01.12.2005XXI century: world order outlines
Asia: Break into the center of world policy
The center of international policy is steadily transferring to Asia. People’s Republic of China (PRC), with four times growth in GDP since the beginning of economic reforms in 1978, continues to intensify its potential. China’s annual rate of economic growth shakes within the limits of 8, 5-10%, and according to some suppositions Beijing wittingly keeps the real scales of its economic growth in secret. It is possible that in this way it tries to dissemble the real growth of expenses on defense.
Most of the analysts consider that the China’s rate of growth will remain high and according to the main showings the country is “doomed” to become the world’s second power within the coming 20 years. From the standpoint of purchasing power today it can also be considered the one. The mere volume of the US shares at PRC disposal gives the country a real chance to have a serious influence on the United States and international financial system. It is true that according to many predictions, very quick reforms will lead Beijing to an inevitable crisis, but these prophecies are worded for already two decades.
According to a number of forecasts in 2040-2050 China will have 14-16% share of the world GDP. The availability of this prospective is a kind of multiplier of today’s economic, political and military power of PRC, increasing Beijing’s international influence.
India makes an impetuous break into the world powers’ major league. For the last 10 years its 8% annual economic grew on average was predominantly at the expense of home investments and not the foreign ones which is considered more stable and healthier then in China.
India turns into one of the motive powers of international technological progress, and, according to some predictions, in 20-30 years it will become the third international power after the US and China. India is one of the main international providers of software support and a number of other high technologies. Here was formed a mighty middle class which is larger in number then in the EU.
Certainly India and China still remain comparatively underdeveloped countries with a high level of poverty. But people there don’t starve already as it used to be 5-10 years ago, which give these countries, especially India, high stability; the latter represents quite a stable democracy.
India’s comparatively modest armed forces (1 million military personnel, less then in Russia) are able to strengthen battle readiness very quickly. A powerful fleet with four aircraft-carrying groups in the prospective are set up. There is a claim for the role of self-dependent military-political stability guarantor in the regions of South Asia and Persian Gulf. Delhi also stirs up its peacemaking activates disposing its largest troops for carrying the corresponding UN operations.
To all appearances India’s main aim is to become the most important factor of influence in Asia, including its unstable parts as well (“the extended” Middle East, especially Iran and Persian Gulf countries). Pursuing a course of gradual intimacy with China, at the same time Delhi longs for playing the role of counterbalance to Beijing though it doesn’t intend to become the tool of China’s containment.
In Asia there is a tendency to form a regional economic center tending to become the most important center of economic power in decades. Such a block may be based on the ground of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Somehow or other the formation of the new organization will meet serious resistance (first of all by the US) but this process may hardly be hindered.
There is another force simultaneously growing stronger - the rise of nationalism is noticeable in the region’s developing countries. It is displayed on the level of Asian countries (the conflicts between Japan and China, Japan and South Korea are conditioned by different historical interpretations), but first of all with respect to the West. The Asian powers, gaining more confidence in their power, strive for throwing off the ideological and cultural rule imposed on them by the West down the centuries. They announce about their willingness to hold their self-dependent economic and political line whether with the support of the neighbor countries or on their own.
From the standpoint of aforesaid there is no doubt that the rivalry for the main influence in the Asia becomes (as the struggle for Europe over the past century) the main element of international policy.
The United States: weakening through preservation of power
The US is in a period of unprecedented decline in democracy on which has recently been grounded its international influence. The result of the past years events caused perceptible damage to Washington’s prestige and influence.
At the beginning of the XXI century the United States double staked. First: “uncontrollable destabilization” in international relations and the possibility to use its military superiority in this situation. Second: on democratization of the Great Middle East aiming to reduce the threat of terrorism and to strengthen its own position in the region.
But the attempt to reach this goal partially by means of invasion into Iraq turned up to be a failure. The Iraqi operation tied Washington’s hands restricting his scope of influence on the other crises (Iran, North Korea, Palestine-Israeli conflict). For the first time during the last decades the American elite was disrupted in foreign policy issues. It is elucidated that the US has enough military power to win any battle but there is a lack of resources for reaching the political goals and “win peace”. The tragic developments in New Orleans demonstrated the American state’s inefficiency in the face of natural disaster in its own territory and displayed the only power’s limited capabilities.
Although the US and Europe remain the parts of one political-economic and cultural civilization, however they failed to overcome the gap between them and they will hardly succeed. Washington practically doesn’t conceal its intention to hinder the European integration making the Old World a military-political player of international class. The United States gradually refuses from the orientation towards Europe as a key partner making a perspective stake on Asia. It’s probable that in particular the Asian direction will become the backbone in American policy for the coming years.
The US is very active in the competence for the influence on India. Washington suggests Delhi not only “special relations”, a place in “Great Eight” and UN Security Council, but also the latest armament. America is ready to take part in the construction of Indian atomic power-stations: the suggestion was made by “General Electric” and “Westinghouse” companies which have the political support of the White House. And it was done in spite of the fact that granting India the status of a nuclear state would strike a severe blow to the non-proliferation regime.
The US foreign policy gets deep in difficulties by the structural problems of American economy. Both foreign and inland debts rise as before and a new “bubble” of the real estate revaluation has been formed. At the same time the US administration, super liberal only by word of mouth, pumps money and investments through “the backdoor” into the economy with the help of state debts structure, thus providing quite a high and stable growth. The new “bubble” may be quietly blown but it may also burst thus causing emotional shock.
The US is the world’s first-rate exporter of the high-quality education and the most important technologies. At the same time the American experts are concerned about the level of technical education in the country. The deficiency is made up (though partially) at the expense of active involvement of educated immigrants as well as by means of distribution of the orders in the technologically developing countries.
America will probably confront serious economic problems, but in the foreseeable future it will remain the most dynamic society and the main international superpower in economic, military, diplomatic and ideological sense. The refusal of the US from the active global role is improbable. Today’s energetic interventionist policy is supported by the circles traditionally defending the isolationist ideology. The attempt to make use of the US partial weakening is extremely dangerous: in the future it will cost dear to any state.
The European Union: the possible refusal of ambitions
The failure of European constitution referendums in France and Netherlands revealed many structural shortcomings of the EU since its foundation.
Among them are slow economic growth, stable high level of unemployment (it is for about 10% in most of “the old Europe countries”), and its incapability to carry out liberal reforms unaccepted by the most of the population. At the same time in spite of the crisis situation’s perception and the destructive character of the slow rate of growth the chances to make quick innovation in economic and social policy are very little. Europe cares too much for its well-being to carry out painful reforms. The reasons giving birth to world wars are overcome and there is no need to struggle against communist influence. The Europeans have reached almost everything which was the primordial goal of the integration project. The new generation in power considers the present favorable situation natural by itself. It is true that “the new Europeans” will make “the old Europe” carry out reforms, but the potential of their influence is limited.
After the failure of the referendums the process of formation of political union or a quazi-state (the last spurt of the Europeans’ old generation) will probably come to a stop for a few years. The ruling elite are not enthusiastic about the EU later expansion and it is not supported by most of the population as well. The decision to accept Bulgaria and Rumania to the EU in 2007, the agreements with which have already been signed, was made in lobbies, keeping it in secret from the European community, on the level of the foreign ministers and not the state leaders as usual. The question of Turkey’s membership to the EU is virtually excluded from the agenda for the coming years, Ukraine’s candidacy is not considered seriously and even more so Russia’s.
The EU may spend 4-5 more years on the debates concerning to its future thus wasting such an important period of time for carrying out reforms. In the coming years the formation of a joint foreign or particularly defense policy is hardly possible. As a result, the tendency of Europe’s gap from the other centers will probably get deeper and will become irreversible. It is supposed that in 2030-2050 the united Europe will be left behind by size of GDP not only by the US but also by China.
In the world, where the factor of the military force is again of great importance, the EU creates “postwar military forces”, for about million in number, who are incapable of not only fighting but also taking efficient part in peace keeping processes.
In spite of amicable rhetoric, in these conditions the EU made its relations with Russia cold and adopted a policy of “peaceful coexistence” and furious competition in economic sphere. On the ground of several not completely settled problems concerning to agricultural grants, the prices of energy carriers, Kaliningradian transit, some attempts are made to weaken competitiveness of Russian civil aviation and aviation industry. And this happened after Russia responded to Brussels’s request and agreed to sign the Kyoto’s protocol. The EU, on the account of Russia, aims to make an impression that it still has a united foreign policy which may even be efficient.
Hence, the attempt to undertake the role of the arbiter in settling the problems of “the frozen conflicts” or more exactly “unrecognized states” and constant claims to withdraw Russian troops from there. The appointment of “the EU special representative for Central Asia” also refers to this. The European parliament almost always takes the side of the Baltic States, which have assumed anti-Russian position, and also supports Japan’s claims “to return the Northern regions”.
However it is not the end of Russian-Europe relation’s history. In the future the EU may change its value resources; it is not unlikely that instead of the farther formation of political union a return to “expanded general market and social union plus single currency” model is possible. Besides recognizing the weakening of its political positions Brussels may take a course of strategic close in with Russia. That’s why close cooperation with the EU remain imperative in Russian policy.
Return
Another materials of author