Although Henry Luce called the 20th Century the American Century back in the '40s, my dilettantish recollection of history places the actual ascension to world power at around 1865, when Prussian military observers realised that the North's industrial military strategy had geo-political implications. America has certainly had a good run, but a lot of writers and commentators have called an end to it. There's even a neo-conservative movement for a new American century, although it seems clear they have absolutely no idea what made America predominant to date. Sigh.
At any rate, this post is about who will own the next century. And by own, I mean be the iconic image, the driving force, the society that will shape events to meet its own goals, the dominant power.
There are almost 300 countries on the modern map, so to pursue this topic it is helpful to exclude societies that, for one reason or another, have disqualified themselves from playing the game, so we can then focus on the remaining societies. So, for demographic reasons we start off by eliminating countries that are too small to actually dominate, such as Norway (which seems a pity--they're doing so much so well), but also Russia and Japan. Countries with declining populations will not dominate this century (perhaps the following one). I think realistically we end up with a list of usual suspects plus the BRICs. I think China will self-exclude due to a severe implosion, probably not too far in the future (in fact, it will be within the 5-year horizon of this weblog and I'll discuss it in another post), and we just tossed Russia for the unforgiveable sin of being in decline during a discussion of ascension. So, on the back of my envelope are the following countries:
- France
- Brazil
- India
- UK
- USA
I include France and the UK because, in addition to being powerful developed economies, they also have relationships stemming from prior empires that could theoretically be useful should they decide to get back in the game and strive for dominance. In fact, it would not be too difficult to convince me that France never left the game, but has been keeping a low profile while it rebuilt after the two world wars.
I will exclude India for reasons to do with geography and demographic composition--being surrounded by Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, having regional conflicts and disparities within the country, these will prove too much of a challenge for India. In addition, like China, they are growing their education and research capabilities only at the same pace as domestic GDP, which means that their technology base will be overly occupied with getting their infrastructure up to snuff, and not occupied enough with the needs of the future.
I will exclude the UK because I do not believe they want to play the game. So, we are left with France, Brazil and the United States.
France and Brazil have the enviable status of energy independent nations, with the edge to France being that nuclear energy requires technology growth, satisfies green concerns (well, some of them), and translates quickly into military capability. Brazil counters with the ability to export both oil and ethanol. Demographics gives a clear edge to Brazil, young and hungry, inventive and ambitious. And France loses primarily because its treatment of the DomToms has been callous enough that they cannot rally their former colonies to actively support French initiatives.
So we're back in the New World. Brazil has been derisorily labelled as the "country of the future--and always will be." But eventually that translates into the present. And America is the hegemon, wounded after a decade of mismanagement and wasteful, almost extravagant misuse of resources, but still the most powerful political entity that has ever existed. Brazil is very much where America was in 1865, and if they rise to dominance it won't exactly surprise me, and probably won't shock other commentators--it's pretty much a vanilla choice, the triumph of conventional wisdom.
But, after a decade in Italy and the UK, looking at America with what I hope are clear eyes, I think the next century will belong to America--even more so than the past 140 years. And I believe so because I think that America is best positioned to respond to the major challenges of this century, which fall conveniently under the headings addressed by the title of this weblog.
Political--America has the oldest representative political system in the world, a huge advantage in terms of allocation of social resources. It doesn't need to invent or reinvent representation, and it has substantial internal legitimacy (perhaps never as much as now, after Obama's election).
Economic--America is the largest economy in the world, and the richest of the populous nations. They can get it wrong a hundred times (as they may well do with their response to the recession) and still be a mile ahead of countries like Brazil. If Brazil makes one strategic mistake they fall by the wayside for decades.
Social--America is growing in population, has high levels of education, literacy, labor mobility, and may soon reach Brazil's level of tolerance for each other.
Technology--this is the key. The key technologies for the 21st Century will be genetics, nanotechnology and robotics. Although America only leads in nano right now, it is easily a close second in the other two. Although Brazil is working in these areas and their leading lights are on a par with the best in other countries, they don't have the depth of field to sustain growth at the same level.
Legal--Another key advantage for America. Although they are no more honest than Brazilians, America's legal system is better at dealing with corruption and organised crime, which are the key issues for development and dominance.
Environment--Both are large countries with abundant natural resources, and are large exporters of these resources. Both face challenges in conservation and husbandry, but both are devoting time and energy to that right now, which should serve them well in future.
So, on the whole, I think this century will belong once again to the Yanks, for good or ill. Not surprising that a Yank should pick his own country, and in a formal Pestle analysis there would be a counterparty picking holes in my analysis. But that's why we have a comments section here...