Lee Jong-eun is a Assistant Professor of Political Science at North Greenville University.
Neither pessimism nor optimism: Avoiding premature obituaries in international politics
Lee Jong-eun
By Lee Jong-eun
Will America decline as a superpower? Will China collapse from economic implosion? Will Russia take over Europe? Observers of international politics are frequently bombarded with predictions about the future. Some forecasts are optimistic, envisioning the demise of an adversarial regime or ideology. Others are “doomsday predictions” concerning their own country or preferred international system.
International analyses do offer valuable insights into the challenges faced by different countries and political systems, as well as the trajectory of global geopolitical trends. For example, George Kennan’s analysis of the structural weaknesses of the Soviet Union proved relevant in predicting the rise and fall of the communist bloc during the Cold War. However, the risk of miscalculation increases when such predictions are viewed as definitive and permanent.
A country may decline due to strategic mistakes or shifting geopolitical circumstances — but to what extent? A total collapse like that of the Soviet Union? Impoverished yet resilient endurance like North Korea? A managed decline, as seen with former European powers? The term “decline” encompasses a wide variation, including outcomes where a defeated power still retains significant international leverage.
The cliché “there’s no permanent winner or loser” is also true in international politics. Some analysts predicted the decline of the United States following the Vietnam War. Others predicted that Japan would surpass the U.S. economically in the 1980s. Yet the United States emerged victorious from the Cold War and achieved the peak of “Pax Americana” in the 1990s. Russia and China have experienced drastic fluctuations in their geopolitical status in the past century, from revolutions to superpower status. Finally, international advocates of liberal democracy are discovering that multiple countries that saw post-Cold War democratization are encountering counter waves of illiberal populism and authoritarianism.
Three factors call for caution when making definitive predictions about the geopolitical future, especially regarding "winners" and "losers." The first is the idea that “you win because others lose.” A specific country or an international system may have strategic weaknesses that could result in its decline. However, their adversaries, be they a country or system, may face even greater geopolitical adversity or commit more severe strategic blunders, allowing the former to maintain a relative advantage in the geostrategic competition. The common analogy of “rising vs declining powers” may then be misleading in situations of “declining” vs “more declining” powers.
The second factor is the country’s motivation for self-survival. If the stronger international actor makes self-inflicted strategic mistakes, a weaker actor can take action to prolong its survival. Although not always successful, a country may tactically adapt to changing geopolitical circumstances or pursue bold initiatives to overcome its strategic disadvantages. As demonstrated by countries such as North Korea and China, such efforts can increase the likelihood of regime or system endurance, even as similar regimes elsewhere collapse.
The third factor is the swinging of the geopolitical pendulum. Current trends that favor a particular country or political system may eventually shift in the opposite direction. The development of new technologies or the discovery of new resources can provide opportunities to countries previously at a geostrategic disadvantage. A country’s reliance on certain strategic advantages, such as an alliance with a superpower, may turn into strategic vulnerabilities with changes in the latter’s strategies or capabilities. While these geopolitical changes may happen incrementally over a long time, the technological advances of contemporary global society have increased the possibility of sudden transformation. Subsequently, geopolitical “obituaries” may be premature: today’s perceived losers may find renewed opportunities for resurgence within a relatively short span.
Today, pessimistic predictions about the collapse of the U.S.-led liberal international order are increasingly prevalent. With the United States shifting its strategy toward economic protectionism, international trade may suffer severe setbacks. Countries that have relied on security alliances with the U.S. may face abandonment and eventually fall to the geopolitical domination of regional powers such as China and Russia. Internationally isolated and domestically divided, the U.S. may face irreversible decline as a world power.
The uncertain geopolitical future provides both grim and reassuring observations as geopolitical changes unfold with many potential outcomes. First, though the United States’ strategic weaknesses and policy mistakes may provide geopolitical opportunities for rival powers, how well they utilize such opportunities is not definitive. They may squander the moment, become distracted by internal or external challenges or overreach, committing their own strategic blunders. Second, the United States’ determination to survive should not be discounted. Strategic setbacks may prompt course corrections in U.S. foreign policy, as seen in its eventual entry into two world wars and strategic exploitation of the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War. While past and present mistakes may have long-term consequences, future U.S. responses will determine the extent of its decline and prospects for rebound.
Finally, other countries’ survival and success should also be considered. The decline of U.S. global leadership poses significant challenges for many countries, especially active participants in the current liberal international order. Such crises, however, may motivate these countries to implement alternative strategies for survival.
Geopolitical setbacks and declines, even if not permanent, may still bring suffering for affected countries and their citizens. The warnings they provide should be viewed with prudent consideration and incentivize vigilance for improvement in global policymaking.
At the same time, short of an apocalyptic event threatening the very existence of human civilization, policymakers should adopt a more flexible approach, recognizing the swings of the geopolitical pendulum. “As the moon wanes, it waxes again.” Preparing for geopolitical setbacks and rebounds can mitigate the effects of the pendulum’s arc.
Lee Jong-eun is an assistant professor of political science at North Greenville University.