posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:44 AM
I don't agree. Even though I am not American, I firmly believe that the next 100 years still belong to America. PNAC is one reason.
China is geographically too isolated to expand physically, it is hemmed in by mountain ranges that it can not expand through. Also, the United States
and the Western Powers still rule the worlds oceans through their naval power, GFC aside, this is not likely to end any time soon.
Finally, to quote George Friedman, whom I agree with.
"Third, there is a deeper reason for not worrying about China. China is inherently unstable. Whenever it opens its borders to the outside world, the
coastal region becomes prosperous, but the vast majority of Chinese in the interior remain impoverished. This leads to tension, conflict, and
instability. It also leads to economic decisions made for political reasons, resulting in inefficiency and corruption. This is not the first time that
China has opened itself to foreign trade, and it will not be the last time that it becomes unstable as a result. Nor will it be the last time that a
figure like Mao emerges to close the country off from the outside, equalize the wealth—or poverty—and begin the cycle anew. There are some who
believe that the trends of the last thirty years will continue indefinitely. I believe the Chinese cycle will move to its next and inevitable phase in
the coming decade. Far from being a challenger, China is a country the United States will be trying to bolster and hold together as a counterweight to
the Russians. Current Chinese economic dynamism does not translate into long-term success."
He also goes on to talk about what he believes will be the new emerging powers, as well as a revival of Russian strength, not anywhere near enough to
challenge the supremacy of the US however.
"In the middle of the century, other powers will emerge, countries that aren't thought of as great powers today, but that I expect will become more
powerful and assertive over the next few decades. Three stand out in particular. The first is Japan. It's the second- largest economy in the world
and the most vulnerable, being highly dependent on the importation of raw materials, since it has almost none of its own. With a history of
militarism, Japan will not remain the marginal pacifistic power it has been. It cannot. Its own deep population problems and abhorrence of large-
scale immigration will force it to look for new workers in other countries. Japan's vulnerabilities, which I've written about in the past and which
the Japanese have managed better than I've expected up until this point, in the end will force a shift in policy.
Then there is Turkey, currently the seventeenth-largest economy in the world. Historically, when a major Islamic empire has emerged, it has been
dominated by the Turks. The Ottomans collapsed at the end of World War I, leaving modern Turkey in its wake. But Turkey is a stable platform in the
midst of chaos. The Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Arab world to the south are all unstable. As Turkey's power grows—and its economy and military
are already the most powerful in the region—so will Turkish influence.
Finally there is Poland. Poland hasn't been a great power since the sixteenth century. But it once was—and, I think, will be again. Two factors
make this possible. First will be the decline of Germany. Its economy is large and still growing, but it has lost the dynamism it has had for two
centuries. In addition, its population is going to fall dramatically in the next fifty years, further undermining its economic power. Second, as the
Russians press on the Poles from the east, the Germans won't have an appetite for a third war with Russia. The United States, however, will back
Poland, providing it with massive economic and technical support. Wars—when your country isn't destroyed—stimulate economic growth, and Poland
will become the leading power in a coalition of states facing the Russians."