive strength, has not changed.The economic aggregate of the United States only accounts for 1/3 of the world's total. This situation may not change fundamentally for quite a long time. If there is a change, it may be that the proportion of the United States is getting smaller and smaller.On the political level, it is not the unipolar world of the United States, and its development trend is getting farther and farther away from the goal that the United States wants.Before the Iraq War, the United Nations did not comply with the wishes of the United States, which made the purpose of the United States to send troops in the name of the United Nations bankrupt, indicating that the United States' control over the United Nations has declined.Those countries that oppose the unilateral use of force by the United States, no matter whether they are big or small, dare to "conquer" the United States, indicating that the influence of the United States has weakened, and this influence is an important part of the "soft power" that is indispensable for the United States to maintain its hegemony. aspect.Even the military strength that the United States relies on and is most proud of is not as "invincible" as some people boast.In terms of strategic nuclear weapons alone, Russia can compete with the United States; although the nuclear power of other nuclear powers is far behind that of the United States, it is sufficient as a deterrent. Functionality can be said to be equal.In the information age, the mode of war has changed a lot. If the "9.11" incident was a war as Bush claimed, then in this kind of war, the advanced weapons of the United States cannot exert much advantage. As a result, the military strength of the United States has been greatly reduced.

The U.S. hegemonic strategy is constrained by domestic political factors.Although the U.S. hegemony strategy is the country’s foreign strategy, the specific goals and realization methods established by each administration have been branded with partisan politics and interest group politics.The Bush administration's foreign strategy and policies clearly bear the conservatism of the military-industrial complex and the Republican Party.The preference for redemptionism cannot but be linked with the military background of Bush's cabinet. When he first ran for president, Bush received the full support of the military, and of course he wanted to give something in return.After Bush came to power, the ABC (Anything but Clinton, every "gram" must be opposed) policy is obviously for the interests of the party, so it will naturally be resisted by the Democratic Party. Key members of the Democratic Party, such as Dassler and Lippmann, oppose the Bush administration's unilateral " The policy of "reversing Sasha" is an obvious sign.The lack of a unified will in the country will inevitably lead to the weakening of the government's ability to act, because "unity is strength", and without unity, a lot of power will be consumed by itself.

The U.S. global strategy contains elements of self-restriction.The overall goal of the U.S. global strategy is to achieve unipolar hegemony. For this purpose, it must contain the development and rise of potential competitors. cooperation with other major powers.In addition, the U.S. global strategy also includes important tasks such as expanding the economy, promoting democracy, and maintaining regional security, which also require cooperation or contact with other major powers.Containment, cooperation and engagement have always been entangled in the relationship between the United States and other major powers, restricting their development.This contradiction reflects the contradiction between the different goals of the US global strategy.If the United States wants to fight terrorism and prevent expansion, revitalize the economy, promote democracy, and maintain regional security, it must cooperate with other countries, and this is conducive to their development, which is not conducive to the realization of the overall goal of the US global strategy; if it does not cooperate with other countries, the United States will It is also impossible to achieve goals such as anti-terrorism and anti-proliferation, and the overall goal of the global strategy cannot be realized. In addition to the above-mentioned "internal factors" that come from the United States itself, there are many "external factors" that also restrict the realization of the US hegemonic strategy.The most important of these is the relationship between major powers.Before and after the Iraq War, France, Germany, Russia, China, and India (these five countries happened to be the five “main and active geostrategic players” mentioned by Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard. These are The affected countries did not follow the United States, but insisted on their own positions based on their own interests and principles. Although these countries attach great importance to their relations with the United States, they will not give up their own interests and principles because of this, and will not succumb to the pressure of the United States Take Russia as an example. Although the Putin government has made great efforts to bring Russia and the United States closer after "9.11", and has cooperated with the United States on issues such as reducing strategic weapons, but when it comes to its own fundamental interests However, Russia did not hesitate to say "no" to the United States. What is particularly noteworthy is India. In the new national security strategy of the United States, India is placed in a prominent position. American strategists are optimistic about India's future development prospects and believe that India will become an influential power, so it is necessary to hold back India, the "world's largest democratic country". However, India's position in the Iraq crisis shows that India does not want to be attached to the United States diplomatically, but to go its own way The relationship between these major powers and the United States directly affects the implementation of the U.S. hegemony strategy. If the U.S. wants to truly achieve unilateral hegemony, it must either curb the development of these countries and make them unable to challenge itself in the future, or make them obey itself and become its allies Or quasi-ally. However, it is difficult for the United States to achieve these two points. Alliances have always been an important part of the U.S. global strategy, so successive U.S. governments have given priority to developing relations with allies.NATO and the US-Japan alliance are the two wheels for the United States to move towards unipolar hegemony.Through these two alliances, the United States has incorporated all major developed countries in the world into its own power system.After the Cold War, the United States took great pains to strengthen these two alliances, and achieved considerable results. In the Kosovo War and the Afghanistan War, US allies gave the United States support within their capabilities.However, in this Iraqi crisis, the performance of France and Germany disappointed and annoyed the United States. NATO split, and even the United States' close neighbor Canada did not stand by the United States. Shi Shi even offered a high price to buy the toll.If you look at the world, you can see that the main countries that firmly support the United States are some maritime countries such as the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia. Even Chile and Mexico, which are in the backyard of the United States, have not met the demands of the United States in the United Nations Security Council.The US alliance system is in danger of disintegrating.Saddam would never have imagined in his wildest dreams that he would have such great supernatural powers that would divide the Western world, even temporarily. On the road to U.S. unipolar hegemony, the most headaches for the U.S. are those anti-American "nail households" that can't be crushed or influenced, that is, the so-called "rogue countries" and "axis of evil" countries.If the United States wants to lead the world and serve as the world's policeman, it must first get rid of them. Otherwise, how can it establish prestige among its allies, and how can it get the world to recognize its "leadership."However, it is not easy to "eliminate" these "rogue countries".Most of these countries are Islamic countries, and their anti-American tendencies have deep roots in political culture and religious beliefs.The United States has the intention of transforming the Islamic world by "defeating Issa" this time. It hopes to follow the Japanese and German models to carry out "democratic transformation" in Iraq and set up a "democratic model" in the Islamic world.However, Iran has provided a lesson from the past. Forcibly transplanting Western democracy may be counterproductive or even counterproductive.If a tougher policy is adopted, it may stimulate Islamic radical forces to take the opportunity to attack the United States in a violent and violent way.Moreover, the "overthrow of Saddam" has shown that military strikes against these countries also need to be based on international law. Otherwise, not only the international community opposes it, but even all US allies do not agree. Another important "un-American factor" in today's world is international organizations.Not to mention that the international organizations actively promoted by the United States, such as the United Nations, are not at the mercy of the United States. There are more and more international organizations independent of the United States, and they have more and more say in regional and global affairs.Organizations such as the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Non-Aligned Summit, the Group of 77, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the African Union, the Asia-Europe Summit, and the CICA are all difficult for the United States to control.They have become an important link linking member states and form a kind of organizational synergy.They formulate and coordinate foreign policies based on the interests of their own group, and do not obey orders from outside, even superpowers. In addition to the above-mentioned factors that directly restrict the US hegemony strategy, some major world trends are not conducive to the establishment of US unipolar hegemony.Globalization is a universally recognized world trend.Globalization has strengthened the original law of unbalanced world economic and political development, making it possible for some countries, especially underdeveloped countries, to achieve rapid rise.Globalization has also increased global problems. Global problems such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have become important issues in international politics. They endanger the security of the world, and even more so, the security of the United States.However, it is not enough to rely solely on the strength of a certain country or group of countries to solve these problems. All countries in the world, especially major countries, must cooperate with each other.In this way, the United States must strengthen cooperation with major powers instead of confrontation.This is conducive to the overall strength of major countries, especially the improvement of international influence. Peace and development are the themes of the present era and also the general trend of the world.The global and unprecedented anti-war wave triggered by the Iraqi crisis has highlighted that seeking peace has become the common aspiration of people all over the world. Many countries oppose the unilateral use of force by the United States, and they are also obeying and catering to this aspiration.Some political forces in the United States, Britain, Australia and other countries have resisted their governments’ war policies. For example, the resignation of former British Foreign Secretary Cook also reflects the role of this desire for peace. Such resistance will undoubtedly cost the United States and its allies a heavy burden. As a result, the benefits of "dumping Sasha" will be greatly reduced.The two themes of peace and development are closely related.Without a peaceful international environment, it will be difficult to realize the development strategies of all countries.This is probably one of the important reasons why the people of the world and the governments of many countries oppose the war.After all, it is only a very few countries and interest groups that can make war fortunes. Many of the above-mentioned factors seriously restrict the advancement of the US hegemony strategy, and some of them, such as the general trend of the world and the domestic factors of the United States, cannot be fundamentally changed.The United States' unipolar hegemony efforts are likely to be in vain, at least the United States may take the road of "prosperity and decline".From this perspective, Wallerstein's theory of "the eagle falling to the ground" still has some truth. "The economic, political and military factors that have contributed to American hegemony will also be factors that irresistibly lead to the decline of the United States", "There is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs in the next decade. The real The question is not whether American hegemony is weakening, but whether the United States can devise a way to make it fall in a somewhat gentlemanly manner, and minimize the damage caused to the world and itself." The "superior" status of the United States can be Maintaining unipolar hegemony for a period of time, but unipolar hegemony is futile and dangerous. Pursuing unipolar hegemony may make the United States' power status decline faster.Because of this, out of patriotism, some strategists have issued advice to their homelands on how to slow down the decline of US hegemony.Huntington called on the United States not to become a "lone superpower."Joseph Nye warned: "America has been compared to the Roman Empire, but even the Roman Empire eventually declined". "America's power is not eternal. If we are arrogant and indifferent, we will squander our soft power, we will make ourselves more vulnerable, sell our values ​​short, and accelerate the erosion of our advantages." Q: You wrote "Eagle Down" and thought America was in decline, do you still stand by your opinion? A: What I mean is that the strength of the United States cannot be exaggerated, nor can its decline be exaggerated.America is extremely rich and extremely powerful.But, despite this, its relative power is declining because the relative power of other countries is rising.Americans don't fully understand and accept this.That is also a psychological problem.In my opinion, the United States will become weaker.Its economic status has declined, its political status will decline, and therefore its cultural status will also decline.When America was at the top for about 25 years (from 1945 to 1975), the only place to go was down.When you're at the top of a mountain, the only way forward is down.You can't go any higher, and you can't go forward.I think Western Europe and East Asia are already strong economically and will continue to get stronger.Both are distanced from the United States.The world is becoming more disordered and more multilateral.I don't believe in the concept of a unipolar world in the United States, but think that the United States is no longer at the top. Q: How do you view the role and status of the United States in today's world? A: My view is that the current role of the United States is terrible.Bush's exaggerated unilateralism is weakening the United States, which has a negative impact on the United States and the world.He is playing the conservatism game.It threatens the world, Europe, East Asia, and the third world.I think this practice has the opposite effect.It shows that America's power is limited.We should get our troops out of Iraq, we can't use them anywhere else.We cannot use the military in North Korea because it would have devastating consequences for the United States.So, actually, we have an amazingly strong military, but that's not usable, because politically, that's going to have negative repercussions in the countries where it's being used and in the United States.So in foreign affairs, it's a giant made of mud.In Chinese terms, it is a paper tiger.But right now, that view doesn't convince either those in the Bush administration or ordinary Americans.This is where the real problem lies. Q: Some people say that after World War II, the hegemony of the United States maintained world peace.What do you think about this question? A: Just looking at this point, it is correct.The United States has a good control of the world situation.But there are some people who don't like US to maintain world order, China first, then Vietnam, Nigeria, Cuba.From the American point of view, the world is uncontrollable and order is being disrupted.But in any case, the United States is strong enough to ensure that nuclear war does not happen.In my opinion, the thing that weakened the United States the most was the fall of the Soviet Union.From the American point of view, the collapse of the Soviet Union was not a positive event, but a negative one.The Soviet Union and its allies maintained world order to a certain extent.Without this order, the situation in the United States will not improve.First, the US could no longer use the Soviet Union as a card to get Western Europe to follow US policy.Second, Saddam was able to wage war on Kuwait only because the Soviet Union fell and there was no war threat around.Therefore, at that time, the United States could enjoy peace and control order to a certain extent.But it is no longer powerful enough.So now we have Saddam, we have bin Laden, et cetera.As I said in an article on foreign policy, in the world situation, the United States no longer has the ability to control the world.The louder they yelled, the harder it was to work. Q: Many scholars believe that the highest interest of the United States is to maintain its hegemony. To this end, it is necessary to contain rising powers. What do you think? A: One could say that.But have you noticed that in the past ten years, the United States has become weaker, not stronger, because the United States can no longer support such a large military force.Why?One of the reasons is that the U.S. economy can't do it, and our national debt has reached $2 trillion.The second reason is that we need allies, and even the Bush administration recognizes that it needs other countries to help it.But this administration has not done a good job of treating its allies. It is too arrogant and unilateral.The third reason is that the domestic problems in the United States are getting worse. Foreigners may not be able to see them, but Americans can see them very clearly.Public opinion in the United States is now focused on the November election.It's going to be an extremely contested election.Many people hate the Bush administration.There are still more than half a year to go, the situation is unpredictable, and many things may get worse.The economic situation in the United States has improved somewhat, and people's confidence has increased somewhat.But there are still big problems.The domestic issues in the United States are complex.In another 10 years, many people will retire, which will bring many problems. Q: In any case, the Bush administration's top priority is homeland security, and it's been successful in that regard.isn't it? Answer: It can be said to be successful.But in Iraq and non-proliferation, the situation is getting more and more complicated.Now we can't leave Iraq, but every day it costs a lot of money and people die. Q: Before the Iraq war, some polls in the United States said that the American public could bear the death of thousands of people? A: The question is when the Iraqi issue will be resolved and how many people still support the White House's policies. More and more people are beginning to doubt the policies of the Bush administration.Can Americans bear to go on like this year after year?I totally disagree with neoconservative policies.We are confronted with an increasingly complex, ever-changing and confusing world order.We have to rebuild the alliance system and choose a new leader.But the next general election is hard to predict.There are strong conservative forces in the United States, and religious organizations tend to be conservative.America has become more hawkish, more religious, and more deeply liberal in ideology.I hate them.I am liberal.Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Hoover Institution, including myself, was very anti-communist.But in the 90s, I started to change my perspective, and I saw that China was changing.But neoconservatism still sees China as a dictatorship.I don't belong to that group.