Ian Bremmer speaks with The Diplomat about a “G-Zero World,” China’s rise and why no single nation can fill the global power vacuum.
In your latest book Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, in many respects what you describe is a massive global power vacuum with no nation able to fill it. What do you mean by a G-Zero World? And in the Asia-Pacific, what does this mean for China?
A G-Zero World is one in which no single power or alliance of powers is willing and able to provide consistent global leadership. Not the United States or Europe. Not an emerging power like China or a bloc of emerging powers. Not the G-8 or the G-20. Each of these countries is preoccupied with challenges and risks at home, and each of these institutions produces a less coherent agenda as a result.
That said, though the United States, still the world’s most powerful country by far, will have to do more with less, bolstering the U.S. presence in Asia has become the top U.S. foreign policy priority. This will continue to be the case no matter who wins the presidential election in November. The motive is two-fold. First, Washington wants to use the fear that China’s rise generates among its neighbors to improve existing security ties with current allies (like Japan and South Korea) and to build partnerships with new ones (like India and Indonesia). Second, the U.S. hopes to profit from a broader and deeper commercial presence in the region that is most likely to provide the global economy with most of its dynamism over the next several years. Washington’s push to join and broaden the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement designed to liberalize the economies of members on both sides of the Pacific, is evidence of this trend. Negotiations over this pact don’t include China.
For the moment, the U.S. strategy in Asia isn’t to contain China, but merely to hedge against its growing political and economic clout. That could change, however, if U.S.-Chinese relations worsen significantly.
In a G-Zero World, will America be able to “pivot” to the Pacific with presumably less resources and available military power than in years past? Can the U.S. be successful in implementing its new strategy?
There are no guarantees that this strategy will work. On the one hand, America’s military power remains undiminished. The United States still spends as much on its military as the next 17 largest military spenders combined, and this hard power advantage won’t disappear anytime soon. But a number of Asian countries may find over time that if relations between the global superpower and the regional heavyweight sharply deteriorate, it will become increasingly difficult for them to maintain strong security ties with America while continuing to expand trade ties with China. They are more likely to be forced into taking sides.
The pivot will work more effectively if the United States is able to deepen its economic ties to the region. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a priority idea, but without the participation of heavyweights like Japan and Canada, it won’t provide the U.S. with many advantages it doesn’t already have. And it will take time to develop even if it is eventually a boost for trade flows. The U.S. can also coordinate with like-minded Asian governments on developing defenses against cyber-attack, on monetary policy, counter-terrorism, and technology development, etc.
What would you say are the main factors that have given rise to a G-Zero World? America’s damaged balance sheet from the global financial crisis? Twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The rise of other powers such as China?
There are two major factors. First, there are the various problems and anxieties which have forced U.S. and European policymakers to downsize the ambitions that animate their foreign policies. An America divided over government spending and entitlement reforms coupled with a Europe that is deeply entangled in a multiyear bid to save the Eurozone creates an era in which elected officials in the world’s most powerful countries cannot afford to commit the time, energy and cash needed to try to export their political values and to put out fires in faraway lands. Second, there’s the “rise of the different,” the emergence in international politics of powerful new players who, unlike Cold War U.S. allies like West Germany and Japan, don’t share America’s political values and don’t accept U.S. leadership or U.S.-inspired rules of the road for international governance. Countries like China, Russia, India, Gulf Arab states and others lack the power to set an international agenda, but they are more than wealthy/powerful enough to obstruct U.S. plans.
In the cases of Bo Xilai and Chen Guangcheng, social media played a major role in transmitting information globally as well as expressing the viewpoints of Chinese citizens. The Arab Spring movement in many nations was spurred on by social media such as Twitter and Facebook. You are also very active on social media. In a G-Zero World, what role will social media play?
Before we get to 21st century social media, let’s remember that one of the most important drivers of the Arab Spring was good old-fashioned Al-Jazeera. That’s where the wave began. Before Facebook and Twitter, the domain mainly of the young, an Al-Jazeera reporter uncovered the terrible story of Mohammad Bouazizi, the Tunisian vegetable vendor whose act of despair ignited so much public anger. His plight reached satellite dishes across the region. Then came the new technology.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Frankie Fook-lun Leung
Leon Panetta gave a speech in Singapore saying that 60% of the US Naval fleet will be in the Pacific. Are they going there for fishing? Would his speech not be interpreted by the Chinese that USA is trying to containing China’s expansion? Writings are more than on the wall, they are on your forehead, using the Chinese expression of bluntness.
nirvana
@Frankie Fook-lun Leung,
I don’t know what you tried to imply. I believe you read Chinese. Just to mention the People’s Daily: “(China) does not need to exercise patience anymore”, “(China) has to prepare for any provocative military action.”
But I can tell you there won’t be any “provocative” actions from ASEAN. There wasn’t any when China transforms a pretended fishermen shelter into a military outpost (Mischief Reef), when China cut Vietnam’s seismic cable (140 miles off Vietnam coast), when China blocked law enforcement against poaching (120 miles off Philipiines coast), when China illegally imposes a unilateral fishing moratorium over a vast sea area (12° North Parallel), when China sends its large fishing fleet South of the 12° parallel during China’s annual ban, when China continues to refuse arbitration of the SCS islands sovereignty issues by International Courts of Justice.
Time is indeed not on the China’s side (or rather the CCP’s). Understandably, China’s (or rather the CCP’s) patience has run out. China arguments about its “undisputable” sovereignty is falling down one by one, before the World’s eyes. Limelight is beaming onto China’s lack of sincerity and clarity, day by day. And this is trickling back into China bloggosphere. Unsustainable defensive line indeed.
Frankie Fook-lun Leung
I am talking diplomacy and international relations, not pointing a finger at anyone. I read Chinese. I have written six books in Chinese and was a regular columnist in a financial newspaper in Hong Kong. China knows what the USA is doing. So does USA. When comes to diplomacy, honesty is not the best policy. Try to be analytical and not throwing mud at people. I am a lawyer by profession and we argue with rationality.
ACT
@Frankie Leung
no, you didn’t point your finger at anyone, but your post did have a sort of sense that you were excusing the actions that the PRC has taken recently that have been committed in defiance of international law and to the detriment of its neighbors. So, in a sense, nirvana is right.
Regardless, i have no doubt that some part of the US “pivot” to the pacific was indeed to reinforce against perceived PRC military expansion, but as many authors have noted, this has been something that has been planned for at least a decade, and is most likely a response to the increased unrest in the region (of which the PRC is a prominent source). It would be wrong, however, to say that this move is intended purely as an attempt to “contain” the PRC; even the word “contain” and the idea that the US is “trying to stop expansion” suggests that as far as the PRC goes, it has less than savory goals for the region where other nations are concerned.
comet
I know that you’re not pointing finger to anyone but you’re trying to tell is that we are saying negative things about to something or someone or enitity that we didn’t thought in rationalize and logical manner, in short baseless and merely smearing someone or something’s reputation because it does not goes along with your beliefs and opinions. For me china is trying to defy the existing laws, morality, and sense of justice that as if they can hold this world as a cup or goblet and smash it using their own bare hands( power).
John Chan
@comet,
There are serious fallacies in your arguments.
1. You said “they can hold this world as a cup or goblet and smash it using their own bare hands( power).” it is a pure conjecture and speculation; China has done nothing that you can use to support your conjecture and speculation. Based on the past of the predatory imperialist Westpac to predict what China would do in the future is insidious intent.
2. The current international framework is designed and set up by the imperialist Westpac to exploit the rest of the world for their greed and benefits. Bombing and killing non-stop in the name of installing democracy and caring human rights is not the laws and morality we want for a fair and just world.
“Existing laws, morality, and sense of justice” is the laws, morality and sense of Justice of a Kangaroo Court; rewriting them is to restart a new era of renaissance for a fair and just humanity.
nirvana
@Frankie Fook-lun Leung,
Sure, you are a lawyer. That is you are trained to defend whoever pays you well to do so, even the devil. That’s your job.
I maintain that your previous post was not clear. Either you ignored that China pretended to be “provoked” or you seemed to accuse the US of lack of straightforwardness (not saying that its re-balancing act is to counter China rise). Whichever of these interpretations, you would be wrong. If you have another rational explanation of what you wanted to imply, I would be interested to hear and I am ready to apologize for overlooking your rationality.
comet
I agree with you the world’s attention now is on china’s agressive behavior that I can say it is a passive form of provaction china is not directly attack those fishermen, coastguards, or any person or property within our territory as provided by laws and multitudes of treaties but the way their behaviour they exert to nearby countries as you explained is a kind of provaction in passive form. The world now intrigued if china has an induspitable sovereignty or not that china must not overlooked this factor that may cause their downfall in the end.
John Chan
@comet,
Philippines has more than 7000 islands it cannot manage properly; with insurgency all over the places, more than 60% of the population living in poverty under $2 a day, law and order is rare commodity instead of the norm, and a kleptocracy government in Manila; instead of caring of its people, the hippie president is overlooking his appalling domestic problems to start an arm race against China by encroaching a China’s shoal in the SCS. These are the facts guaranteeing the downfall of the Philippines in the end.
comet
@john chan
Yes indeed that the Philippines has 7000+ islands making it to be an archipelago I admit the Philippines lacking security of these islands because there is no sufficient fund and resources to provide but this is not reason why China wlii just claim of these islands(SCS) because Philippines is weak. That is reason why China took advantage to expand its territory to these areas because it is said to be rich in oil and precious deposits plus this territory is under Philippines but weak in military terms so ti bacame favorable on China’s part.
nirvana
Whether the US can continue to assume the “global leadership”, for the best or the worst, is no longer a question.
What is interesting is that a lot of Chinese, many blogging extensively here, have concluded precipitously and arrogantly: “it’s our turn”. Then they feel frustrated when not many countries, including their closest neighbors, including their largest trading partners, including their previous allies, including countries in their “sphere”, including their “renegade region”, are supportive of the idea of the PRC-led China taking over the US leadership. Not even as a faint regional leader, not even with a promise of “peaceful rise”. Why can’t China ever be a global leader? I think because it is cultural. Because most Chinese can not get rid of the egoistic and chauvinistic thinking they have been taught, for centuries. Just listen Yang Jiechi, just listen to CCTV, just read the Global Times.
The US succeeded because it didn’t think egoistically, when it sent troops to the rescue of Europe, when it sends the Flying Tigers giving a helping hand to the ROC, etc… It is also because most Americans have overcome the racism inclination that is natively in all of us, until we meet and interact with other cultures.
Even with the inevitable (and normal) decline of the US economical influence, despite the regretful mistakes made in recent wars, still it is and will be still the nation, the people, the system, that produced previous “freedom fighters” that acted with such nobility, that other peoples are putting their hope, when they are challenged by threats of war, by barbarity and by lawlessness, in the new G0 World.
nirvana
TYPOS:
“when it SENT the Flying Tigers”
“still it is and will be IN the nation, IN the people, IN the system, that produced…”.
“G-Zero World”
scdad07
US military budget – exceeds the next 17 countries combined.
Baggages:
1) Afghan war still exceeds US$100B per year;
2) Iraq/Afghan total war expense, including Vet costs in coming decade, ranges $3-5 Trillion and only $1T so far ‘recorded’ on the book;
3) Pakistan and Russia are choking the supply and withdrawal efforts by NATO/US, making the 1/2 above even more expensive if only $ can solve the problem;
4) Defense industry profit soars -> billion $ toilet is healthy?;
5) Parsing the % of spending between ‘human’ and ‘hardware’ costs, one gets where the beef is;
Take Philippine for example – Will US give $$$ to Philippines or vice versa for protection?
scdad07
Military $$$ – Is there a consensus out on PPP?
Frankie Fook-lun Leung
The paradox is that the USA is a super-power and she spends trillions and over ten years to fight a war in a small country Afghanistan. The result has been disastrous. What does that tell the American people. I am one of them.
John Chan
In the USA, the 1% has the exclusive jurisdiction on public policies.
The general public, referred as the “bewildered herd,” are to be only “spectators of action,” not “participants,” they are permitted to ratify the decisions of their betters and to lend their support to one or another of them but not to interfere with matters of the 1%’s exclusive jurisdiction, that are none of their business.
The “bewildered herd,” are supposed to follow orders and keep out of the way of the 1%. Their overriding concern is “American Dream,” i.e. greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, and unnecessarily trouble themselves with what’s happening in the world.
Reason
At what does modern China do with its 5000 years of purported history, wisdom and culture?
Copy America Verbatim.
Everything you wrote may as well be about modern China x1000
nirvana
@Frankie Fook-lun Leung,
There are plenty of such paradoxes in history.
The fact is that the US army won the war in Afghanistan, swiftky and with high flying colors. But US politicians, starting with their “supreme commander”, arrogantly overlooked the stabilization and pacification efforts. Gradually, a legitimate war became a wrong war, then TWO wrong wars, if we include the unfortunate illegal Iraq invasion.
scdad07
“G-Zero World,” .. why no single nation can fill the global power vacuum.
67 years since end of WW2, from author’s viewpoint, and I interpret here as, that ‘the Empire on which the sun never sets’, bestowed to the Spanish (16-17th centuries) and British Empire (19-early 20th) and ‘metaphor of Empire has been transferred to refer to American power’, is OVER.
Accepting one’s limitation is ‘priceless’.
Michael
AGREED!!! No more liberating innocent men, women, and children of their flesh under the guise of freedom and democracy!
Anjaan
The article may be summarised as follows :
1. The US defense spending is more than the next 17 nations combined, which speaks a lot about the US intentions and capabilities. The aim is retain the capabilities to neutralize all the adversaries single handedly. However the combined capabilities of the NATO allies make it easier and simpler.
2. With weakening of the US economy coupled with Europe’s economic turmoil, their defence capabilities face serious challenge in the long term, with the back drop of the emergence of the “different kinds of powers” that do not share Western political values (read excuses to invade other countries), or US leadership (read hegemony).
3. The result of this is the realization that American defense capabilities, however powerful, ” Countries like China, Russia, India, Gulf Arab states and others lack the power to set an international agenda, but they are more than wealthy/powerful enough to obstruct U.S. plans.”
4. Therefore the current US strategy is (1) to prevent these “other type of powers” to unite, by driving wedge between these countries and (2) deeper economic and military engagement with countries like India and Indonesia, in order to make their economies dependent on the western economies, and therefore crippling their strategic choice at the time of any major conflict in the future.
The defence agreements demanded on the partners by the Americans, namely (a) Logistics sharing (b) communication interoperability of weapon platforms etc. are traps, specifically designed to achieve those objectives.
ACT
@Anjaan, Scdad07
i see that the both of you consider the US a terribly corrupting influence, one that deserves to be shamed militarily in a direct confrontation and cast most immediately into the dustbin of history.
let me provide a counterpoint: the measure of how a nation will act, generally, as a hegemon can be found in how it treats its own people. the record of the PRC is not promising. you also left out the point that many–but not all–nations in the region are asking for assistance against the PRC a nation which–within the bounds of of its “historical missions”–has the all but stated goal of re-establishing its own hegemony over the region, at what i can fairly say due to its history would be one of far less benefit to its neighbors than the current one.
Anjan
@ ACT,
1. You perhaps are right in your concluding statement that, ” due to its history China would be one of far less benefit to its neighbors than the current one.”
2. You also have a valid point when you say that “the measure of how a nation will act, generally, as a hegemon can be found in how it treats its own people.”
- but unfortunately that may not be the case because it is an universal truth that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (a) The world has seen how the Americans have treated others as a hegemon, starting from dropping nukes on unarmed civilians, to mass destruction in Vietnam, Combodia and Laos. b) The world is now witnessing how the US is treating its own people protesting at the Wall Street. Things is likely to get uglier in the years to come and will likely expose the ugly side of a power when prospertity diminishes.
a_canadian_observer
@Anjan: " but unfortunately that may not be the case because it is an universal truth that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (a) The world has seen how the Americans have treated others as a hegemon, starting from dropping nukes on unarmed civilians, to mass destruction in Vietnam, Combodia and Laos." — Wrong! The US did drop boms on VN, but not nukes as you implied. Also, the deaths caused by the communist block whose china and the USSR as the ring leaders was far more than US boms. Just research the Cambodia's Red Khmers to find out. china trained, supported and supplied them to exterminate 1/3 of Cambodia's population. Does the killing fields ring a bell to you?
" b) The world is now witnessing how the US is treating its own people protesting at the Wall Street. Things is likely to get uglier in the years to come and will likely expose the ugly side of a power when prospertity diminishes." — If there is such an incident like the Wall Street in china, people would have been run over with tanks already. Does Tiananmen square ring a bell to you?
scdad07
Taking the words of a moron: “Are you better off than you were four years ago”, Chinese people definitely are better off from 1980.
One out of 132 is in prison – that speaks a lot how a nation treats her people.
Innocent until proven guilty – damn that drone and Obama kill list. Hypocrite.
Nathan
@ACT “the measure of how a nation will act, generally, as a hegemon can be found in how it treats its own people”
LOL What does that say about the West and their Allies(the so called Good Guys) who export war, famine, revolution, pain, misery through their world? What does it say about American which preaches Freedom and yet has the worlds largest inmate population or that they talk of peace and yet accounts for over 1/2 the worlds military budget with 1000 bases in every direction??? LOL
ACT
@nathan
you know what i meant. don’t twist my words. regardless of the prison population, and regardless of its adventures abroad, the United States does not, by and large, imprison and execute its own people for political protest.
Avinash
the changing political and economic conditions have transformed the world from uni polar to multipolar world giving rise to different countries to emerge as powerful entity. each one has their own ideology and strategy. indeed US is still the most powerful country in this world but the emerging countries don’t accept its leadership now. The engagement of US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has detoriated its economic condition in the mean time the china also emerged as a challenge to it. but to counter the china’s influence in the Asia pacific region the countries situated in this region are keen to establish an alliance with the west. this has again given an opportunity to the us to develop and share new political, economical etc values. The United States good relations with the Asia-pacific countries and and the establishment of the military base on the Darwin island is no doubt initiative of its new political, economical policy. which will counter the rise of the china on the one hand and give a boost to its economical goals on the other.
Oro Invictus
Ah, I’m glad The Diplomat decided to interview Dr. Bremmer, I rather like his work; his sober analyses are a must-read for those interested in geopolitics, without any major nationalistic or overtly personal bias or the like and generally free from over-reaching esotericism. My only major issue with him is that he puts a far greater emphasis on the economic rather than the sociological when he examines matters of international affairs. This is not to say the two are completely separate entities, as virtually all modern economic principle derives from sociological basis, but he tends to focus on this particular extension of sociology to the detriment of examining all its various facets (environmental, physical, historical, etc.).