The question is: Can America keep the global leadership? American global domination is seriously endangered. Numerous factors show that we are witnessing the creation of the multipolar world. In this new multipolar structure the USA could be the most powerful military and economic power. But current processes in the international politics could result in a fact that American “new global leadership” will not mean “the global domination”.
Dusan Prorokovic
Different parts of the world are seeing (macro)regional geopolitical players who in order to realize their own are ready to push out the American interests. "The new global leadership" would therefore mean that the USA is more or less present in all parts of the world being capable to defend its interests "to some extent". Compared to the current situation and especially to the USA position in international relations during Bill Clinton's second term and the first term of George W. Bush, it would mean significant erosion.
There are three major “internal problems” that the USA is facing in international politics. The first one is an unstoppable process of the decline of American economic power on a global scale. While in the period immediately after World War II USA economy accounted for almost half of the global economy, today's this comes to a quarter. The current economic crisis only further undermines the USA position. The second problem is the fact that the image of the USA in the world has changed in the last two decades. The seductiveness of “the American values” is gone. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, globalization has also made the global awakening that is distinctly anti-American. After the scandal with "Wikileaks" and information discovered by Edward Snowden American talks about the struggle for democracy, reforms and human rights have lost credibility. This makes it harder for the USA to relay on “soft power”. Third problem is decline of military domination. USA defense budget for the next ten years will be significantly reduced, and at the same time USA allies are also reducing their defense expenditures. Meanwhile American rivals are increasing their military expenses. However, it is important to underline that the weakening of the USA in this area is the least evident one, since the United States continues to spend on defense as all other countries in the world together. Despite all the military force remains an instrument on which the USA can rely on in realizing its foreign political goals.
In order to keep global domination the USA needs to work on achieving economic consolidation, keeping technological supremacy and modernization of the existing (development of new) kind of weapons. This requires a change in current trends. And this change is impossible to make without stopping rivals in different parts of the world. Increasing aggressiveness in foreign politics and daring performances of new (macro) regional powers present "external problem" for the USA. Therefore, the battle that the USA will lead in next decades will primarily be geopolitical!!
What are the most important “foreign problems” for the USA: 1) China’s continuous economic growth (economic empowerment has caused and increased allocations for military purposes) and its geo-economic positioning in East Africa, Southeast Asia, the eastern part of the Central Asia and partly in the Middle East; 2) institutional and economic consolidation and military strengthening of Russia (including the modernization of all types of weapons and equipment); 3) desire of long standing partners - leading West European countries and Japan to play a more independent role and on certain issues even to go against American interests; 4) struggle for leadership in a (so-called) Muslim world; 5) reduction of regional powers technological delay in comparison to the USA; 6) strengthening of anti-Americanism in different parts of the world, especially between Muslims.
What are the most important “foreign problems” for the USA: 1) China’s continuous economic growth (economic empowerment has caused and increased allocations for military purposes) and its geo-economic positioning in East Africa, Southeast Asia, the eastern part of the Central Asia and partly in the Middle East; 2) institutional and economic consolidation and military strengthening of Russia (including the modernization of all types of weapons and equipment); 3) desire of long standing partners - leading West European countries and Japan to play a more independent role and on certain issues even to go against American interests; 4) struggle for leadership in a (so-called) Muslim world; 5) reduction of regional powers technological delay in comparison to the USA; 6) strengthening of anti-Americanism in different parts of the world, especially between Muslims.
Therefore, following priorities are imposed to the USA: containment of China; exhaustion of Russia; controlling of the EU and Japan; directing Islam. Successful resolution of these "external problems" would be a "half-way" to solving the "internal problems". These priorities are in a great deal interconnected. Exhaustion of Russia could open room for directing China towards Russian Far East territories and for redirection of West European NATO members towards Russian sphere of interests in East part of Eurasia. Weakening of Russian position is on the one hand suitable for the USA, but on the other hand it would also strengthen the position of China ant the EU which is not in the American interest. China's rapid decline would arouse geopolitical expansionism in Japan, and due to that Japan would eventually become a USA rival in the Pacific. Direction of Islam could produce a great inter-civilization conflict that could contribute to containment of China, exhaustion of Russia and control of the EU, but it could also turn out into a large intra-civilization conflict that will even more complicate situation in the Middle East… This is why it is hard to define in which order these priorities should be realized. Maybe some of them could be realized simultaneously, but it is certain that they should all be well coordinated for a long period. How the aforementioned priorities could be realized?
1. Containment of China would mean bringing down its current (three decades old) economic growth and successful control of future economic trends. USA military resources in the Pacific seem to be insufficient for containment of China’s geo-economic influence, and reliance on coastal-insular “geostrategic arc” South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-Philippines could have only a limited effect. These resources can help to stop China’s exit to the World Sea but this does not mean the desired containment. Containment of China will only be successful if the following three measures are realized: 1) creation of an effective continental geostrategic arc at the southwestern border of China. In this context, it would be significant for the USA to encourage the India-China rivalry, but also to work on bringing Myanmar and Vietnam to its sphere of interests; 2) prevention of China’s strategic linkage with Russia; 3) disabling further strengthening of China-Pakistan relations. Immediate steps to achieve these three measures would probably be the following: 1) obstruction of the BRICS work in order not to allow the improvement of Sino-Indian relations and the Sino-Russian strategic connection through this multilateral configuration; 2) constant disruption of Sino-Russian cooperation always and on every place creating public opinion that Sino-Russian conflict is inevitable in future (China needs resources and Russian Far East territories are sparsely populated); 3) working on attaining more significant influence on Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is one of two Russia’s strategic partners (next to Belarus). This fact alone is a reason enough for the USA to have an interest to influence political processes in this country. But Kazakhstan could also be used as a tool for long-term disturbance of Sino-Russian relations. In this regard, the United States could encourage China to seeks its link with continental Europe through the old “Silk Road” which leads through Kazakhstan; 4) ensuring adequate investments that could significantly improve the economic and social situation in Myanmar and Vietnam (thanks to low production costs they are currently more attractive than China, so there is also an economic justification for this step!), then signing an agreement on military cooperation with these two countries; 5) putting a constant pressure on ASEAN to ensure anti-Chinese posture (Myanmar and Vietnam as members of ASEAN can be used for these intentions, all so more if they fall under the influence of the USA); 6) establishing notable presence in Malaysia and Indonesia in order to ensure limited and directed strengthening of the radical Islamist groups in these countries. South Asian radical Islam can be directed against Chinese interests in this region, and to this end opening of the "Uyghur issue" can be used, as well as maintenance of latent conflict in Xinjiang (Xinjiang palestinization). With this approach maybe even governments of Malaysia and Indonesia could be turned to the extreme anti-China position; 7) gradual opening of conflict between South Asian Muslims and China and palestinization of Xinjiang would create a favorable environment for long-term disturbance of Sino-Pakistani relations. Thus China would be completely directed towards Kazakhstan as the only western neighbor on which one can significantly rely, adversely affecting its relations with Russia; 8 continuation of more significant military cooperation with India and helping India to expand its influence as far as possible to the east (all the way to the border with China). At the same time, trying to calm Indian-Pakistani hostilities and creation of an acceptable framework for cooperation between the two countries.
Containment of China would mean bringing down its current (three decades old) economic growth and successful control of future economic trends. USA military resources in the Pacific seem to be insufficient for containment of China’s geo-economic influence, and reliance on coastal-insular “geostrategic arc” South Korea-Japan-Taiwan-Philippines could have only a limited effect.
2. In the last decade and a half under Vladimir Putin Russia has undergone an extraordinary journey from the country on the verge of collapse to the pivot of Eurasian integration. The Eurasian Union which has the ambition to grow from an economic into a political integration and to expand territorially has already been characterized by some influential individuals from the United States as “resovietization”. The Eurasian Union has the capacity to become one of the most significant regional integrations in the world. However, it is visible that Russian economy is facing a number of structural problems and that it is over-reliant on revenues from the sale of energy. By creating a Eurasian Union Russia is trying to change this and to accelerate its own economic development, to modernize its technology and to develop innovative capacity. At the same time, because of Russia's nuclear and other military capabilities (which are rapidly developing) the USA must be cautious in its approach towards Russia. It is notable that the USA is trying to use media campaign as well as some Russian NGOs and political organizations to destabilize the internal political structure (power pyramid) in Russia. The effects of these efforts are small due to the decreasing influence of instruments of soft power in the political process. The internal destabilization of Russia is possible only through dramatic disruption of existing social relations and this can be done only through deterioration of the economic situation. This can be achieved in two ways: 1) by direct impact on Russian budget revenue (revenue from the sale of energy) that can be realized if the USA gets under its direct control sources of natural gas in Central Asia (notably this applies to sources in Iran, second biggest reserves of natural gas in the world). This would help reduce dependence of some consumers from Russian gas. This can also be done by preventing the construction of new pipelines from Russia to end-users, primarily towards the EU; 2) directing Russia towards a different allocation of budgetary resources. This can be accomplished by opening a number of security issues that would lead Russia into a new “armament race” forcing it to assign greater amount of resources to the military budget. In addition to these measures, the Muslim factor (about 7% of the total population of Russia, concentrated on the sensitive geo-strategic points) and directed campaigns to strengthen nationalism can be used for internal destabilization of Russia.
On the one hand, the strengthening of Russian nationalism would produce a growing intolerance toward non-Russian nations thereby causing conflicts (about 19% of Russian population is non-Russian). On the other hand, the strengthening of nationalism among non-Russian nations would create a tendency towards independence and secession (although separatism, except in isolated cases is not noticeable it should be noted that there are 14 republics in the constitutional system of the Russian Federation).
This would mean depletion of Russia. As a result, the country would have growing economic problems, which would cause social tensions and quickly produce ethnic and religious intolerance. Thus Russia would be thrown from the tracks, and possibly even its existing borders would be questioned. How can this aim be accomplished? The goal could be spreading out a “geopolitical anaconda” around Russia's body just as Alfred Mahan suggested long time ago. Only now in order to achieve the effective depletion the “content” of this geopolitical surrounding would have to be different in different parts of the world.
Looking from the USA position what needs to be done in order to achieve this plan is the following: 1) all Eastern European countries should join the NATO. Once Eastern Europe is completely under “NATO umbrella” it will provided the full control of the Russian western border and open up space for endangering its southern border. The problems with NATO expansion have emerged in the post-Yugoslav space (key American problem in this region is Serbia) and in the case of Ukraine. Belarus is similar case, but due to close ties that this country has with Russia (The Union State) NATO cannot expect some greater success here (the maximum in this case could be the continual undermining of Russia-Belarus Union through destabilization of Belarus). Regarding the area of the former Yugoslavia, the USA has the dominant influence in this region, but they are also facing some problems that could escalate in the future and introduce the Balkans into new crisis. One of the problems for the USA presents the fact that until now the membership in the wealthy EU was used as a means of attracting Eastern European countries to NATO. Now the EU is in the crisis with no end in sight. Lack of trust in the EU is noticeable in all East European countries, but the largest impact on USA interests may be the lack of trust shown in Ukraine. Russia is using this fact to strategically link Ukraine tightly to itself (primarily with economic arrangements). The USA can have more space to act in the case of the new Russia-Ukraine energy or trade disputes, but in order to reduce Russian influence it has to work on strengthening of Ukrainian nationalism. Special attention will be paid to the “Christian-Orthodox” countries in this part of the world, given that they are more or less leaning towards Russia. Orthodox countries within the framework of NATO and the EU will have to be directed to have extreme forms of anti-Russian activities. In this context, one should observe the installation of American (anti)missile installations in Bulgaria and Romania; 2) prevent the construction of new pipelines to transport Russian energy through the East European countries to Western Europe. This would reduce the dependence of European countries on Russian energy, cut the flow of funds into the Russian budget, disable strengthening of Russian influence in the transit countries and lessen the risk of creation of Berlin-Moscow strategic axis; 3) prevent the "return of Russia" to the South Caucasus. The path to the internal destabilization of Russia leads through Caucasus and that is why the USA needs to keep Georgia and Azerbaijan in its orbit, and to try to get Armenia in this group as well. Armenia is the only Caucasian member of the CSTO military alliance, and this threatens the USA interests. In order to push out the Russian influence from the Caucasus the USA can use the resources of Turkey. Turkey, for several reasons, appears as a strategic partner of the USA and it is expected that the military cooperation between the two countries will only deepen. As in the case of Eastern European countries, the United States could accelerate the admission of Georgia and Azerbaijan into NATO; 4) one of the most effective ways to exhaust Russia is the destabilization of Iran (either by "producing" new revolution, or by military intervention of the USA and/or Israel, which would destroy Iranian nuclear installations). The ultimate American target in Iran is taking control over sources of gas and control over strategically important Strait of Hormuz, but any destabilization of this country weakens Russia's position. Destabilizing of Iran would weaken the position of Shias in the region of the Middle East where Russia was always able to find solid allies. Also, weakening of Iran would lead to strengthening of Turkish and Saudi presence in the Central Asian region, which coincides with the USA interests. This creates conditions for more aggressive approach towards the steppe Muslims who so far have demonstrated a high degree of loyalty to Russia (unlike some Caucasian Muslims who in certain historical periods were easily motivate to go into the war against Russia); 5) organize a special program for Kazakhstan, which can be used either as a tool for the outbreak of the Russo-Chinese disagreements, or as a "malignant tumor" in Russian geopolitical stomach. The latter scenario would imply a number of actions in order to prepare the transfer of Kazakhstan on the “American tracks” after the end of the rule of Nursultan Nuzarbayev, whenever that happens. The geographical position of Kazakhstan is such that its transfer to the USA track would lead to the collapse of the idea of the Eurasian Union as any kind of integration. To achieve this, it is important for the USA to influence the political and military structures in Kazakhstan; 6) after withdrawal from Afghanistan to direct Tajiks against Pashtuns. Production of chaos in Afghanistan could lead to the "export of violence" to the north, threatening Russia's interests in Tajikistan; 7) bind Uzbekistan to the USA as much as possible, through agreements on military and economic cooperation. Due to a number of opened issues in bilateral Kazakh-Uzbek relations, the USA reliance on Uzbekistan would threaten the possibility of transferring Kazakhstan to the new tracks. However, due to the participation of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in the Eurasian integrations and their membership in the CSTO military alliance, this is the only possible measure at this time; 8 strengthen the American presence in Mongolia; 9) organize a long and wide anti-Chinese campaign in Russia itself. The Russian public and its political representatives have to be convinced that the main enemy is the populous China.
In the last decade and a half under Vladimir Putin Russia has undergone an extraordinary journey from the country on the verge of collapse to the pivot of Eurasian integration. The Eurasian Union which has the ambition to grow from an economic into a political integration and to expand territorially has already been characterized by some influential individuals from the United States as “resovietization”. The Eurasian Union has the capacity to become one of the most significant regional integrations in the world.
3. After the victory in the Cold War all the more are noticeable the efforts of former USA allies to become independent geopolitical players. The USA alliance with the EU countries in the West, which was also manifested through economic cooperation, but primarily through NATO, and with Japan in the East, was asymmetrical, with a clear definition of who stands where. United States were the superior and allies followed its foreign policy priorities. The reason for this was the existence of one common enemy. The collapse of the bipolar world meant the disappearance of the common enemy and at the same time the beginning of the growing differences between the USA and European countries and Japan. Among European countries, the particular problem for the United States present frequent disagreements with Germany, although in France one can also often hear that it is necessary to reduce dependence on the USA. In the case of Germany, the threat to USA interests is seen in the possibility of creation of a strategic partnership between Germany and Russia. These two countries are already connected with strategic pipeline "Nord Stream" and are continuously showing willingness to deepen bilateral cooperation. While there is NATO, the United States will be in principal able to control the European countries. However, the EU is making significant efforts to form its own military forces, and on the other hand the European members are showing clear disagreement with certain USA moves. Because of that the United States could not use NATO military structure for certain interventions. As for Japan, the practice shows that it is unacceptable for the global economic superpower to stay long with modest military capacities. In the bottom line, it would be useful for the USA to use everything including military capabilities of Japan against the growing influence of China.
A new approach of the USA in the Pacific is unlikely to mean the permanent maintenance of the military weak Japan, but rather allowing military strengthening of Japan with the obligation of harmonization of geopolitical priorities of two countries. In this context the measures that the USA will take in order to more effectively control the EU and Japan can be: 1) not allowing the EU to become an independent geopolitical player. Therefore, it is necessary to obstruct all attempts of the EU towards federalization and creation of common institutions with greater executive and judicial powers; 2) tighter binding of East European and South European members to the United States in order to maintain a critical mass within the EU that will protect American interests; 3) encourage the rapid expansion of the EU to all Eastern European countries (including Ukraine and Belarus), regardless of the increasing Euro-skepticism and fatigue from the previous expansion. American interest is to keep the EU constantly “politically tired”. On the one hand, this would set the “homework” for the EU structures and it would be at least a decade before they would end this process. At this time any thinking about federalization would have to be postponed. On the other hand, this would open a space for the expansion of NATO to the whole of Europe (except Belarus, but offer for the EU membership to this country would be given in order to achieve its internal destabilization and disruption of its relations with Russia); 4) latent expansion of anti German atmosphere in all European countries where this is possible; 5) continuation of strong overall cooperation with Poland and its connection with the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) in order to prevent the creation of a German-Russian geopolitical corridor; 6) coordination of positions with France in all matters of vital interest to this country (Maghreb, Eastern Mediterranean ...), and in return insisting on its participation in the control of Germany, 7) opening of South Kuril Islands question and working on gradual “stirring up” of the Japanese-Russian crisis; 8 giving an increase role to Japan in controlling the crisis with North Korea. This measure can be implemented in the coordinated action with South Korea, given that the official Seoul would not look favorably on this arrangement. However, for the USA it is more important the fact that such a measure would further damage the Sino-Japanese relations and prevent (already highly unlikely), an alliance between the two powers; 9) promotion of Japan as an important political factor in the Pacific (and for example-insuring the role of a mediator over the status of the Spratly islands). In this regard, the United States will have to insist that Japan and India (and one more African country) become permanent members of the UN Security Council (which would mean a partial change of the previous stand on this question). With this act the ball would be thrown into Chinese (and partly Russian) yard, because due to the projected deterioration of Japan-China relations, China would probably be against this proposal.
Phenomenon called “the struggle for leadership in the Muslim world” should demonstrate all the problems and differences within the Islamic bloc. Samuel Huntington marked the Muslim world as an Islamic civilization. There are compelling reasons why Huntington did that, but at the same time it can be said that a single Islamic civilization does not exist (the question is whether it will ever be formed). The differences between the leading Muslim countries are vast, almost insurmountable. These differences are manifested in relation to the dogmatic questions and regarding compliance to the Sharia norms as well as in relation to the influence of Islam in daily life and in relation to the geopolitical setting and the choice of key allies. Because of this the relationship of the United States with these countries varies. While Turkey and the Gulf states (especially Saudi Arabia) are strategic allies, Iran presents one of the biggest foreign policy challenges. The other thing is that pan-Islamic radical groups are getting increasingly influential within the Muslim world (their interpretation of Islam has little to do with the original principles of the religion). Although these groups present a threat to the security of the United States at this moment, due to their extremely anti-American and anti-Western stance, they could in the future serve as a useful tool to enhance USA influence in many regions.
4. Phenomenon called “the struggle for leadership in the Muslim world” should demonstrate all the problems and differences within the Islamic bloc. Samuel Huntington marked the Muslim world as an Islamic civilization. There are compelling reasons why Huntington did that, but at the same time it can be said that a single Islamic civilization does not exist (the question is whether it will ever be formed). The differences between the leading Muslim countries are vast, almost insurmountable. These differences are manifested in relation to the dogmatic questions and regarding compliance to the Sharia norms as well as in relation to the influence of Islam in daily life and in relation to the geopolitical setting and the choice of key allies. Because of this the relationship of the United States with these countries varies. While Turkey and the Gulf states (especially Saudi Arabia) are strategic allies, Iran presents one of the biggest foreign policy challenges. The other thing is that pan-Islamic radical groups are getting increasingly influential within the Muslim world (their interpretation of Islam has little to do with the original principles of the religion). Although these groups present a threat to the security of the United States at this moment, due to their extremely anti-American and anti-Western stance, they could in the future serve as a useful tool to enhance USA influence in many regions. For the USA, it is important to keep the control over the situation in the Middle East and that their allies in the region remain stable. But at the same time their interest is to destabilize the biggest rivals in Eurasia, and for that radical Islam can be used. Therefore, on the one hand it is necessary to strengthen the position of Turkey and Saudi Arabia (but in a way in which their strengthening would not jeopardize the interests of Israel), and to fully link Pakistan to the United States. On the other hand, the goal is to attempt the radicalization of Muslim nations in Central and Southeast Asia. Thus, the American strategic allies would be positioned as leading countries in the Muslim world; while at the same “civilization conflicts” would be opened alongside the entire southern rim of Russia border and partially at southwestern and northwestern border of China. The specific steps that can be taken to achieve these goals are: 1) constant coordination of activities between Turkey and Saudi Arabia. First, in order to limit the influence of Iran, and then provoke its internal destabilization through armed rebellion. The conflict in Syria should be also seen in this context; 2) not allowing any internal destabilization of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This would mean allowing Turkey to use all available means to solve the Kurdish issue and letting the ruling Saudi family to use all means to prevent tribal rebellions in this country; 3) allowing Turkey and the Gulf states to expand their spheres of influence in the areas they are interested in (but so that it does not threaten USA strategic interests): Caucasus-Caspian region, the Balkan peninsula, Crimea, northeastern Africa (including a possible strengthening of the Saudi economic presence in Egypt), Maghreb; 4) political and economic isolation, or if it is possible, destabilization of all potential Russian and Chinese partners in the Muslim world (of particular importance is continuation of isolation of Palestine, maintaining the current situation in Iraq and further destabilization of Syria, other candidate for this list are already mentioned in the previous sections of work); 5) channeling the discontent of Islamic nations towards the nearest, neighboring civilizations, thereby spreading the impact of radical Islamic groups in the region of Central and South Asia; 6) concentrating on Malaysia and Indonesia as potential allies in containing China; 7) achieving the highest possible degree of influence among the representatives of the Pakistani military, political and economic elite; 8 in this regard and in order to strengthen the oversight of all operations it is important to realize the significant military presence in the Indian Ocean (naval forces and maintaining Diego Garcia base) and to keep control over East African coast (Kenya and Somalia in the internationally recognized borders); 9) supporting the fight against terrorism of radical Islamic groups in European countries and India.
The USA is leading the complex geopolitical fights, which will in the long run denote its position in international relations, but more importantly it will denote the structure of the world political system. Given that the USA remains the undisputed global leader, the moves it makes will mark the fate of a number of other, smaller countries and the distribution of forces in different parts of the world.
This article was written with the intention to show the possible positioning of the United States in various parts of the world and to warn to the consequences that such positioning could cause.
P.S. This article is a shortened and for the general public customized version of significantly broader work on which the author is currently working. With the aim to make this article easier to read and to shorten the text there was no mention of data source for specific information and no additional explanations were given on the findings that are presented.
Dusan Prorokovic is executive director of the Center for startegic alternatives.
