Is a Radical Geopolitical Realignment Happening Under Our Noses?

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Over the past few years I've read a number of articles about the coming demise of America's global supremacy. By way of contrast, about 10 years ago I read a book that argued that America would be the ruling global power for the next 100 years. (I believe it was called The Next 100 Years.) Having read a couple other books about the rapid decline of Great Britain and Western Europe in the first half of the last century, I am reluctant to make those kinds of assumptions. On Wall Street they say, "The Trend is your friend." Until it isn't.

Just out of curiosity I decided to ask ChatGPT what its thoughts were on this matter. I asked, "Is a radical geopolitical realignment underway that is hastening the demise of American global supremacy?"

ChatGPT began with its usual disclaimer. "As an AI language model, I cannot predict the future or provide a definite answer to this question. However, I can provide some insights based on the available information."

Here are the points this AI bot presented.

The international system is always in a state of flux, and it is not uncommon for countries to rise and fall in terms of global power and influence. There is no doubt that the global geopolitical landscape is undergoing significant changes, with emerging powers such as China and India, as well as resurgent powers such as Russia, challenging the traditional dominance of the United States in various ways.

Some experts argue that the current international system is undergoing a "power transition" or a "power shift," in which the relative power of various states is shifting. This shift is driven by a range of factors, including economic growth, military power, technological advancement, and changing patterns of global governance.

However, the extent to which these changes will lead to the "demise of American global supremacy" remains a subject of debate. While the United States faces significant challenges from rising powers, it continues to possess significant economic, military, and cultural power, as well as a powerful network of alliances and partnerships around the world. Additionally, the international system is highly complex, and it is difficult to predict how various factors will interact and shape the future.

In conclusion, while a radical geopolitical realignment is certainly underway, it is difficult to predict its ultimate impact on American global supremacy. The future will depend on a range of factors, including the actions and strategies of various states, as well as broader global trends and developments.

In 2003 Noam Chomsky published a book titled Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. U.S. hegemony refers to the United States' position as the dominant global power, with significant influence over the international system, including political, economic, and military spheres. Chomsky suggests that we have not achieved or maintained our leadership or dominance in an admirable way. Rather, it is maintained through a combination of coercion, persuasion, and consent.

In Hegemony or Survival Chomsky argues that the socio-economic elite who control the United States have pursued an "Imperial Grand Strategy" since the end of World War II to maintain global dominance. In doing so the US has repeatedly shown a total disregard for democracy and human rights, in stark contrast to the US government's professed support for those values. This policy has been responsible for a range of negative consequences, including increased global instability, the erosion of civil liberties, and the perpetuation of poverty and inequality around the world.

Chomsky lays out numerous examples, which make him a thorn in the side for those who look at our country through rose-colored glasses. Chomsky argues that the United States has pursued this policy of global dominance through a variety of means, including military force, economic coercion, and political manipulation. He also argues that the United States has been able to maintain its dominance through a system of propaganda and control of the media. 

The book also explores the roots of American foreign policy in historical events such as the Cold War and the Vietnam War, and examines the role of corporations and the military-industrial complex in shaping American foreign policy. 

Chomsky concludes that the pursuit of global dominance is not only morally wrong, but also counterproductive, as it creates more enemies and perpetuates the very problems it seeks to solve. He argues that a more cooperative and equitable approach to foreign policy is needed if the world is to address the urgent challenges it faces, including poverty, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

Getting back to the main question, is a radical geopolitical realignment happening? It is my opinion that the manner in which this country has dealt with the rest of the world has resulted in a loss of respect for the US. As a result, we have made many enemies, and (worse) many of our friends (allies) are weary of having to kowtow to our perpetual demands. If there were an alternative sandbox to play in, they'd leave us in an instant.

Though Pat Buchanan is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Chomsky, his 1998 book The Great Betrayal made a pointed observation regarding our role in the world. The full title is The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy. When I read this book two decades ago, one key message came through loud and clear. Empires rise and empires fall. And they can fall quickly.

If you know your history, the British Empire was the dominant force in global affairs for 300 years. For three centuries the ruled the high seas and thereby played a significant role in all things related to global commerce. As the 20th century unfolded, this would all change. In fifty years, Britain became a shadow of itself, a former empire gone bust.

Buchanan's book is a warning to American's that it can also happen here, and it can happen faster than you might imagine. 

It's ironic that US newspapers are printing stories about the International Criminal Court having an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes without mentioning that the same tribunal sought to have US leaders and the CIA arrested for war crimes in the Middle East. Neither Russia or China are part of the ICC, nor is the US.

As for the geopolitical realignment question, when I re-asked the question, ChatGPT's conclusion was yes, "a radical geopolitical realignment is underway which is hastening the demise of American global supremacy." 

Related Link

10 Examples Where the US Has Supported Leaders Who Violate Human Rights

It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding

If there was an internet back in Revolutionary War days, the following Daniel Boone tale would no doubt have been tagged a "rural legend." As the story goes, one day the famed Kentucky pioneer was hiking through a forest when he unexpectedly stepped on the tale of a rattlesnake. Simultaneously, a mother grizzly stood high over him and he noticed he'd come between the bear and her cubs. As if this weren't enough, beyond the cubs was a Native with fierce intentions placing an arrow into his bow.

More Hollywood than real life, but it's an apt illustration for the times we live in. Economic crises, global warming, unexplained infectious epidemics, food shortages, drug wars... and the ongoing conflicts in multiple locations throughout the known world signaling that 9/11 is not yet finished... We tune it out daily, primarily so we can enjoy our sports, entertainment and other diversions. It's hard to function when your heart is heavy so most of the time you cap it. Having responsibilities on the job helps distract us as well.

But like trying to hold a beach ball underwater, our global troubles occasionally slip out and surface again so that we're aware of the global interconnectedness of the world we live in. This week, it occurred in the form of riots in an uncertain number of countries. Purportedly these riots were a knee-jerk reaction to a film about Mohammed. Is it possible the film is but the occasion for this display of anti-Americanism that has been long seething beneath the surface due to American behavior abroad?

During World War II, as U.S. troops marched into town after driving out the Nazis in Northern Italy, the people rushed out to greet them, shouting "Bueno Americano!" The Americans at one time were heroes. My sense is that this is no longer so. One reason might be that when we visit other countries the only Americans they encounter are our drones.

A story in The Guardian states that in Pakistan alone there have been over 330 drone attacks with more than 3,000 civilian casualties. I doubt the people in Pakistan are shouting "Bueno Americano." Nor the people in Yemen or Somalia or Egypt. In a Tom Englehart column at LewRockwell.com yesterday it was pointed out that being militarily powerful is now America's great claim to fame. Currently we now produce nearly 80% of the world's arms, and have Delta and other incursion forces in as many as 120 countries worldwide.

I don't know where this is all going to lead, but it concerns me. I hear other people-in-the-know express their concerns and wonder how we can so willingly go on with our bread-and-circuses.

Then again, maybe the bread-and-circuses are good because we have no power to really change anything anyways. The power brokers decide and we live with the consequences. The Ugly American has cnme of age.

Shooting an Elephant

This post is a reprint from November 2008

“As for the job I was doing, I hated it more bitterly than I can perhaps make clear. In a job like that you see the dirty work of Empire at close quarters. The wretched prisoners huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the grey, cowed faces of the long-term convicts, the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos – all these oppressed me with an intolerable sense of guilt.” ~ George Orwell

The past few weeks I’ve been reading Simon Schama’s A History of Britain, Volume 3: The Fate of Empire 1776 – 2000. It has been quite fascinating. To some extent our nation’s history is inextricably bound to that of Britain, from conception to destiny, much like a child reflects its parent. While unique, we are still offspring.

It was once said “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” Indeed, at one time the power of Britain ruled the high seas and its territories spanned the globe. How long ago this was.

Schama’s book is a three part epic. I’ve only tackled Volume 3. The breaking away of the New World to form first the Colonies, then these United States, is but the beginning. The moral challenges, the dark justifications of maintaining power over unwilling subjects, the internal erosion of confidence in its own national mandate… so many fragments of this story resonate with aspects of our own national experience.

Descartes did not trust history as a basis for truth because no historical situation is identical. This does not mean, however, that nothing can be gained from studying history.

George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” is not only first rate writing, it is a deeply moving account of the problems Britain had to wrestle with while controlling foreign territories with strangely different peoples and cultures. It is Orwell’s first job away from home, a police officer in Burma. The story describes an incident that occurs during that period abroad as a young man. More than just what happens, the young Eric Blair (Orwell was his chosen pen name) reveals the personal angst he experiences.

The essay begins thus: “In Moulmein, in lower Burma, I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me.”

Essentially, there is an elephant that has broken loose and is causing trouble. The elephant’s owner, due to misinformation, is hours away and the damage has been escalating. Orwell, as a representative of the law, must deal with it.

“The Burmese sub-inspector and some Indian constables were waiting for me in the quarter where the elephant had been seen. It was a very poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts, thatched with palmleaf, winding all over a steep hillside,” Orwell writes. Anyone who has seen Third World squalor can picture the scene. Orwell is a stranger in a strange land.

It turns out the elephant now has killed a man. It’s a hideous sight for the young officer. Worse, it starts to become inevitable that he will have to do something about it. The following crowd has been growing, and there is an escalating anticipation.

“But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have. It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him. At that age I was not squeamish about killing animals, but I had never shot an elephant and never wanted to. (Somehow it always seems worse to kill a large animal.)”

As Orwell reveals his deepest motivations, we understand that on the pedestal of world opinion, it is not always "right" and "wisdom" that is the driving force behind nations' behaviors. Too often, they simply don't want to play the fool.

“For at that moment, with the crowd watching me, I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone. A white man mustn't be frightened in front of "natives"; and so, in general, he isn't frightened. The sole thought in my mind was that if anything went wrong those two thousand Burmans would see me pursued, caught, trampled on and reduced to a grinning corpse like that Indian up the hill. And if that happened it was quite probable that some of them would laugh. That would never do.”

These were the kinds of motivations that led to France invading Mexico during our American Civil War. And perhaps the real motivations behind the nations who engaged in that bitter, futile blood bath called World War I. Perhaps, to some extent, it was a driver for the Pentagon's escalation in Viet Nam. And what was that Somalia maneuver all about? And then, even if you win, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, what do we get? Orwell seems to be saying that you get forced into shooting elephants that you really don't want, or need, to shoot.