India, China and the Global Economy
According to the World Bank and IMF, China and India are both now growing much faster than the West. Their greater populations mean that their output will overwhelm the West’s well before 2100. The global economy history book indicated that their brutal realism about international economic relations, so similar to the attitudes of Britain in 1815 and the United States in 1915, will ensure their success.
Martin Hutchinson, a renowned British author and market analyst, asserted that just as the 19th Century belonged to Britain and the 20th Century to the United States, so the 21st Century will belong to China and India, with no other obvious claimant to the 22nd century. He noted that China and India’s assertiveness, in both economic and geopolitical spheres, is reminiscent not of the hesitant Britain and United States of today, but of their activities in the period when they were rising to global hegemony, around 1815 and 1915 respectively.
According to history, around 1815, Britain claimed the right to seize neutral merchant ships, prevent them from trading with France and collect any British citizens who might be serving on them. Its effective closure of United States trade through the 1807 Orders in Council was the main cause of the War of 1812. Around 1915, the United States maintained massive protective tariffs against the world’s trade, far higher than others’. It also built the Panama Canal and invaded Mexico and Haiti, asserting its rights in the Western Hemisphere much as Vladimir Putin does in neighboring countries today.
Martin Hutchinson stated that, India follows the relatively benign model of Britain 1815 and the United States 1915 fairly closely. Indeed, India is not yet quite as assertive in foreign policy as was either previous emerging hegemon. China on the other hand is in many respects more like the Kaiser’s Germany, claiming disputed areas of ocean by building artificial islands thereon. They are also building a navy that, like the Kaiser’s High Seas Fleet, can be aimed at only one other power, the existing hegemon.
Economically, the case for China and India’s emergence is rock solid. According to figures by Price Waterhouse Coopers earlier this year, even if there is considerable slowing in growth after 2020, by 2050 China will have a GDP of $61 trillion to the United States $41 trillion. Meanwhile, India with GDP of $42 trillion will also have surpassed the United States to become the world’s second largest economic power. In practice, Price Waterhouse Coopers’s estimates are likely to be too conservative. Certainly its estimate of growth for the United States between now and 2050 is higher than has been achieved in the “recovery” from the 2008-9 debacle. Its estimates of growth for India and China both look low.
That is not to say China and India will be as rich as the United States in per capita terms by 2050, even if they grow faster than Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates. Nevertheless they will be considerably richer than they are currently, especially in India’s case. With total GDPs larger than the United States they will be able to project force more effectively than will the United States, even with the help of its NATO allies. Russia, fading from sixth place in GDP (on a purchasing power parity basis) in 2014 to eighth place in 2050, less than one tenth the size of China, will also be a declining force internationally, even if it has managed to annex a few neighboring economic basket cases.
According to Martin Hutchinson, looking beyond 2050, it is difficult to see what might dislodge China and India from their hegemony. Price Waterhouse Coopers estimation revealed that, of individual countries in 2050, in economic terms, the fourth is Indonesia, with a GDP about 30% of the United States and double that of the largest European country, Germany. In terms of population, China and India are several times the size of the next largest country, and will remain so, increasing their geopolitical clout accordingly.
They will still be much poorer than the United States in 2050, and so they will presumably enjoy some further catch-up in terms of wealth and living standards and hence increase their lead in terms of raw GDP. India’s year 2100 population is projected as 1.6 billion by the United Nations and China’s at 1 billion. This compares with a mere 450 million projected for the United States.
Martin Hutchinson noted that it is possible of course that other countries may combine, in much the same way as the EU has attempted so painfully to do. Nigeria’s population is projected as 752 million in 2100. Africa’s population as a whole is projected to approach 4 billion, since fertility rates will remain much higher there than in other regions throughout the 21st century. The world’s population overall is now projected in 2100 to be a grossly overcrowded 11.2 billion. China and India together will represent only 23% of the total compared with today’s 31%, thus be theoretically vulnerable to a new competitor.
An African federation, if one could be formed, would have four times China’s population and 2½ times India’s in 2100. It might have approached those much richer countries in terms of total GDP, while remaining much poorer per capita. That would suggest that the 22nd Century might well belong to such a federation, if it came into existence. But consider the difficulties that have been faced by the European Union.
As it is obvious, most of those African states share a common history and culture, if not language. It seems very unlikely that Africa’s 54 countries will be able to form themselves into a federation tight enough to act as one superpower. It is of course possible that a subgroup of those countries may do so. However it would probably still lag China and India in terms of GDP, even if not in population.
Martin Hutchinson stated that, in any case, if there is to be another geopolitical transition taking place after 2100, it will be for China and India to worry about, not for us inhabitants of what will then be second-class powers. In general, we can anticipate a transition to Chinese/Indian hegemony philosophically, if not without regret. The main difficulty will be that of having two hegemons whose emergence will not be simultaneous.
China is emerging already, whereas India requires another 20-30 years before its economic clout is sufficient to bring top-level geopolitical power with it. This staggered emergence clearly has the potential for conflict. With today’s technology, that could greatly damage the rest of us, even if we stayed out of it directly.
Transition between hegemons does not have to result in war. Britain handed over peacefully to the United States, for example. But it brings risks higher than in periods of hegemonic stability. Politically, both China and India are at present reasonably benign, much more so than the 20th Century Soviet Union. We should also remember that China has a history of global hegemony and one which does not look much like European hegemons.
UNIPOLARITY LEADING TO MULTIPOLARITY
What are the telling signs of demise that awaits uni-polarity? We are using the words polarity, uni-polarity, bipolarity and multi-polarity to describe the ongoing flux in structural geopolitics. The unsustainable extraction of non-renewable resources and the saturation of natural sinks on the blue planet might well hasten the collapse of the existing world system, which is nothing more than a frivolous social construct aggressively enforced by empire and headed by its reigning hegemon-the USA! Be that as it may, the scenario associated with the realignment of geopolitical positions due to many factors, the least of which is not the scarcity of resources, will be our preoccupation of the day. After the demise of the USSR, bipolarity was replaced by uni-polarity. We can look at the current status of uni-polarity from two different perspectives. Internally, from the point of view of empire, and externally, from the perspective of the outliers, if we can call them that!
The telltale signs from the outside include all sorts of challenges emanating from the continuous activities of emerging states. Increased dissatisfaction about the whole lopsided global arrangement in the non-core countries mostly affecting the downtrodden sheeple (human mass) is another of the major signs. In addition, the unsustainability as well as the crony-ness of the prevailing global economic order keeps fueling insecurity all over the world. Amidst all these, the clear failure of the current hegemon to inspire and forge a more sustainable mode of collective human existence is accelerating the pace of systemic collapse. Almost all empires disintegrate as a result of hubris. Overreach is one of the Achilles heel’s of empires; past and present. See Smith’s article next column. By and large, it is the built-in rigidities of empires that almost always underlie their demise. To adapt to changing circumstances is something empires were and still are, incapable of doing, despite wealth of accumulated knowledge to show the way out! By empire, it is usually meant the powerful triad: USA, EU and Japan.
The signs that are coming out from within are; political apathy with respect to establishment institutions (political parties, state institutions, etc.) A restless and increasingly inquisitive populace, demanding radical alternatives in all spheres of collective existence, is another sure sign of disintegration. The ‘Yellow Vests’ movement in France might well be a precursor of such bold initiatives. Various internal conflicts amongst the citizenry, mainly due to excessive economic polarization that keeps on marginalizing the large majority of the sheeple, are another of the telltale signs. Depending on the chosen strategy of conflict management (by the power that be), conditions can easily get ugly and society might degenerate to a point of no return. In this regard, identity politics comes to mind. Always finding easy scapegoats to debilitating and disfranchising socio-economic conditions has always been the forte of dominant interests (in any system through out the ages) and the modern world system is no exception! Recent scapegoats include; Jews, blacks, communists, refugees, Moslems, etc.! The emergence of a well-entrenched ‘deep state’ that operates outside of the law is usually a manifestation of desperation heralding decline. To recall, we have defined the deep state as: the military-intelligence-industrial-banking-media-complex of the powerful states.
Multipolarity is now pushing forward, despite the efforts of the ‘deep state’ of empire, particularly that of the hegemon. Trying to arrest efforts that are consciously propelling alternative globalizations might prove fatal to the existing unipolarity. In fact, the project of malicious manipulation undertaken by entrenched interests via their ‘deep states’ is undermining democracy and good governance in the core countries themselves. The bickering in Washington D. C., the refusal by all signatories (save the US) to abrogate the joint Iranian anti-nuclear weapon agreement, the reluctance on the part of the European countries to join the oil sanction imposed on Iran (unilaterally by the US), surprising threat to withhold intelligence from former allies if they endorse China’s 5G initiative, etc., etc., are all forerunners of impending collapse.
On the other hand, the BRI (Belt Road Initiative) is gradually solidifying support for a more equitable globalization. It is expected to win the hearts and minds of a good portion of humanity. So far over 70 countries have agreed to become part of the Chinese initiated BRI, including prominent European Union countries like Italy! The emergent Eurasia Economic Union (EEU) will be, without a doubt the largest economic unit on our planet, encompassing Europe and Asia, to say nothing about Africa. SCO (Shanghai Cooperative Organization) is another formidable ensemble of rising/populous nations who seem to be determined to keeping their relative independence, particularly from the heavy-handedness of empire and its increasingly wobbly hegemon. Eurasia might well become the core of the forthcoming globalization, which necessarily has to be peaceful, sustainable, egalitarian and democratic, to secure long-term support from the planet’s inhabitants!
It seems the ascending multipolarity will be led primarily by China and Russia. The old civilizations of China and Russia seem to be more suited for the task at hand. Based on historical analysis, geographical locations, aspirational outlooks and proven temperance that has been more accommodating than any witnessed by the empires of west (at least the recent ones), these two continent size nations might well be the right choice to collectively lead the coming (it is hoped) sapient globalization. We will not dwell on the reasons why the other BRICS or others, might not be fit for the position of leadership, since we have already elaborated this particular issue on our previous installments. Suffice is to say, the new world order is promising to be one that is essentially based on cooperation rather than confrontation. It is also hoped that it would be one where the rule of law, rather than the rule of power prevails!
This was first published in May 2019
