A new world order? Emerging nations.

I believe that the world is changing and maybe not for the better. At the moment America is the superpower and China is not that far behind, I don't believe it will stay like that and things could change in a major way. America will still be a superpower but its influence will be a lot less and there could be an emergence of four countries/regions that will have more of a say when it comes to international matters. They will be China, Russia, India and the Middle East.

First of all we have China, they are already important when it comes to the economy and are best suited to survive the current economic crisis. Just ask yourself who is lending America all this money? I also believe they are holding very large reserves of dollars and possibly other currencies. They are the factory of the world and everyone is falling over themselves to be on their good side. You can see it with the way the Chinese leader is treated when they are on official visits. Human rights may be mentioned but quickly forgotten when the subject of trade is brought up. This position allows them to have major influence when it comes to international decisions and the power to protect their own interests.

There are many criticisms of China, human rights are one, and there are also disputes when it comes to Taiwan and Tibet but they are guilty of worse things. China is trying to get its hands on the fuel to help its economy going; unfortunately they are willing to negotiate with corrupt governments and dictatorships. The majority of countries will not deal with these countries but China has no such qualms.

There a lot of criticisms that can be placed at China's door but the world appear to be scared to do so. China knows this so expect China to have major say in future international decisions. As I write this paragraph it has been reported China has snubbed a state visit to France, apparently because Sarkozy had talks with the Dalai Lama and this was interfering with China's business. China could deny this is not the case but would you believe them?

Russia had a lot of influence in the past but it is now recovering very quickly. They feel empowered and with Putin in charge (who doesn't believe he is making the decisions), they have a leader who is not afraid to use any influence that Russia has. Russia is a secretive state where criticism or opposition is rare; would you call their elections fair? Dubious killings of journalists or exiles that criticise Russia's actions? It can also be argued that Russia's influence also stretches to the countries that surround it as they depend on Russia for one reason or another.

You just have to look at what happened with Georgia, Georgia is looking to the west and to break away from any ties they have had with Russia. Russia were too quick to take advantage of the dispute between Georgia and South Ossetia and too slow to leave Georgian territory. Passports were handed out too quickly (the initial excuse was there were Russian passport holders in that area) and the military was too organised to move that fast. I don't believe that was any accident. More tellingly the actions of the western countries were very revealing, lots of words and very little actions. Russia's dispute with Georgia has been forgotten but the message has been sent to the other countries on Russia's borders and possibly the world.

Recently there has been the dispute with Ukraine, another country that is looking more to the west and where there has been talk of placing American missiles. All it took was an argument over payments between the Ukraine and Gazprom (which I believe is state owned), that was a situation that developed very quickly, a little too quickly. Gazprom was very quick to shut off the gas to the Ukraine and in turn to other eastern European countries, especially when those countries were suffering extremely cold winters. I don't believe that was an accident but a deliberate message to state who was in charge of that situation. This has worrying prospects for the rest of Europe; Russia is by far the biggest supplier to Europe of natural gas and holds a lot of power over those countries. European countries are often split over how to deal with Russia because of this.

Russia already has a major influence when it comes to Europe, mainly through the supply of natural gas but the rest of the world needs to watch them. It would not be a big step for Russia to become a superpower again and a major influential player on the world stage. Russia is not afraid when it comes to protecting their own interests and a lot of countries would be very wary of opposing them, unless of course it is resorting to empty words.

In the future watch out for Russian interference in Georgia and the Ukraine when it comes the elections, it can not be ruled out that they would try and get a leader sympathetic to their cause elected in both countries. Also watch out for contract negotiations with Ukraine about the Crimea where Russian ships currently dock, the contract is due to expire in the next few years and the port is too strategically important for Russia. Sorry but I can't remember the name of the port and if anyone can tell me it I will be grateful.

India is a bit of a dark horse, it is a country that will have more of an influence economically in the world. They have invested in education so that they can now boast an excellent workforce. Watch out for them in the future.

The Middle East is currently a major influence in the world because of oil. Do you think the countries of the world would spend so much time courting these countries if they didn't have black gold under their feet? Unfortunately there is also the matter of OPEC who controls the price of oil. The demand is low at the moment and so is the price, but this will not always be the case. When this economic crisis is coming to an end and there is some stability watch out for the price of oil, it will only go up. Do you want to see a return to the high prices that were being paid just fill up your car?

The Middle East will always have a major international influence while there is high dependency on the oil these countries produce; surely it is a better idea to develop new fuels instead of depending on this region. When the Middle Eastern countries produce the oil and can control the price, it can not be good for the rest of the world who buy it.

While these countries may not wish to have a say on international matters, unlike like Russia and China who are more likely to intervene when it suits them, this doesn't mean they are particularly nice countries. Saudi Arabia has a terrible record on human rights and it practices an extreme form of Islam which often results in many discriminatory practices. Women are often treated as second class citizens, what country should be allowed to tell a woman or any citizen that they do not have the right to drive? There are worse examples of treatment. The rest of the world sees nothing wrong with this while they need the Saudi's to provide them with oil.

In the future there will more than one superpower; America will be joined by Russia and China, who will have no hesitation in looking after their own interests even if it means protecting governments who are committing genocide. China and India will be more of an influence economically while the Middle East will always be treated with kid gloves because of the high dependency on oil. The future could be more difficult and tense.

Comments please.

 

What you have outlined is not really a new world order. It is a look at how the world has worked politically since WWII.

The leaders in the developed countries have consistently backed those who aid them in their objectives, only to later consider them enemies when they no longer fill their needs. This has been true regardless of political ideology in power at the time.

The demise of the USSR helped Russia more than hurt her. She has spun off the territories that were less helpful to their objectives, but fights for those who are. The economic problems help the socialist/communist regain control of the region.

The Mideast will continue to play the role of necessary antagonist until the oil either runs out or is replaced by alternatives. Those people who are more concerned with oil than democracy and human rights, will sell Israel out in a heartbeat, to keep their "drug" pusher.

China will continue to be the 10,000# gorilla, a mighty nation hanging by a thread, threatened more from within than from the outside. China's economic might is a continuation of the expansion in Asia, started by Japan after WWII.

India/Pakistan will continue to be a powderkeg, as it has since the forced separation after WWII.

Chavez is keeping the traditions of the Latin-American instability alive.

It the old "the more things change, the more they stay the same" scenario.

 

to true and remember america was a nobody 150 years ago

it just goes round and round

 

It always was inevitable that the USA's position of supremacy would eventually collapse; it's founded on superior wealth and technology, and countries that are bigger and/or more populous can always catch up in those two fields eventually. The USA *did* exactly that to overtake Britain, which during the 1800s and early 1900s was far smaller but incomparably more powerful.

 

What happened to the British Empire was imperialism. The taking of territory and installing their own subjects as governors. They got spread way too thin and could not keep up with the number of possessions and Crown Colonies seeking independence.

The US has had similar world problems, with one difference. We have not annexed the territories as US possessions. We instead installed local governments to do our bidding, that did not work either, but the loss is not nearly so dramatic.

The US's geographic isolation worked for a long time, it would have been very difficult to mount an offensive here due to the logistics of moving troops and equipment the great distances. This is probably the main or only reason that we won the Revolutionary War.

Today things are quite different, we are more vulnerable to terrorism than to tactical invasion. Our citizens and friendly neighbors relative freedom of movement make it much easier to infiltrate our country. George W. Bush had a least one thing right, he questioned aloud our citizens having the will to give up some freedoms to save the others. We seem to have very short memories when it comes to remembering our past mistakes and fall very quickly back to complacency.

The US, IMO, is far from falling to a second rate world player, although diminished, we are still the dominant economic and military force. Many people of other countries, who consider themselves to be first rate, are sadly deluding themselves.

 

spot on ther tenguy one day some one will match or over take you but for the moment the rest are wanabees

 

...for now. Like I said, it was, and still is, inevitable that one day you'll be overtaken.

 

While I agree with that in some part, I think that I could have worded my last paragraph better.

What I wrote:

What I should have written:

 

Perhaps the biggest reason that the day we are overtaken is far away, is that we as a country have abundant natural resources. We are on the way to more efficiently management of those resources and to regaining a position of less foreign dependency on energy.

We also have the largest manufacturing base, even after losing a good chunk to Asia we still manufacture more than we import. We also export more goods than any other country and have reserve capacity to do even more.

Trust me when I say that I believe we are not out of the woods, by any measure, but our path out is far clearer than most other countries.

 

That is the nature of things. But I think it will be a long time coming, provided that the U.S. acts responsibly.

 

By what measure are we on the way to regaining a position of less foreign dependency on energy?

And I don't know how you can put such a positive spin on the U.S. manufacturing base, given that it is far less dominant than it was only a few decades ago, and it's not at all clear to me that the remaining U.S. manufacturing sector can compete with foreign counterparts, who have access to cheap labor and national health care.

 

Obama is a crystal clear sign of how immoral The United Stated has become.

 

It's not that we have attained energy independence, it is that we have the means to do so, more so than many other countries. The steps that have been taken and those that are already implemented have much better chances than those of most other countries.

The US manufacturing infrastructure is in place, the technology is in place, the energy sources are in place, what is missing is either a public willing to pay more or a labor force willing to work for less. We do import a great number of products from Asia, but most are superfluous, the really important products we either now make or can easily do so.

In short the Asian manufacturers need us more than we need them, I believe that the time is ripe to play that trump card and regain the economic clout.

 

Sometimes, tenguy, I really think you live on a different planet. We have taken almost NO steps toward energy independence -- and far fewer than, say, the EU countries.

As for imported products being superfluous, take a look at the label on the shirt you're wearing. They sell us the very clothes on our back, clothes that used to be manufactured by U.S. textile mills. And how about steel, the steel that we build buildings and bridges with?

And which trump card are you thinking of playing? How will we regain our economic clout? By boycotting foreign goods? By erecting trade barriers?

 

i agree. global domination fluctuates from empire to empire, country to country etc etc

 

Perhaps I do live on a different planet from you.

We are not competing in the world economy on a basis of weakness. There are many different forces that drive the economic engine. Consumerism is not as important as most of the others, it is what the Asians have built their exporting business upon.

We are not without heavy industry, including steel. We still have textile mills, we still have fiber production and we still have the manpower to operate them.

The point is not to close our borders, but to make it clear that we can and will do without their products if we have to. Right now most of us seem more concerned about how we'll be able to afford our new dress of pair of Nikes. That is what's superfluous, our vanity, we can not eat vanity.

 

Obama is a crystal clear sign of how immoral The United States has become. minor error, it is worth repeating.

 

That much we can agree on. Where I disagree is with your implication that the U.S. has actually taken even the first, tentative baby step down that road. One of the problems with democracy is that people seldom want to be told the truth, and they tend tend to punish those that DO tell them the truth at the polls.

The way to achieve energy independence, in a nutshell, is to keep energy prices high. I don't see anyone running for office on that platform.

Nor to I see anyone advocating for less consumerism. Quite the contrary, George Bush basically told us that when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.

 

And Obama has a $825,000,000,000 billion dollar band aid for all of your boo boos

 

You really are on LSD aren't you,that explains everything.