The Paradox of the Rise of the Rest

[Bill Moore]

Bill,

Wondering aloud late PM. Doesn't history show that 'old' powers rarely understand the 'new'?

The 'old' powers in Europe (France, Spain & UK) watched the US Civil War, some in the UK even thought of intervening on the Confederate side. Only in 1917 did France & the UK really learn the power of the USA, although it took time to mobilize effective military power.

Do the BRICS have all-round power? With one exception, the 'old' power, Russia; the others have very different capabilities. Brazil and South Africa might want to exert power, there's not much indication all-round they can.

I think that as the UK, once Great Britain and before that the British Empire, has steadily declined in being a power.

Will achieving power - in whatever mode - always follow the same pattern? South Africa for a several years had moral power when Mandela strode into power. What about non-state power?

Enough for now.

I am not downplaying the value of hard power, but as you suggest there are other forms of power that also shape behavior of states and non-state actors. Not all countries have the means to challenge us militarily. However, some have the means to provide alternative economic models that pull states away from our sphere of influence. In a sense they are subverting our power, by making our economic power less relevant. I'm still wrestling with ideas of non-state actor power. Of course that exists, but is it more powerful today than yesteryear? Does social media really enable non-state actors to effect change more effectively, or is it just the ability to network and make more collective noise that has little influence on states?

[davidbfpo]

Cited in parts:

Not all countries have the means to challenge us militarily.

Bill,

I think that is a moot point, as the Taliban (with some Pakistani help) and North Korea recently appears to exhibit with a missile launch.

Perhaps it is the ability to cause pain and the prospect of there being no clear victory that affects the USA militarily. Not every challenge to the USA warrants a military response - as Bob Jones keeps on reminding us IIRC.

However, some have the means to provide alternative economic models that pull states away from our sphere of influence. In a sense they are subverting our power, by making our economic power less relevant.

I assume you are only referring to the BRICS, rather than other nations. I am not well versed in economic power and economics, but the USA's claim to economic power is rather thin. The USA has the global trading currency, albeit with a few 'old' power currencies and coming up - fast is moot - China's Rembi. It does not trade on the scale others do, although it has niche products: jets, media, films, weapons and satellites. Not so sure about overseas investment.

I'm still wrestling with ideas of non-state actor power. Of course that exists, but is it more powerful today than yesteryear? Does social media really enable non-state actors to effect change more effectively, or is it just the ability to network and make more collective noise that has little influence on states?

Thanks to a recent Cambridge University seminar the domestic audience now have a plethora of media sources, not just for news; a good number of sources are web-based and others satellite. It is far easier now to get contrary viewpoints and information - even if not verified or of course impartial. I think this affects Western governments freedom to act, as their actions may not be seen by a minority as effective, let alone legitimate.