The Challenge of The Revisionist Powers? (West vs The Rest)

Prévia do material em texto

Master in International Studies 
The Challenge of The Revisionist Powers? 
(West vs The Rest) 
GLOBALIZATION AND GOVERNANCE IN INTERNATIONAL 
RELATIONS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IONUT ALEXANDRU PARFENE 
MEIA 2 
Nº 83771 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 1 
 
Introduction 
‘’Not only the twentieth but even the twenty-first century then seemed destined to be 
the American centuries. Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush 
confidently asserted as much. And academic circles echoed them with bold prognoses 
that the end of the Cold War meant in effect “the end of history” insofar as doctrinal 
debates regarding the relative superiority of competing social systems was concerned. 
The victory of liberal democracy was proclaimed not only as decisive but also as final. 
Given that liberal democracy had flowered first in the West, the implied assumption 
was that henceforth the West would be the defining standard for the world. 
However, such super-optimism did not last long.”1 
 
Azat Gat in his essay, the return of ‘The Return of Authoritarian Great 
Powers’’2, for the magazine Foreign Affairs, argues that today's global order faces two 
challenges. One is the rise of Islam, the other is the supposed rise of non-democratic 
or illiberal great powers, namely China and Russia. For him Capitalism is deeply 
entrenched in the current world order. No surprise in that. But liberal democracy? 
Not so much, he argues, we might after all not experience an end of history like 
Francis Fukuyama envisioned. During the twentieth century the success of the liberal 
democratic camp in face of the communist camp was because the economic system 
limited the latter (China and USSR). Regarding the non-democratic but capitalist 
powers of Germany and Japan they lost because they were simply too small, and 
resource lacking. Also...for the author, contingency played a role too. Who would've 
thought that USA was going to be the bulwark of liberal democracy after WW2? 
The emergence of authoritarian States like Russia and China who switched to 
a capitalist economic system represents thus a scenario in which the constraints that 
WW2 Germany and Japan were suffering (small pop and resources), are eliminated. 
Under these circumstances it’s possible that a new capitalist and non-democratic 
second world might emerge. It's a bold assumption in my point of view. Assuming 
that even with these non-democratic actors integrated in the capitalist world, it’s 
questionable that they will remain so, since past a certain wealth threshold the 
population of a non-democratic regime “cries” for liberal democracy. Singapore 
though, is an example of a semi authoritarian democracy which possess a high level 
 
1 Brzezinski,Z (2010). Strategic Vision: America And The Crisis Of Global Power 
2 Gat,A. (2007). The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers. Foreign Affairs 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 2 
 
of wealth. But the author recognizes that one thing is a city-state like Singapore and 
another a giant like China. 
Russel Mead in his essay “The Return of Geopolitics”3 also shares a similar 
view. A number of illiberal powers, “The axis of weevils” are forming a coalition 
against the post-Cold War settlement and the US led global order. Again, he thinks 
that probably we are not living the end of history and that US should rethink its 
history. In his opinion this coalition formed by China, Russia and Iran are foes that 
are turning dangerous for the current order. 
So, can Russia and China emerge as Revisionist powers? Are they able and do they 
even want to? We will omit Iran from our analysis for a briefer paper. 
 
The Russian “Bear” 
America is no longer the power it was, but it’s still the leading and hegemonic 
power in today's world order nonetheless. With the end of the bipolar Cold War 
system, thinkers like Kenneth Waltz predicted that a multipolar balance of power 
would emerge, and the subsequent expansion of NATO into former Soviet allies 
would take other major powers to ally themselves against USA in order to balance 
against its threat. The threat is represented by aggregate capabilities (military and 
economic potential), geography and perception of aggressive intentions. NATO 
represents a serious threat level for Russia. Russia responded to that by asserting its 
power first by invading Georgia and then annexing unilaterally Crimea. We can 
perceive this behavior as a resurgence of the Russian power. The reality in my point 
of view is other, agreeing with a citation by Ikenberry of the former Israeli Foreign 
Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, who said regarding Putin’s foreign policy as being “more a 
reflection of his resentment of Russia’s geopolitical marginalization than a battle cry from a rising 
empire.” 
Ikenberry admits that despite Russia winning some small skirmishes here and there, 
Russia is not on the rise, but to the contrary, it’s experiencing the “greatest geopolitical 
contractions of any major power in the modern era.” 
This in my opinion locks Russia in a fixed position, without much space for maneuver. 
With the enemy at the door, Russia only sees opportunity to take the fight to another 
place. If you can’t beat the Hannibal at your gates, you take the fight to other theaters 
where the enemy forces aren’t concentrated. That place would be Syria, and probably 
 
3 Mead,W. (2014) The Return of Geopolitics. Foreign Affair 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 3 
 
the Arctic as a new zone of dispute. Of course, Russia desires a more pronounced 
regional influence, but the liberal institutional framework constructed by USA during 
the Cold War was built in such fashion that it suffocates illiberal opponents. And it 
still continues today. As Ikenberry says: 
“Indeed, Washington enjoys a unique ability to win friends and influence states. 
According to a study led by the political scientist Brett Ashley Leeds, the United 
States boasts military partnerships with more than 60 countries, whereas Russia 
counts eight formal allies and China has just one (North Korea).” 
Agreeing with Ikenberry's view, Russia doesn't even qualify as a revisionist power. It 
lacks serious soft-power potential. It is a power though, but all it can do is take on 
spoils which escapes from Washington's control. But even that requires from Russia 
a strong leadership, a center of concentrated power. Without Putin's grip on Russia, 
the Russian state would've been in an even worse position. Without the nuclear power 
it possesses and Europe’s dependence on its gas and oil there isn’t much going for 
Russia, unless we consider the cyberwarfare that Russia has been heavily exercising 
lately. What Putin managed to achieve was saving the little it remained from an utterly 
defeated superpower. 
 
China 
“The growth of the power of Athens and the alarm which this inspired in Sparta, 
made war inevitable.” – Thucydides 
 
‘’Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and 
bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.’’ – 
Deng Xiaoping. 
 
From 1949 until Mao's death, China was in the hands of a strong and highly 
centralized government. Under Mao, China managed to return to it’s pre-European 
isolated state. But it was still an extremely backward country. After Mao’s death, with 
the implementation of it’s “Open door” policy, China realized that it was time to open 
up to the world and profit from the new economic,cultural and political opportunities 
that the global system had to offer. Foreign investment flowed into China and the 
country started to uplift itself. 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 4 
 
There is and will be a great debate regarding whether China will replace USA's 
primacy in the future. China is undoubtedly perceived as the main potential 
challenger. Regarding its geographical position, similarly to India, China is seen as an 
island, almost isolated from the world on land either by impassable terrain or 
wastelands. To the North there is Siberia and the Mongol steppes. To the southwest 
there are the Himalayas and to the South more mountains and jungle. Finally, to the 
east there is the ocean. The vast majority of China's population lives on its coast, while 
the interior is scarcely populated and extremely underdeveloped. The only feasible 
land route which possibilities a decent flux of goods out of China is the old silk road 
route through the border with Kazakhstan. The One Belt One Road (OBOR) 
initiative proposed by Xi Jinping in 2013 is an ambitious project, aiming to develop 
the infrastructure gap across the Eurasian landmass, from China, passing through 
central Asia, Eastern Europe and finally central Europe. This would connect the 
Eurasian landmass into a single and developed trading network, fostering economic 
growth, cooperation and connectivity. A bold project nonetheless. A project that 
might very well give shape to a famous theory elaborated by Sir Halford Mackinder a 
century ago. 
China's development of a powerful navy to counter America’s naval hegemony 
is still far-fetched, and a simple crippling of its sea trade lanes can provoke serious 
turmoil across the country, a shortage of food, resources, a rebellious population and 
ultimately the country's political stability as a whole. Its coast turning under foreign 
influence again. China could try building a navy of its own, but building a navy is no 
small business, and that’s just half of the task. US has almost 80 years of experience 
in operating air craft carrier groups. Its naval doctrine is unmatched. China ‘s first 
aircraft carrier entered service in 2012. Still very remote, but an interconnected and 
cooperating World-Island (Eurasia) could represent a shift of Power in the 
geopolitical sense. That assuming the US lose their bridgehead in Europe...which is 
hardly probable to happen in the near future. If that bridgehead is lost, the Eurasian 
landmass might be out of reach from a naval hegemon like USA. China's trade would 
probably stop being dependent on sea shipping lanes, which the far superior 
American navy are able to block easily. 
Not to be ignored…there’s undoubtedly a transfer of power from West to 
East. Western power is waning, and US is no longer the unchallenged truly global 
hegemon it was in 1990. As Zbigniew Brzinsky points out: 
“In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the 
concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is 
not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 5 
 
be the very last.... Economic power is also likely to become more dispersed. In the 
years to come, no single power is likely to reach the level of 30 percent or so of the 
world ’s GDP that America sustained throughout much of this century, not to speak 
of the 50 percent at which it crested in 1945.4 
That’s pretty much a hint for Richard Haass' article regarding a future non-polar 
order. 
 
USA 
Donald Trump’s campaign to presidency represented a rupture with the 
American foreign policy since ww2. Instead of embracing globalism and give 
continuation to the American position as a global leader, he promised to its electors 
to disengage America from the previous agenda, opting for an isolated entrenchment. 
The threats against North Korea, the strikes against the Shayrat air Base, the 
continuation of the Afghanistan campaign as well as the call for a more “pumped up” 
NATO, represent all but an isolated America. If there something Trump represents, 
is an incoherent leader, or a dishonest one. Maybe both. 
USA is inevitably the center of attention at this point. Mainly because 
America’s future and its primacy depend on the next steps, good or bad. America 
simply cannot run from the world and isolate itself. It IS today’s world, its capacity to 
influence international events depends on how the world perceives its social system 
and its role. 
“America’s multiethnic democracy has been and is the object of fascination, envy, and 
even occasional hostility on the part of the politically conscious global masses. That 
fundamental reality gives rise to some critical questions: Is the American system still 
an example worthy of worldwide emulation?”5 
 
To continue shaping the world, America needs to resolve its domestic 
challenges, it’s division and then project its influence. America's prospects aren’t bad 
but they aren’t good either, as Ikenberry’s optimism shows. 
 
4 FROM CONCLUSION TO The Grand Chessboard, , 1997, P. 210 
5 Brzezinski,Z (2010). Strategic Vision: America And The Crisis Of Global Power 
 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 6 
 
 
 
Overall Economic Strength 
Despite China’s outstanding growth, from 7.43% of world’s total GDP in 2010, to 
14.84% in 2017, US still have the largest share of GDP in the world. We exclude EU 
from the debate, EU still has a lot to do in order to assert itself as a single entity. It is 
expected China to surpass US in GDP terms somewhere between 2030-2050. The 
projected GDP and GDP per capita are shown in the following table made by the 
‘‘Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s The World Order in 2010’’. 
 
Fig 1. World Economic Forum - The world’s 10 biggest economies in 2017 
 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 7 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
It is true that by 2050 due to its overwhelmingly big population base, China will 
surpass US. But neither China nor other big population States like India will surpass 
the West’s high GDP per capita. If this is exploited well, as well as its other assets like 
cultural appeal to other countries, will preserve US’s influence across the world. Plus, 
its high GDP per capita could have a suction effect on global talent, concentrating a 
much smaller population that its counterparts, but much more efficient on human 
capital level. 
 
Innovative potential 
It’s entrepreneurial culture and superior high education institutions (Stanford 
University, Harvard, MIT etc.). These institutions provide the means and the technical 
know-how for US to maintain an edge in many fields including military tec. These 
institutions attract minds across the world which seek to pursue their full economic 
and educational potential. The country’s vitality, prestige and influence are dependent 
on these institutions 
 
Demographic Dynamic 
‘’According to the UN, by 2050 the United States will have a population of 403 
million, 21.6% of it above the age of sixty-five. During that time period, the EU 
will go from a population of 497 to 493 million, with 28.7% over the age of sixty-
five in 2050. The numbers for Japan are even more striking: it will go from a 
 
6 Brzezinski,Z. Strategic Vision America And The Crisis Of Global Power. Fig 2.4 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 8 
 
population of 127 million in 2010 to 101 million in 2050, and will have a publicthat is 37.8% over sixty-five by midcentury.’’7 
This relative edge that US possess about its population dynamic is given by the 
capacity that it has to attract immigrants and assimilate them. This fact, enables the 
US to have a long term favorable economic outlook and international opinion. It 
should be aware though, that the refusal towards this assimilation policy could mean 
the crippling of one of its main strengths. 
 
Reactive mobilization 
With an effective leadership and mobilization, much like the call to arms in WW2 
after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the US’ national unity in face of a 
perceived danger to its security is something that characterizes the society. There is a 
strong patriotic bond across its population that can be summoned if a righteous cause 
is presented. 
 
Values 
America’s association with values like individual liberty, Democracy, human rights 
and economic opportunity is an asset that shaped and shapes US’ opinion across the 
globe. Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia don’t enjoy the same privilege. An 
asset that can be crippled or strengthened based on its foreign policy. The invasion of 
Iraq was a blow to the public opinion but it rebounded afterwards. An increasingly 
isolationist US might bring undesired effects on global opinion and appeal. 
 
Geographic base 
‘’The Americans are a very lucky people. They’re bordered to the north and south by 
weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish.’’ – Otto von Bismarck 
Last but not least, US has a very favorable geographical base, rich in natural resources, 
a cohesive population not prone to ethnic separatist movements, unlike for example 
the Xinjiang’s Uyghur population and Tibet in China. There is no neighbor, or any 
State in the Americas that is threatening for US. Canada is a good friend, Alaska blocks 
 
7 Brzezinski,Z (2010). Strategic Vision America And The Crisis Of Global Power 
 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 9 
 
any incursion across the Bering strait, and the desert of Mexico makes any prospect 
of a land invasion trough the south suicidal. Shoring both Atlantic and Pacific oceans 
this offers three advantages. A natural defense, big advantage for commerce and 
opportunity for power projection. China’s position is more complicated, it has 
powerful neighbors like Japan, India or Russia. Plus, Taiwan and Japan are a stone in 
their way regarding its ability to project power. 
 
Weaknesses 
‘’Americans must understand that our strength abroad will depend increasingly on 
our ability to confront problems at home.’’8 
Huge problems at home, that if not addressed might precipitate US’ downfall. Namely 
its increasing national debt, flawed financial system, widening social inequalities, its 
decaying infrastructure and ultimately public ignorance. American public ignorance 
makes fertile terrain for demagogues who look to pursue their interest or party 
affiliation (left vs right), rather than the national interest. The political polarization is 
a serious issue for US today. 
 
Conclusion 
We concluded that there is the possibility of the emergence of the so called 
illiberal powers in the future. The possibility of these to challenge the actual global 
order spearheaded by US is also present. Que question is whether the US are able to 
accommodate these powers into a peaceful global framework or not. Conflict is 
always present but if the West needs to play its cards right in order to appease these 
powers and to concede to their demands, if needed. 
We’ve seen also that there is a power shift from West to Asia. US should seek 
an active role in moderating and promoting stability in the region and deter any 
possible disputes principally between a rising China and an increasingly militaristic 
Japan. Instead of conflict, which neither side prefers, a stable economic and political 
cooperation might emerge between China and US, as long as neither engage in 
excessive rhetoric, in the field of human rights and democracy for US and post-
imperialist traumas from China. America could play a constructive role in restraint 
 
8 Brzezinski,Z (2010). Strategic Vision: America And The Crisis Of Global Power 
 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 10 
 
between key players, in order to avoid any costly conflict to protect its allies like South 
Korea or Japan, through a political, economic and diplomatic support for a balance 
of power. The presence of such mediator might even be desired, as its absence could 
turn the things for the worse. Not even a rising China would want that, and most 
certainly neither Japan or South Korea. China profited greatly from the current global 
order, probably not even seeking any conflict, for now at least, but Thucydides’ trap 
should be avoided. In the last 500 years, 12 of 16 past cases in which a 
rising power has confronted a ruling power, the result has been bloodshed. But that 
hardly applies to the world of today, in which power is so diffuse that we aren’t 
walking towards a multipolar world but a non-polar world. As Richard Haas points 
out: 
‘’ States are being challenged from above, by regional and global organizations; from 
below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety of nongovernmental organizations 
(NGOs) and corporations. Power is now found in many hands and in many places.’’9 
 
With the absence of poles of power and a hierarchical order, it is expected for the 
world to turn into a chaotic one. In such a world, the cooperation between states is 
imperative, and USA and China could find a common ground and maybe even update 
the current World Order. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 Haas, R. (2008). The Age of Nonpolarity. Foreign Affairs; 
THE CHALLENGE OF THE REVISIONIST POWERS? 11 
 
 
 
Bibliography: 
 
Gat,A. (2007). The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers. Foreign Affairs; 
Mead,W. (2014). The Return of Geopolitics. Foreign Affairs; 
Brzezinski,Z (2010). Strategic Vision: America And The Crisis Of Global Power; 
Friedman,G (2010). The Next 100 Years; 
Haas, R. (2008). The Age of Nonpolarity. Foreign Affairs; 
Halford J. Mackinder, “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace,” Foreign 
Affairs, Vol. 21. 
https://monthlyreview.org/2017/01/01/one-belt-one-road/