US economic, military and political dominance is likely to decline over the next two decades, according to a new US intelligence report on global trends.
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.
It also says the dollar may no longer be the world's major currency, and food and water shortages will fuel conflict.
However, the report concedes that these outcomes are not inevitable and will depend on the actions of world leaders.
It will make sombre reading for President-elect Barack Obama, the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says, as it paints a bleak picture of the future of US influence and power.
| | The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant Global Trends 2025 |
"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," says Global Trends 2025, the latest of the reports that the NIC prepares every four years in time for the next presidential term.
Washington will retain its considerable military advantages, but scientific and technological advances; the use of "irregular warfare tactics"; the proliferation of long-range precision weapons; and the growing use of cyber warfare "increasingly will constrict US freedom of action", it adds.
Nevertheless, the report concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."
Nuclear weapons use
The NIC's 2004 study painted a rosier picture of America's global position, with US dominance expected to continue.
But the latest Global Trends report says that rising economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil will offer the US more competition at the top of a multi-polar international system.
| | NIC REPORT Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader |
The EU is meanwhile predicted to become a "hobbled giant", unable to turn its economic power into diplomatic or military muscle.
A world with more power centres will be less stable than one with one or two superpowers, it says, offering more potential for conflict.
Global warming, along with rising populations and economic growth will put additional strains on natural resources, it warns, fuelling conflict around the globe as countries compete for them.
"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th Century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion and military rivalries," the report says.
"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while - such as over resources - could re-emerge."
Such conflicts and resource shortages could lead to the collapse of governments in Africa and South Asia, and the rise of organised crime in Eastern and Central Europe, it adds.
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, the report says, as "rogue states" and militant groups gain greater access to them.
But al-Qaeda could decay "sooner than people think", it adds, citing the group's growing unpopularity in the Muslim world.
"The prospect that al-Qaeda will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," it says.
The NIC does, however, give some scope for leaders to take action to prevent the emergence of new conflicts.
"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, [or] in some cases [the] working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," said Thomas Fingar, chairman of the NIC.
And, our correspondent adds, it is worth noting that US intelligence has been wrong before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7741049.stm
So it goes. I am sure British intelligence must have written a report like this sometime in early part of the 20th century. I wonder how they reacted.
I am not going to blame Pres. Bush for this, the decline of a nation is a long term process that is the culmination of years if not decades of bad policies coupled with international changes that are beyond any one policy leader's control. That said, Bush has hastened the speed of the decline. The billions of dollars thrown into Iraq, deregulation of business that contributed to massive economic downturn, trashing US soft power by invading other countries and bucking international law....hmmm. Yeah, we're fucked unless something major changes and fast.
My advice: learn thee some Mandrin!
5 comments:
Well,l I don't think there's anything to *be* done. India and China have *massive* populations that are undergoing a technological revolution that will give them a dominant force in the tech market rivaling the U.S. within the decade.
Meanwhile, without a cold war simmering on their doorstep, Europe no longer needs the "arsenal of democracy" protecting them from the big bad bear. And while the European nations are not exactly "united in purpose", the EU as a whole is becoming an economic powerhouse in its own right. They don't need us around to wear the daddy pants anymore.
I mean, in a "peaceful" prosperous world (and I use the term loosely), there isn't much the U.S. can do to assure its dominance without actively trying to stifle the growth of its allies and trading partners.
But, in the meantime, I think one of our top priorities should be to do everything we can to avoid a potential conflict over resources. The sooner we can move away from a fossil fuel economy, the better off we'll be. Especially if we leverage that power to help potential rivals do the same.
The Chinese and the Indians are going to have a LOT more cars on the road in 5 years. Do we really want to be competing with that kind of demand for oil?
Good points. Power transition theorists still the US and China going to blows (see work by AFK Organski). It's a reasonable theory, but it competes with Liberal theory that argues that economic interdependence and a framework of institutions (and ideally joint democracy) will prevent war.
So the question is, will we all be mutually dependent enough to decide that trade and investment are too important to risk war, even if we might prevail and remain the big dogs. I hope it's the latter, but Beck is right. If it comes to competition over scarce resources like oil, the fact that we import everything from China may not be enough to stay our hand (or theirs).
meh...
To be perfectly honest, I'm not quite as concerned about a conflict with China. While they are are rapidly growing in power and influence, they are still nothing if not deliberate and cautious about it.
Personally, my thoughts are bent on a potential conflict with Russia again. If China is deliberate and cautious, Russia is wanton and reckless. They are FAR more likely, in my mind, to test US/European resolve in one matter or another as soon as it has the confidence to do so. Georgia was a huge indicator, in my mind, that Russia is slowly filling out those old boots again, and likes how it feels.
And I'd like to add that it doesn't help for Russia to test western resolve, only for us to roll over with a limp dick while China is watching.
And if our efforts in Afghanistan fail? Oh dear.
Umm...well, I kind of agree with Beck on the points, but there two things to consider. The first is Taiwan. Russia may be testing resolve, but it is just as a means to signal that they still matter or over pieces of property the US is not wedded to. Taiwan, though, is a major strategic partner of the US with a strong lobby in the US. If China makes a move, the US might feel much more compelled to act.
The other point, the one about limp dicks....umm, not sure the US can do much. Thanks to Bush the US blew its load all over Irag, so we are sleepy and can't be too bothered for some time. You gotta pick your battles, and Iraq was ever clearly a bad move. Not much the US can do now. Again, China trying to steal Taiwan might get the blood pumping enough to get back in it, but Russia beating on its weaker neighbors...sleepy time.
Post a Comment