Extract: The world of the 21st Century can be neatly divided into three terrestrial zones, each being the semi-exclusive sphere of influence for one or two of the four most powerful nation states on the planet. There are also disputed territories interspersed around and among the three main zones. Power is defined here as industrial, commercial and military capability. The four so-called superpowers are China, Europe, America and Russia.
Introduction: It’s a big world, but nation states still compete for space and resources. As the trajectory of history continues in the new century, America, China and Europe are in a position to claim nearly equal superpower status, insofar as industrial and military might goes. Russia must be included in this superpower club due to its geographical location, its small but capable industrial base, nuclear-armed military forces, and its history of conflict with Europe. A second tier of nations, including Iran and India, compete with the top four for regional hegemony, trade benefits and cultural influence.
These powerful nations do not want trouble. The lessons of the 20th Century are still fresh in our minds. Accordingly, the current superpowers tend to behave in ways that avoid major military conflict. For the most part, their citizens and leaders just want to prosper and trade with each other. The militaristic form of imperialism seen in past centuries is gone from international affairs. All four major powers possess global nuclear strike capability, a strong disincentive against adventurism of the kind seen before World War II.
Out of these circumstances, these primary powers have naturally begun dividing the globe into spheres of influence, territories within which hegemony can be extended without risk of warfare with another major power. This is not a new idea; the 19th Century scramble by Western powers to colonize undeveloped territories was a clumsy attempt to establish such zones of influence. In the 21st Century, however, the dust has settled, the internet has arrived, international trade has dramatically expanded and the world can reasonably be divided up into 3 major zones, each being the province of one or more of these four major powers. These are not just lines on a map, but boundaries shaped mostly by geography and history, especially international treaties and the outcome of various past wars.
Accordingly, the nation states of the world tend to recognize, publicly or not, the following three natural and historical divisions of terra firma and islands of the oceans, plus the disputed territories first described by George Orwell.
1. Asia, the largest continent, and its coastal islands, including Hainan, Taiwan and Sri Lanka, constitute one giant zone for influence by its resident nation states. The Western borders of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran (Zagros mountains) form the western boundary of Asia proper. This delineation also neatly aligns with narrowest part of the isthmus between Europe and Asia.
2. Europe: Consisting of the European subcontinent, Scandanavia, the Baltic states, Anatolia, and the islands of the Atlantic Ocean.
3. Western Hemisphere and the Pacific basin, including Australia, New Zealand and the many islands east of the Asian mainland (excluding Hainan and Taiwan)
- The Disputed territories include all of Africa, the Levant, Mesopotamia and parts of Central Asia. This is where much of today's armed conflict occurs. Curiously, George Orwell foresaw this three part division of the world, plus disputed territories, in his prescient novel 1984, with some differences (see a rendition of his map below).
Note: The open oceans are not permanently inhabited and therefore not the exclusive responsibility of any world power in the 21st Century. Freedom of navigation by all nations, in waters more than 12 nautical miles distant from territorial coasts, is guaranteed by International Maritime Law. Antarctica and islands in the Southern ocean are not of strategic interest by any nation for the foreseeable future.
What does hegemony mean and how is it used in the new century? Ideally, when something goes wrong in one of these three zones, the resident powerful nations are responsible for coming to the aid of the people affected. That could range from disaster recovery to removing a tyrant who is applying severe and unwarranted oppression. Hegemony no longer means legal domination of little countries by larger, more powerful neighbors. Notwithstanding the numerous violations, self-determination and the Rights of Man are the norm.
Superpowers from other zones can and should assist in such international relief efforts, but resident nations must take the lead. Local control is much better than interference by a nation from the other side of the planet. Each of these superpowers possess plenty of capability, more than enough to afford this kind of enlightened hegemony. Putting a nation’s armed forces to work intervening in a neighbor’s civil war is a difficult decision, but is sometimes necessary to stop endless human suffering.
Nations are led by people and even small groups of people sometimes make terrible mistakes. While most of us can easily recognize, if not accept, these practical spheres of influence and their boundaries, hotheaded government officials often voice hegemonic claims for their nation that clearly cross zone boundaries. Current examples abound: Iran in Mesopotamia, Arabia and the Levant; Russia in Syria, Bosnia and Cuba; the US in Korea and Afghanistan; China in the offshore islands of South China Sea; and Europe in Georgia and Ukraine, to name a few.
The following is a closer examination of the four superpowers and the geographical zones they claim:
China and Russia, along with India and Iran share the Asian continent with many other states and compete for influence there. Asia’s center is big and thinly populated enough to allow a few buffer states around China, viz. Mongolia and Kazakhstan, to reduce the risk of serious trouble with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, there is much to be gained by both countries from commerce, via the Economic Belt part of China’s Belt and Road (BRI) project. It is a commercial venture, financed in part multi-nationally, and designed to benefit Russia.
For its part, China is not even close to being ready to intervene in other Asian states beyond their immediate neighbors, their buffer states. Some of these nations are vassals, some not. In any event, China lacks a history of imperial ambitions beyond this circumscribed region. That’s what makes their “nine-dash” claims appear weak and ill founded.
Russia, meanwhile does have a history of empire building on the Asian continent. Once the US leaves Afghanistan, Russia will again be the dominant power in that part of the world, applying its influence in Central Asian countries, including Afghanistan, where its hegemony butts up against Pakistan, an ally of China. It is the Great Game of past centuries revisited, but with a different group of players, all Asian.
Numerous other possibilities for conflict exist within Asia. China and India are neighbors with a long-standing suspicion of each other. Huge mountain ranges insulate them on land, and so long as they can keep out of each other’s hair in the Indian Ocean, reference the Maritime Road part of BRI, they should be able to avoid armed conflict. India and Pakistan (allied with Russia and China respectively) have fought several wars over territory and history. Since both are now nuclear armed, a form of MAD-peace has ensued. MAD stands for mutually assured destruction, another 20th Century invention.
As geopolitical outsiders, Europe and America have no business projecting military power in Asia - not in Ukraine, Georgia or Korea, and definitely not on Taiwan, given its geographical and cultural proximity to China. Reference the MacArthur doctrine warning against placing US troops on the Asian mainland and witness America’s latest Asian military mistake - remaining in Afghanistan after the expulsion of Al Qaeda in 2002.
The Asian boundary most at risk of triggering a major power conflict is that between Europe and Russia. Sadly, both parties are contributing to the growing danger. Russia is continuing its post-Cold War interference in Ukraine’s political affairs. In recent years it has supported a large-scale pro-Russian rebellion in Eastern Ukraine. This frightens the Europeans, where Cold War thinking persists and whose memories of Russian land grabs after WWII are fresh.
Non-aligned buffer states like Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia, make for good neighbors between Russia and Europe, but Europe seems intent on extending its influence there, promising membership in the EU and NATO, thereby threatening Russia with encirclement. History weighs against such foolish moves.
Russia has a history of expansion into eastern Europe, but in the 21st Century is mainly concerned with having neutral buffer states along its western boundary, to defend against the threat of invasion. Russia can and will fight back if need be. One can make an historical case for the Baltic states being members of the EU and even NATO, but to even suggest incorporating Ukraine and Georgia, is irrational and dangerous, IMO.
A less dangerous situation are the low-intensity conflicts between Iran vs the Gulf states and Israel (both protected by their US ally). There is no need for Europe, much less America, to intervene in Iran, if Iran would only recognize and respect its boundary with the European sphere of influence. Their predations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and several of the Gulf states are a blatant violation of the principles I’ve described here. Unfortunately, Iran is blinded by its long history of conquest in Mesopotamia and the Levant. Also, Russia encourages Iran in support of its own expansionist strategy in the Levant. Endemic low-level conflict is result.
The least dangerous hot spot is Asia’s eastern boundary with American influence in the Western Pacific, which encompasses Japan and the Phillipines. I believe President Trump intended to eventually withdraw US military assistance to Korea (ROK) and help Taiwan reintegrate with mainland China. In exchange, the US wanted China to relinquish its claim to non-coastal islands and reefs in the China Sea, far from the mainland (inside the Nine-Dash line) which encroaches on the coasts of US allies inside its own sphere of influence, primarily Japan, Philippines and Indonesia.
These boundary-straightening
moves are diplomatically possible, but are not likely after Beijing rejected the proposed US-China trade agreement in May 2019. Decoupling of the two economies is underway in earnest. Only when China rejects communism, I believe, can routine trade relations resume.
The European Union and its contiguous allies, including Turkey, the UK, Switzerland, et al, has a natural sphere of influence encompassing the European subcontinent, plus islands in the Atlantic Ocean such as Iceland, Bermuda, Canaries, Azores, Falklands, etc. These affinities are solidly based on historical and cultural ties. I’ve already described the risks Europe and Russia share along their zone boundary. It seems a reckoning is coming to both nations about solving their differences. Perhaps America can assist with diplomacy; President Trump was definitely game for it.
Africa is largely under-developed. The northern tier of countries, Morocco to Ethiopia, and South Africa at the opposite end, are relatively advanced compared to the countries in between. The European powers still have ties in Africa left over from colonial days. Small war conflicts are constant, along with widespread corruption and local tyranny. Europe and the US do what they can, which beyond military and humanitarian assistance is not much. Meanwhile, China sees an opportunity for economic development and lucrative trade relationships, particularly in East Africa.
The European powers also have a history of imperialism in the Levant, Arabia and Mesopotamia. While that period of history is largely over, Europe, China and other nations depend of petroleum from this part of the disputed territories. To the extent America is energy independent, it can afford to withdraw. Low level conflict will continue in this area for the foreseeable future.
Since World War 2, Europe has been overly dependent on American military protection via NATO, an anachronism leftover from the Cold War. As a result, the EU and its neighbors have not collectively developed their own independent military forces sufficient to police their entire sphere of influence. Accordingly, American security assistance is prominent throughout the zone, especially in the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia, along with a modest presence of European forces.
Europe, China, India and many other nation states depend on petroleum and gas from the Persian Gulf region, which is on the boundary with Iran, a lesser Asian power. Since Europe is delinquent in doing its full duty there, an unstable situation has developed as America becomes energy independent and increasingly wary of additional foreign entanglements. Given Iran’s expansionist ambitions, the potential for armed conflict in the region is high.
President Trump points out that this situation, with the US expending “blood and treasure” on security matters that Europe is rightfully responsible for, has continued for far too long. He is pushing Europe to take the lead in developing NATO so that it can project military power anywhere in Europe’s sphere of influence, with the US in a support role only.
America, along with its close allies Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Columbia, extends its influence and support throughout the Western Hemisphere, plus all the islands in the Pacific, including the continent of Australia. This projection of power and influence began with the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny in the 19th Century. Reference the famous 1832 Voyage of Discovery across the Pacific Ocean by a US naval fleet, plus the island-hopping military campaigns of World War II.
The three nations of North America are closely integrated with each other, culturally and industrially, the only wild card being Mexico, which suffers from the corrupting influence of criminal cartels involved in drug smuggling and human trafficking. There is a long history of major trouble in Mexico spilling over the border into the USA.
Armed conflict in South America is always possible, but history has taught the people there a terrible lesson about such local wars, so all of these nations are on a peaceful trajectory with each other in the new Century, notwithstanding their frequent internal troubles and tyrannies.
Excluding Australia, the various island nations surrounded by the Pacific Ocean have a long history of foreign occupation and brutal conflict. With the end of Japanese and European imperialism, there is no longer much risk of large scale conflict between states there. China hopefully recognizes US responsibilities for these Pacific nations, especially Japan, Philippines and Indonesia. Because of its proximity to the Asian mainland, Singapore may or may not be drawn into China’s sphere of influence, stay tuned.
Meanwhile, America and Europe should avoid stationing any military forces in Asia beyond Mesopotamia and Arabia. That means eventual withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan and Korea, and cessation of military support to Taiwan. The American people are sick of war in Afghanistan, but deeply connected to South Korea (ROK).
Removing US troops from the Korean peninsula after 70 years will be a shock for those who don’t yet grasp the emergent geopolitical spheres of influence and their boundaries. Even more painful to many Americans will be watching the two Koreas become closer to China in all respects, true buffer states protecting the Middle Kingdom on the eastern frontier of its sphere of influence.
Many Chinese and Korean people are still deeply suspicious of Japan and its long term intentions. Mitigating these tendencies for trouble is a perfect example of the beneficial effect of America’s hegemony in the Western Pacific, viz. keeping the peace on its zone boundary with Asia by restraining Japan and reassuring China and Korea.
If China’s “nine dash” line encompassing most of the South China Sea is an indication, China may not be ready to accept this situation. A smart US president like Trump would sit down with her/his Chinese counterpart and negotiate these zonal boundaries. That may have already begun.
For example the two superpowers could agree on several complementary objectives: China assists in effective disarmament on the Korean Peninsula, US forces eventually withdraw from a peaceful Korea, US applies diplomatic assistance in helping Taiwan reintegrate with the mainland, China abandons its designs on offshore islands in the China Sea.
I am convinced President Trump understood all of this and began the US effort to negotiate with Beijing on status of Korea, Taiwan and islands in the China Sea. An agreement on trade terms is a prerequisite to settle these boundary issues, but unfortunately truly open trade with the US is inconsistent with current ideological thinking of the Communist Party of China.
In Summary, I have described a world neatly carved up into three terrestrial and oceanic zones of influence, very Orwellian, but nonetheless a valid formulation for understanding the risk of major-power conflicts in this century. War is not a thing of the past, but given this new, nearly complete division of the planet’s territories, the risk of a general war pitting the world’s primary military powers against each other is greatly reduced.
Since World War 2, Europe has been overly dependent on American military protection via NATO, an anachronism leftover from the Cold War. As a result, the EU and its neighbors have not collectively developed their own independent military forces sufficient to police their entire sphere of influence. Accordingly, American security assistance is prominent throughout the zone, especially in the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia, along with a modest presence of European forces.
Europe, China, India and many other nation states depend on petroleum and gas from the Persian Gulf region, which is on the boundary with Iran, a lesser Asian power. Since Europe is delinquent in doing its full duty there, an unstable situation has developed as America becomes energy independent and increasingly wary of additional foreign entanglements. Given Iran’s expansionist ambitions, the potential for armed conflict in the region is high.
President Trump points out that this situation, with the US expending “blood and treasure” on security matters that Europe is rightfully responsible for, has continued for far too long. He is pushing Europe to take the lead in developing NATO so that it can project military power anywhere in Europe’s sphere of influence, with the US in a support role only.
America, along with its close allies Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Columbia, extends its influence and support throughout the Western Hemisphere, plus all the islands in the Pacific, including the continent of Australia. This projection of power and influence began with the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny in the 19th Century. Reference the famous 1832 Voyage of Discovery across the Pacific Ocean by a US naval fleet, plus the island-hopping military campaigns of World War II.
The three nations of North America are closely integrated with each other, culturally and industrially, the only wild card being Mexico, which suffers from the corrupting influence of criminal cartels involved in drug smuggling and human trafficking. There is a long history of major trouble in Mexico spilling over the border into the USA.
Armed conflict in South America is always possible, but history has taught the people there a terrible lesson about such local wars, so all of these nations are on a peaceful trajectory with each other in the new Century, notwithstanding their frequent internal troubles and tyrannies.
Excluding Australia, the various island nations surrounded by the Pacific Ocean have a long history of foreign occupation and brutal conflict. With the end of Japanese and European imperialism, there is no longer much risk of large scale conflict between states there. China hopefully recognizes US responsibilities for these Pacific nations, especially Japan, Philippines and Indonesia. Because of its proximity to the Asian mainland, Singapore may or may not be drawn into China’s sphere of influence, stay tuned.
Meanwhile, America and Europe should avoid stationing any military forces in Asia beyond Mesopotamia and Arabia. That means eventual withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan and Korea, and cessation of military support to Taiwan. The American people are sick of war in Afghanistan, but deeply connected to South Korea (ROK).
Removing US troops from the Korean peninsula after 70 years will be a shock for those who don’t yet grasp the emergent geopolitical spheres of influence and their boundaries. Even more painful to many Americans will be watching the two Koreas become closer to China in all respects, true buffer states protecting the Middle Kingdom on the eastern frontier of its sphere of influence.
Many Chinese and Korean people are still deeply suspicious of Japan and its long term intentions. Mitigating these tendencies for trouble is a perfect example of the beneficial effect of America’s hegemony in the Western Pacific, viz. keeping the peace on its zone boundary with Asia by restraining Japan and reassuring China and Korea.
If China’s “nine dash” line encompassing most of the South China Sea is an indication, China may not be ready to accept this situation. A smart US president like Trump would sit down with her/his Chinese counterpart and negotiate these zonal boundaries. That may have already begun.
For example the two superpowers could agree on several complementary objectives: China assists in effective disarmament on the Korean Peninsula, US forces eventually withdraw from a peaceful Korea, US applies diplomatic assistance in helping Taiwan reintegrate with the mainland, China abandons its designs on offshore islands in the China Sea.
I am convinced President Trump understood all of this and began the US effort to negotiate with Beijing on status of Korea, Taiwan and islands in the China Sea. An agreement on trade terms is a prerequisite to settle these boundary issues, but unfortunately truly open trade with the US is inconsistent with current ideological thinking of the Communist Party of China.
In Summary, I have described a world neatly carved up into three terrestrial and oceanic zones of influence, very Orwellian, but nonetheless a valid formulation for understanding the risk of major-power conflicts in this century. War is not a thing of the past, but given this new, nearly complete division of the planet’s territories, the risk of a general war pitting the world’s primary military powers against each other is greatly reduced.
