The international system is marked by shifts in power. Historically, the international power structure has cycled through a carousel of unipolarity, bipolarity, and multi-polarity, with some periods lasting longer than others. The current power reshuffle – marked by the declining power of the U.S. – foreshadows yet another transfer in power.
While the second half of the 20th century was characterized by the bipolar relationship between the United States and Russia, the 21st century has exhibited various geopolitical power shifts with the emergence of new actors that have challenged the status quo. According to Mearsheimer, a leading scholar in the field of offensive realism, as the United States attempts to maintain its hegemony in other regions worldwide, it has struggled to cope with the emergence of new actors and realignment of alliances. These power shifts were prompted by various factors such as societal changes, economic growth, technological advancements, changes in political leadership, and military developments. Furthermore, struggles within the United States, such as economic challenges, political polarization, and doubts about its role in international leadership, have allowed other powers to rise and assert themselves on the global stage.
Globalization has been a major driving factor for several decades through fostering greater economic, cultural, and political interconnectedness across national borders. However, this trend has declined in recent years, primarily due to geopolitical tensions and rivalries between major powers. As a result, this has contributed to a breakdown in global institutions and cooperation on issues such as trade, climate change, and security.
First, the rise of China as a global economic powerhouse has served as a prominent threat to the current status quo. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has expanded its economic influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe and challenged the traditional dominance of Western powers. Not only has this boosted China’s economic power, but it has also expanded its diplomatic influence, as seen in partnerships and investments historically dominated by Western powers. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is President Xi’s infrastructure project to link East Asia and Europe and has since expanded to include Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. In addition to physical infrastructure and expanding the international use of Chinese currency, China has also funded hundreds of special economic zones to create jobs and foster technological advances. So far, 147 countries have signed onto the project or indicated interest, which make up two-thirds of the world’s population and 40 percent of global GDP. However, the BRI has led to environmental concerns and concerns of a “debt trap” for developing countries due to its lack of transparency. Essentially, the BRI has led to increased Chinese economic and geopolitical influence globally, allowing China to leverage its economic power through forging ties with participating countries. This challenges the existing global order traditionally dominated by Western powers and promotes regional blocs centered around Chinese influence. Thus, this would contribute to increased competition between China and other global powers.
In response, Washington has remained skeptical but has not offered participating governments a more appealing offer. While the Obama administration proposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to advance U.S. strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific Region, President Trump withdrew from the deal on his first day of office and the new version of the pact, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), has progressed the same agenda without the United States involvement. Moreover, President Joe Biden asserted he does not support rejoining TPP but would renegotiate it to include stronger labor and environmental provisions. This poses questions about the United States’ role in shaping the world economy and its role in the Asia-Pacific Region.
In Europe, Russia has actively pursued its geopolitical interests through challenging Western dominance and expanding its sphere of influence. For instance, when Russian forces invaded Georgia in 2008, Moscow suffered few negative consequences and the Obama administration called for reconciliation with the Kremlin. Likewise, Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and was met only with international condemnation and U.S. economic sanctions. Additionally, Russia has insisted that NATO should renounce any further expansion of its membership and demilitarization of Eastern European states that were previously part of its Cold War empire. This indicates how Russia has moved to alter the post-Cold War agreements through asserting its power over Eastern European states. As Russia invaded Ukraine, many Westerners view this invasion as a renewed geopolitical rivalry between major world players and resentment towards NATO’s post-Cold War expansion.
Like China, Russia has also sought to strengthen ties with countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, particularly in regions where it perceives Western influences to be waning. For instance, Russia intervened in Syria’s civil war to extend its sphere of influence and challenge Western dominance. Russia’s success showed the world its ability to deter the West and how the West did not push back decisively. Overall, Putin never suffered a serious consequence for supporting Assad, especially since the Obama administration chose to support the Russia-brokered deal to remove Syrian chemical weapons instead of enforcing the 2013 red line.
The United States’ relaxed response to Russia’s aggression and growing influence in other regions have prompted other states to act similarly. Specifically, Beijing is waiting to see how the US. will respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This will influence how China acts in the Indo-Pacific region. Currently, China has not invaded Taiwan, but depending on how the war progresses in Ukraine, China may invade Taiwan if the U.S. continues its unsuccessful deterrence strategy. Furthermore, China may ramp up its aggression in the South China Sea towards Japan regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands territorial dispute. Evidently, if the U.S. fails to impose harsh consequences on Russia or intervene in the conflict, this would facilitate the imminent deterioration of U.S. global power.
Despite the recent decline in globalization and the breakdown of global institutions, globalization still plays a prominent role in shaping the world. The complex and dynamic nature of geopolitical power shifts are essential to navigating the evolving international landscape. Thus, new trends have begun to reshape the power structure based on rising regional powers and a decline in U.S. influence. In particular, China and Russia serve as regional hegemonies that seek to disrupt the status quo and challenge the United States’ power. We cannot be certain that the forthcoming power structure will embody, but one thing is certain: the United States must learn to adapt to and manage changing geopolitical realities.
Image source: GR Stocks on Unsplash
