America in a Multipolar World 2030 Terry Terriff Department of Political Science

1. America in a Multipolar World 2030 Terry Terriff Department of Political Science University of Calgary tterriff@ucalgary.ca

2. Main Trends • Continued growth of Asian economies ie. China, India and Japan • Continued growth of other second tier economies – ie. Russia and Brazil • Continued growth of US and Europe but at a much slower rate.

3. Main Trends 2 • Continued population growth in developing and underdeveloped world Global urbanization and youth bulge • Increase in numbers of non-state actors Sub-state actors – tribes, clans, criminal organizations, social organizations Trans-state actors – non-governmental organizations and groups • Continued environmental decline Pressure on water, food, energy resources

4. World 2030 • Global order more multipolar in character US remains single most powerful state but will be less dominant First tierChina, India, Japan, Europe Second tier that remain comparatively successful Brazil and Russia • Global order more bifurcated Non-state actors exert even more influence • Zones of Instability

5. Zones of Instability

6. Financial Crisis 2008 • Economic earthquake Shocks still reverberating around the globe • Long term impact uncertain US hit hardest? Europe, China, India, Russia also affected How severe? What long term consequences? Emerging and underdeveloped economies Severely undermined with long term consequences?

7. Financial Crisis 2008 2 • Unprecedented velocity of impact Essentially global in 3 plus months • Demonstrates deep interconnected character of global economy Economies rise and fall within US-led international liberal trade order • Very likely will have political – strategic implications

8. Unanswered Questions • Can others rise economically if the US does not rise or not rise as fast? • How quick will America recover? Historically economically resilient Core of current US economy is the American middle class consumer Is the US middle class consumer a thing of the past? If so, who replaces them? Who replaces the American economy?

9. Unanswered Questions 2 • Impact on other major economies? Europe, Japan China, India, Russia, Brazil • What are impacts beyond the large & medium economies? Emerging and underdeveloped economies Recent gains lost and even reversed? More weak states or failed states? More Turmoil? Increase of authoritarian governments? Regime survival or regime resource capture

10. Implications (?) • Economies that weather best, emerge faster, serve as possible exemplar for emerging economies? • Western model of economic liberalism, democracy, and secularism, for example, may lose its luster—at least in the medium term? Alternatives? Authoritarian capitalism (ie China or Russian model)?

11. Implications (?) 2 • Repeated system perturbations? • Strategic adjustments by major powers? • Increased political turmoil and conflict? Primarily in developing and underdeveloped states

12. Example 1 – China • Starting to suffer company failures, rising unemployment Possible deflation (?) • Rising number of popular demonstrations So far small and diffuse but…. • CCP increasingly nervous (professional paranoids) • End of China Economic Model?

13. Example 1 – China (2) • Unable to sustain sufficient economic growth to placate population and central control erodes (and collapses?) due to internal pressures (democracy or state failure?) • Survives downturn, returns to slower growth and remains stable – slow liberalization continues with China a more liberal but still authoritarian capitalist system • Survives downturn and liberalizes towards democracy

14. Example 2 - Russia • Will it continue to rely mostly on petroleum exports rising in price? (and other strategic natural resources) • Will it restructure its economy? • In both cases, what is internal impact and consequence for legitimacy of the regime? More authoritarian or more liberal? • Will it become more marginalized internationally? And hence more nationalistic (and so belligerent?)

15. Example 3 - America Domestic Impact of President Obama • Progressive domestic agenda • Financial crisis equals domestic policy opportunity • Can he restructure American economy?

16. Example 3 – America (2) Foreign Policy Impact of President Obama • US still most influential ‘single’ state Economically, militarily, and politically • Obamastresses diplomacy over military force (but has indicated would use military force) • Three guiding principles: - US can’t do everything by itself; - US must get its allies to assume the burden militarily; - International security problems require the US to use non-military assets.

17. Geo-Economics • US still single largest economy • Europe (EU) likely as strong economically as the US? • Continued shift in Economic Power from West (Europe and North America) to East Asia- South Asia region Accelerated shift due to current financial crisis?

18. Geo-Economics 2 • China, India more integrated into global economic system • Growing economies expect (and receive?) greater influence in international financial institutions ie World Bank, IMF, World Trade Org • Increased ability to shape global trading order?

19. Geo-Economics 3 • Denser trade ties between main trade blocs • Increased trade ties between trade blocs and second tier economies • Increased trade ties between trade bloc and emerging and developing states

20. Europe’s Trade Flows 2000

21. US’ Trade Flow 2000

22. Japan’s Trade Flow 2000

23. China’s Trade Flow 2000

24. American Foreign Policy 2030 Main Influences • Changing distribution of power • Political – Strategic Culture • Domestic Politics

25. Changing Balance of Power US not as dominant, but still strongest power First Tier - Europe, China, India Strong economic capacity, limited to moderate power projection capability Second Tier – Russia, Brazil Moderate economic capacity, very limited to no power projection capability

26. American Political Culture • ‘American creed’ Classical liberalism Individual freedom, equality of rights, majority rule, progress, enterprise, the rule of law, and strict limits on the state.

27. American Strategic Culture • Assumes progress in international affairs • Assumes democratic governments are inherently less warlike than authoritarian ones; democracy encourages trade; and trade encourages peace • Assumes it is morally and politically distinct from, and superior to, the Old World • Assumes it has a special mission or destiny in world affairs (Obama’s acceptance speech)

28. American Liberal Internationalism Promotion of a more liberal international order, broadly speaking, has always been a central goal of American grand strategy. • Two main approaches Messianic – actively promote democracy and freedom abroad, at the extreme by force if necessary Exemplar (City on the Hill) – promote democracy and freedom by example

29. American Isolationism • Limited Liability a culturally shaped preference for avoiding costs and commitments in grand strategy, to an extent that is actually inconsistent with stated and established international goals. - preference for non-entanglement - the pursuit of foreign policy aims by disproportionately limited means

30. Domestic Politics • President needs to build domestic coalitions Congress • Domestic politics Impact of public opinion, economic well being More economically strong America is, more expansive is its foreign policy capacity and actions • Injects anomalies and inconsistencies into foreign policy (effectiveness?)

31. Historical US Strategic Patterns • US foreign policy always interested in spreading democracy - what differs is emphasis and means used. Mix of messianic and exemplar approaches • US foreign policy fluctuates between variable mix of balance of power and liberal internationalism • US foreign policy oscillates in terms of degree of international engagement

32. Implications for 2030 • See itself still as ‘the’ international leader • Will seek to sustain its economic and power advantage (as long as it has means to do so) • Will continue to try to shape/create liberal international order (democracy promotion) • Will seek ‘détente-like’ relations with major non-democratic states but on its terms • Want allies to share more of the burden • Engagement will be inconsistent

33. Major Power Relations • Largely cooperation with Europe and India Forces for good – shared values • Mixture of cooperation and competition between US and China Economic ties but incompatible values • Largely competition (and conflict?) with Russia Mainly European regional problem? (limited liability) Possible international containment?

34. Limited Spheres of Influence? • US - most if not all L America (those that democratic, more or less) Competition with Brazil? (if yes, minor) • Europe - Europe and near environs (ie Saharan Africa?) • India - South Asia (regional power) • Russia - the ‘Near abroad’ • China - East Asia (potential to detach partially or wholly democratic capitalist states – S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia?).

35. Major Power Conflict? • Major power war unthinkable Major powers are nuclear weapons states • But major power war not impossible! Amorphous nature of limited spheres of interest East Asia, Middle East • Major power economic warfare? Economic disruption via unconventional means

36. Global Competition for Influence • US, Europe, China Most significant global economic ties • Japan, India – next tier of global ties • Competition for markets Between and amongst trade blocs • Competition in zones of instability

37. Competition in Zones of Instability

38. US and China Trade Flows

39. Africa and South America Trade Flows

40. Zones of Instability

41. Competition in Zones of Instability • Competition for influence to ensure access to natural resources. • Competition mainly through soft power Foreign and military aid, trade, etc • Possible conflicts of influence or specific interests Competition conducted through unconventional means? Competition conducted through covert or overt support for state and non-state proxies? Competition through military engagement?

42. US - Managing Disorder • American cultural impulse to lead Who else will step up? Europe? China? UN? • Global interests, global responsibilities? • Act to secure interests and to promote liberal international order (democracy) What balance between two?

43. Main Areas of Disorder • Middle East Energy security Counterterrorism, nation building • Central Eurasia Pakistan – counterterrorism, nation-building (?) Energy security • Africa Selected engagement Security – counterterrorism, energy, minerals Humanitarianism, nation building

44. How US Will Manage Disorder? • America will act through international institutions when it can ie UN, NATO, EU, AU, ASEAN, others American Limited Liability Want others to carry much or most of the burden Particularly when no or limited US interests involved

45. How US Will Manage Disorder? 2 • Will act alone or with coalitions of willing if it must When interests involved For humanitarian reasons/nation building When institutions unwilling or unable to act Limited liability will result in efforts to convince others to take on burden after the fact ie., Europe, India, or international institutions

46. Implications for 2030 reprised • Will seek to be ‘the’ international leader • Will seek to sustain its economic and power advantage (as long as it has means to do so) • Will continue to try to shape/create liberal international order (democracy promotion) • Will seek ‘détente-like’ relations with major non-democratic states but on its terms • Will press for more burden sharing by allies • Engagement will be inconsistent

47. Questions?