On September 11th, Gallup headlined “Bias in Others’ News a Greater Concern Than Bias in Own News”, and reported (based upon polling a randomized sample of 20,046 American adults) that:
“69% of Americans say they are more concerned about bias in the news other people consume than its presence in their own news (29%).” In other words: 69/29, or 2.38 times, as many Americans are closed-minded (prejudiced) regarding information-sources which don’t fit their ideology, than are not. Overwhelmingly in America, only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats, and only Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans. Each side distrusts the other’s information-sources. Gallup’s news-report aptly noted the important fact that “This plays into the political polarization in the U.S. national discourse.” The more prejudiced a population are, the more polarized it will be. Of course, one would expect this to be the case, but Gallup has now found striking new empirical evidence for it — that the public’s closed-mindedness is greatly increasing America’s political polarization. Each side is craving propaganda instead of truth, but each side’s voters want only the type of propaganda that is funded by the billionaires who also fund that side’s politicians and control that side’s ‘news’ media. Consequently, American politics is controlled by the conflict between liberal billionaires versus conservative billionaires — totally controlled by billionaires (instead of by the public). There is the liberal herd, and the conservative herd, but they’re both herds — not by the public in an actual democracy. And each of these two herds is controlled by its shepherd, who are its billionaires. (Here is how that’s done.) Billionaires control each Party and thereby control the Government. This is why the Government ignores the preferences of America’s public. As will be shown here, the September 11th Gallup findings help to explain how and why that results.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can become exposed to the other side’s evidence and arguments unless they see those — the other side’s evidence and arguments, both for its own case and against the opposite side’s case (i.e., against the case that oneself believes). Not to see the opposite side’s viewpoint is to be blind to it, and thus to become locked into whatever oneself believes. This 69/29 is like a jury’s rendering its verdict and nearly three quarters of the jurors having not listened to — and thus not considered — the opposite side’s presentations. That’s a frightening situation to exist in any court of law, and it is an equally frightening situation to exist in any nation’s electorate.
As a consequence of Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded, America’s politics are, to a very large extent, driven more by prejudices than by the realities that the public are actually facing. Individuals are seeking for sources that will likeliest confirm what they already believe, and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest to disconfirm their beliefs. This is consequently a population that’s highly vulnerable to being manipulated, by playing up to, and amplifying, the given Party’s propaganda, to which the given individual already subscribes. Republican Party billionaires (by their use of their conservative newsmedia and think tanks, etc., which they control) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters, and Democratic Party billionaires can, likewise, easily manipulate Democratic Party voters, by their liberal media, think tanks, etc. That’s billionaires, on each of the two sides, guiding each of the two Parties’ voters; and, therefore, the nation is an aristocracy — a country which is controlled by its wealthiest few — instead of an authentic democracy (which is controlled not by the numbers of dollars, but actually by the numbers of residents, each one of whom is independently and open-mindedly seeking for credibly documented facts). An aristocracy rules any such land. The public are not the rulers in such a nation. It’s not a democracy; it is a collective dictatorship, by its billionaires (its aristocracy). Both of the two Parties’ voters vote in accord with their billionaires’ agenda, but especially in accord with whatever is on the agenda that’s shared by both liberal and conservative billionaires — billionaires fund both of the national Parties: Democrats and Republicans, and thereby control both Parties. Billionaires, in each Party, have their very golden, very heavy, thumbs, pressing down hard upon the scale of any such ‘democracy’, such that regardless of which group of billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election, the public inevitably will lose, because it’s really just a contest between billionaires, who are stage-managing the nation’s entire political proceedings. This is like two boxers fighting in a ring, in which the selection-process which placed them there was corrupt; and, so, even if the ultimate winner is not equally corruptly pre-determined, the final result has nonetheless already been rigged (during the primaries). When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process, the ultimate outcome cannot be a democracy.
This happens not only regarding elections, but regarding particular issues. For example, in 2002 and 2003, “regime-change in Iraq,” and “Saddam’s WMD,” were just as much agendas of liberal billionaires’ media and think tanks as they were of conservative billionaires’ media and think tanks (and were thoroughly based on lies); so, a closed-minded public were actually trapped, into the lies that were agreed-upon by both sides of the domestic American political spectrum — the sides that are funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires, and by the conservative billionaires. The nearly $2 trillion cost of the invasion and military occupation of that country, and the consequent destruction of that country, were done for America’s billionaires, and produced nothing for the American people except that enormous public debt and those injuries and deaths to America’s soldiers and to Iraqis. And that’s typical, nowadays, in this (just as in any) aristocracy: the aristocracy are served; the nation’s public serve to them. (In the U.S., this has caused “U.S. Satisfaction at 13%, Lowest in Nine Years”, as Gallup headlined on 4 August 2020; and it has caused Americas’ satisfaction with their Government to have ranged from its all-time low of only 7% in 2008, to its all-time high of only 45% at the very start of 2020 — well below 50%, for as long as Gallup has surveyed this.)
What all of the billionaires want is what the American public get as their Government. It’s bipartisanship amongst its billionaires. That’s what produces this Government’s policies. It’s what determines the Government that Americans get. However, what is basic in making it a dictatorship of the aristocracy-type (such as this America is) is that the population is very prejudiced, not open-minded — not each individual constantly seeking solid evidence to change one’s mind about how society works (what the reality in the nation actually is), so as for one’s view to become increasingly accurate over time. Instead, one’s myths are constantly being fed. Such a public, as this, are not individuals, in a democracy, but more like mobs, very manipulable.
Often, America’s bipartisan views are based upon lies that virtually all billionaires want the public to believe. In such cases — and these instances are frequent — the truth is being simply ignored, or else outright denied, by both sides (and by the media, for both sides). Individuals’ prejudices are thus being increased, instead of reduced, by what the public see and hear in “the news.” Everyone has prejudices, and truth can predominate only if people are constantly skeptical of the sources that they are relying upon — constantly trying to root out and replace whatever false beliefs they have. This is the essence of scientific method. Democracy depends upon it. Aristocracy requires the opposite. America has the opposite.
Change away from this present situation, to a democracy, would be difficult. On both of America’s political sides, there needs to be far less trust of the Establishment (including its politicians, its media, its think tanks, etc.), in order for any real democracy to become able to exist. It’s not even able to exist now. And, therefore, it does not exist.
But what is even more depressing is that America’s educational system, most especially its colleges and universities, are encouraging, instead of discouraging, this situation, this closed-mindedness. The more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person becomes — as is further shown in this same September 11th Gallup news-report:
“Whereas 52% of Americans with a high school education or less are more concerned about bias in others’ news than in their own [and 45% of that minimally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased], the figure is 64% among those with some college education and is even higher among college graduates (73%) and those with postgraduate education (77%) [and only 22% of that maximally educated group think that the news which they are reading might be biased].” The most-educated Americans are the most-manipulable (the most closed-minded) Americans.
No finding in this Gallup report was as extreme as the finding that the more highly educated an American is, the less open that person is likely to be to changing his or her mind (outlook) about the situation. In other words: the more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person tends to become. Higher education in America increases, instead of decreases, an individual’s closed-mindedness. However, other contrasts which were almost as extreme are:
“Those who identify as liberal (80%) are more concerned than conservatives (68%) and moderates (65%) with other people’s media bias.” In other words: liberals are 80/65 or 1.23 times as closed-minded as are moderates, and are 80/68 or 1.18 times as closed-minded as conservatives are.
“While 58% of Black adults are more concerned about bias in others’ news than in their own, fully 73% of Asian Americans and 72% of White adults say the same.” Thus, African-Americans are 58/72.5 or 80% as closed-minded as are Euro-Americans and Asian-Americans.
This is the worst combination possible: it’s a closed-minded population, which is especially closed-minded amongst its most educated segment. The leading segment is also the most closed-minded segment. These are crucial agents of the billionaires, and they crucially inculcate into the next generation of Americans the aristocracy’s values.
This means that the leaders keep themselves, conceptually, inside a cocoon. They have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, which is the less-educated members. That enhances inequality of opportunity, throughout the society. Since the most-highly-educated Americans are the group that are the most-closed to opinions which are contrary to their own, it’s easy for the most-highly-educated Americans to view individuals who disagree with those persons’ views as being simply a “basket of deplorables.” Their disagreement then becomes their contempt. ‘Facts’ about politics are — for those persons, highly educated persons — more derived from their values and priorities, than their values and priorities are derived from the political facts. Scientific epistemology is being turned upside-down, regarding political issues, in such a country. Overwhelmingly, some sort of faith, instead of any sort of science, determines what individuals in such a country believe about politics. In every aristocracy, this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general public who oppose themselves: they’re viewed as being a “basket of deplorables.” It’s the very essence of elitism — on both sides. (For prominent examples of this: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had contempt for each-others’ voters — blotted them out.)
The leadership’s minimal contact with the public makes exceedingly unlikely the leadership’s compassion, concern about the sufferings that they, themselves, are causing down below. Actually, though every aristocracy claims to want to improve conditions for their public, the reality is that whenever doing that would entail their own losing power, that claim becomes exposed to be sheer hypocrisy — a lie; often a self-deception, and not merely a deception against the public. Deceiving themselves about their own decency is easy, because they have minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, the very people whom they claim to care the most about (and to be working in politics to help). Fakery is built into each and every aristocracy. Americans’ strong tendency to be closed-minded causes the aristocratic con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth. (Again: the “WMD in Iraq” con was a good example of this — the aristocracy’s media just blocked-out the reality.) Scientific studies have even demonstrated that the wealthier a person is, the less compassion the individual tends to have for people who are suffering.
Furthermore, since the less-educated persons aspire to be more-educated, they are — even without knowing it — aspiring to become less open to contrary views, instead of to become more open to such views. One bad consequence of this is: it strangulates imaginativeness, openness, and creativity, in favor of being rote, rigid, and bureaucratic. Another bad consequence of it is that the authority-figures, in such a society, are, in some important ways, actually inferior to the rest of the population. Moreover, America’s colleges and universities are not increasing their students’ open-mindedness (as they should) but the exact opposite — they are reducing their students’ open-mindedness. Even if professors are teaching some truths, the professors are training their students to be authoritarian, instead of to be open to a more truthful, comprehensive, and deeper understanding, which encompasses those truths, but also many more — which the majority of professors either ignore or else deny, because such deeper understanding violates the existing Scripture, or standard viewpoint (shaped by both sides’ billionaires). At least in the United States, this is now the normal situation. That Gallup poll showed it not merely weakly, nor even only moderately, but extremely.
This is a perverse situation, which bodes ill for the future of the entire nation. Any country which is like this is not only an aristocracy instead of a democracy, but it is greatly disadvantaged, going forward. It will be disadvantaged both in the arts and in the sciences. Its future will be stultifying, instead of dynamic. Aristocracies tend to be this way. Also, because it will remain highly polarized, its internal ideological frictions will waste a large proportion of the nation’s efforts. As a nation, its forward-motion, its progress, will thus largely be crippled, by its internal discord and distrust, between the two warring factions of its aristocracy — and friction between the respective followers on each side.
This describes a declining culture — a nation that is in decline.
That’s what this poll-report, from Gallup, indicates, as clearly as any poll-findings can.
It indicates a nation in decline.
During the Presidential primaries in the Democratic Party, a major point of difference between the two major candidates, Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders, was whether billionaires are bad for the country: Biden said no; Sanders said yes. (This was a major reason why the billionaires made sure that Sanders would lose.) In any country where wealth-inequality is so extreme, there can be no authentic democracy. America’s extreme inequality of wealth makes democracy impossible in this country. America’s other problems follow from that. In reality, it’s a one-party state, and that party is controlled not actually by the counts of voters, but by the counts of dollars. It is an aristocracy; and its decline — to what has been documented here — follows from that fact. Whatever democracy America might once have had is gone now. It has become replaced by a land of mass-deceptions, which are bought and sold.
Author’s note: first posted at Strategic Culture
Rare-earth elements between the United States and China
The “rare-earth elements”, also called rare-earth metals or rare-earth oxides, or lanthanides are a set of 17 white soft heavy metals.
The uses, applications and demand for rare-earth elements have expanded over the years. Globally, most rare-earth elements are used for catalysts and magnets in traditional and low-carbon technologies. Other important uses of rare-earth elements are applicable to the production of alloys, glass and high-performance electronics, such as for petroleum refining and diesel additives. The rare-earth elements in this category are used in hybrid and electric vehicle engines, generators in wind turbines, hard disks, portable electronics, mobile phones, microphones, loudspeakers, etc.
This is another area, which also pertains to clean and environmentally friendly energies, in which the United States and China are playing an important game.
At a Summit between the United States, Japan, India and Australia held not long ago, strengthening cooperation on rare-earth elements between the four countries became a key topic. The United States has always hoped to reduce its dependence on rare-earth elements and minerals from other countries. But the US government’s review of key minerals and rare-earth supply chains says that even with radical changes, it will still take at least ten years for the United States to become self-sufficient.
Indeed, over the past three years, the US Administration’s attention to rare-earth issues has increased. Rare-earth elements have become a key test for some US politicians to prove that “China threatens US security”, and have also become an important motivation for the White House to reformulate its rare-earth policy. Indeed, over-politicising the rare-earth issue and even linking it to national security will do more harm than good to both People’s Republic of China and the USA itself.
Firstly, the United States has no clear understanding of the current situation of the rare-earth mining industry. Currently, the vast majority of rare-earth products are manufactured in China, and this is because China’s low-cost mining has led to the closure of rare-earth mines in other countries. Therefore, the model of rare-earth elements as chains of the processing industries gradually developing in China is not the result of China’s monopoly, nor of rare-earth extraction in the People’s Republic of China.
Currently, China’s rare-earth reserves have fallen from over 70% of world production to about 30%, thus making China the world’s largest importer of rare-earth elements. In fact, many countries have rare-earth mines and rare-earth reserves outside China can be used by everyone for hundreds of years.
From today’s perspective, the advantage that Chinese industry derives from rare-earth elements is gradually shifting from the scale of extraction to that of their processing. Rare-earth processing is crucial for China, as most of the major patents in rare-earth production are still controlled by Western countries.
Firstly, the focus of future global competition is the ability and capacity for technological innovation. The key pathway for improving China’s industry thanks to the possession of rare-earth elements lies in technological innovation, rather than in expanding the market share of rare earth extraction and processing.
Although China has tightened up its control over the rare-earth industry in recent years, this has not been done simply through an export ban, but primarily through improved environmental protection and technological processing requirements to promote industry improvement. Although these measures have stimulated price increases in rare-earth products, they are far from threatening the US national security.
Secondly, the US actions have increased its financial burden. During President Trump’s Administration, the White House linked the supply of rare-earth elements to national security and joined Australia and other countries in calling for the exclusion of Chinese rare-earth products in the defence sector.
Nevertheless, as the human and environmental costs of rare-earth mines in Western countries are much higher than those in developing countries, it is absolutely unlikely that the minerals they extract will be competitive in the marketplace, and Western governments are paying for this.
Just for the imaginary Chinese threat, the US Department of Defence is investing huge amounts of capital, which will further increase the burden on citizens due to the country’s high fiscal deficit.
Moreover, the rare-earth processing industry hardly exists in the United States any longer. Rare-earth elements extracted
there have to be transported to China for processing. This so-called “getting rid of dependence on Chinese rare-earth elements” is actually self-deception. If the United States wants to rebuild its entire chain of rare-earth processing plants, it will not survive relying solely on the arms industry (as in the case of Afghanistan in 2001-2021), unless the US administration convinces Congress that it can use taxpayers’ money to subsidise these military installations anywhere in the world indefinitely.
Before Congress decides on any steps in any sector, entrepreneurs rarely venture to invest in building factories dedicated to rare-earth elements, as in this case. Therefore, the White House’s expectation of “ten years of self-sufficiency” is actually an overly optimistic and unrealistic assessment.
As long as China does not fully implement its ban on rare-earth exports, it will be difficult for the USA to rebuild its rare-earth industry. This was President Trump’s hope to bring manufacturing back to the USA through the imposition of tariffs and duties.
Thirdly, the weakening of mutual trust in Sino-US cooperation can easily lead to strategic misjudgements. In the current complex international economic and political situation, China and the United States are both competitors and partners. The competition between China and the United States is not a fight to the death between opponents who cannot stand each other, but requires healthy competition and cooperation on the basis of mutual trust. For a long period of time, competition between the two countries will mainly focus on the economic and technological sectors, especially the high-tech sectors, which will determine the future of both countries and also of the entire world.
Some politicians and interest groups in the United States have spread the generic “Chinese threat theory” for their own interests. The “rare-earth threat theory”, in particular, obviously bears the shadow of the US military industry group and mine owners.
When policies are subservient to interest groups, if the proliferation of conspiracy theories and threats is not contained, they will weaken mutual trust in cooperation between countries, and even increase the risk of strategic miscalculation between the two major powers. This is detrimental to global peaceful development.
China also needs to be straightforward and not immersed in the context of cheaply sold rare-earth raw materials and/or monopolistic reserves of these minerals. The aim pursued by the People’s Republic of China is the transformation from a country of rare-earth extraction into a country of rare-earth processing and production. This is occurring since large amounts of funding have been invested in rare-earth science and technology – projects that are advancing with great strides.
In short, the US policy of rare-earth independence is just wishful thinking and has no practical meaning for the USA itself.
Regardless of what others may think, as long as the People’s Republic of China continues to adhere to a pragmatic policy in the rare-earth industry, and it maintains open cooperation on development concepts – oriented toward innovation and ongoing improvement of the scientific and technological level of the rare-earth industry – it can become a strong pillar of national development, but it will also present itself as a business card that shows the level of its industrial technology, as well as its political credit at the international level.
Is the US mainstream media the spying arm of the Biden Administration?
The US mainstream media is biased. We’ve all heard this before. There is a reason why so many have turned towards Youtube, Twitter and alternative media over the past decade and it’s not only because of the “digitalization” of everything. It’s also about content. We already knew this.
What this past weekend in Geneva also did for me, however, is to make me realize that things are much worse than I thought when it comes to the US mainstream media. They are not just biased; they are actually running together with the US government as the US establishment undercover spying and propaganda arm. I did not expect that. I expected some sort of a bias, or a leaning – all media have that, after all – but the dirty tactics employed by US mainstream media go much deeper. Here is the fresh story.
First of all, let’s all get on the same page that the media has to be free to choose what to cover, whom to cover, how to cover it and how to package it and present it. That’s a given. We can’t fiddle with this assertion. That’s the starting point. Where it does get problematic, however, is when US media only spy on people and events by getting access under the pretense of reporting and by using its media privileges, but then don’t want to actually report anything, and use the material only for exchange with the US government. That’s what we call spying par excellence and it has nothing to do with media standards. It’s actually illegal.
So over the past weekend 24-26 Sept, the US media decided to play smart in Geneva. They were granted permissions and exclusive access and privileges stretching beyond what’s reasonable. The problem is that they were not looking for what they got their permissions for. The US media came to cover the surfing and sailing competition at the Tropical Beach Corner in Geneva, and they won’t run anything about it because they were disappointed that they got exactly that – a surfing and sailing competition. They got footage of the bbq at Villa Barton, but they don’t want to use any of it because they were disappointed that the material shows literally that – people having a bbq at the lake side. They filmed things like the lake shores, the industrial parts of Geneva which are not a landmark attracting the media, and small streets in Paquis and Champel which are also not Geneva landmarks, but okay. It turns out the US media were disappointed because the footage shows literally what they came for.
And then there is the cherry on top of the cake: the Graduate Institute HEI alumni gathering, which is a very private event only for the alumni. And no, the State Department did not belong there. No, you are not welcome to our alumni gathering, unless of course you’re alumni of the Institute and you came as HEI alumni acting in the intellectual internationalist spirit of the HEI alumni network – which, let’s face, was not the case.
The US media got a very exclusive access. The Graduate Institute HEI alumni network is not your grandma’s backyard potluck in Wyoming which you can just walk into because, you know, you are the media. It doesn’t work like that. The HEI alumni network is not a red carpet; it’s not a pompous, pretentious affair. It’s a private access network that does not want to be sold to the world as an elitist, pompous gathering. We are about substance, privacy and access. We are the opposite of the World Economic Forum. The HEI alumni network consists of top diplomats, leaders of international organizations, intellectuals, regulators and business people who are there to catch up with each other, to get the latest trends in private talks, including about what’s going to happen in nuclear diplomacy behind the scenes over the next months, and the trends in Swiss financial regulation, for example. So, if as media, you are getting such an exclusive access, you actually have to cover the event now. You can’t say that you were disappointed in what you saw, so you won’t cover it because the US media knew that what they were attending was literally a dinner with an award ceremony. Where is the US media coverage then?
It was a huge imposition to have outsiders and externals in our gala event on Saturday. I will not go in detail about all the strange requirements that these people had, which were obvious to us as alumni. Having endured all the inconvenience, now the Graduate Institute should be reaping the benefits of the US media coverage. So where is it? It should be coming, unless US media infiltrated us only to spy for the US government. As media, did you interview anyone such as the award recipients or VIP guests? Strange. Isn’t it.
Same goes for the Iran nuclear talks discussion for which US media had exclusive access to Grossi, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I engaged in a discussion with him and I was critical of the Biden administration and their diplomatic abilities. Grossi insisted that “they are trying very hard”. That reminded me of Jimmy Kimmel’s line: “he has no talent, yet he tries so hard”. That’s my assessment of the Biden administration so far. So US media went to cover Grossi and nuclear diplomacy, but they are now disappointed that they got exactly that, a discussion on nuclear diplomacy, so now they don’t want to report on it either.
In conclusion, if you film a surfing and sailing completion, the lake side, bbq at Villa Barton, life on the Geneva streets and parks, the HEI gala and a nuclear diplomacy event, and you are disappointed that you got exactly that, then the natural question is: what were you looking for then? If you got exactly what you went for, but you’re not happy and you won’t run it, then there is something else going on here.
You can’t run coverage of summer in Geneva 2021 and say it’s actually for summer 2022. That’s not how it works. If you’re reporting on a sailing and surfing competition happening in September 2021, you can’t run the news next year. So what did you see in Geneva? Geneva is waiting for its US media coverage. Where is it? We are waiting. You can’t just jerk everyone around, accumulate a lot and then just say that you didn’t get anything interesting because your aim was so different from your stated intentions. These are very dishonest media practices and it’s not even about journalism anymore. If you came to cover the Alumni awards of the Graduate Institute, you better be doing exactly that – you can’t wait until next year to run that. Were you hoping for top diplomats engaging in a drunk fist fight? Unless you get that, there is nothing interesting there. The equivalent is running interviews day after day but saying that you got nothing interesting because you didn’t catch me farting on camera, so you won’t use it.
In Geneva, we don’t like being jerked around, or spied on under the false pretenses of “media coverage”. So what is it then, American media? Make up your mind. Otherwise, to us you are just a bunch of US government spies who are just not that good at it, if we can catch you so quickly. The US should be placed in the last spots of the media freedom index. It’s time to see US mainstream media for what it really is.
Afghanistan and Beginning of the Decline of American Power
Has America’s disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan spoiled its global standing? The pictures of retreating American soldiers at Kabul International Airport have certainly reinforced the notion that the United States had lost control of the situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban takeover of the capital has also led many around the world to question America’s basic competence as a great military power.
At the end of the WW2 victory, the US became the dominant power in the international system. The new era was heralded as the harbinger of the ‘American Century’. The fall of communism in eastern Europe and the rest of the world allowed the West— and particularly its leaders, the United States, to go in any direction that it wanted.
After twenty years of war, the image, clout and confidence of the sole superpower go down in history, buried in the debris of destruction of Afghan war, which has lived up to its reputation as the ‘graveyard of empires’, Britain and Soviet Union were earlier in the 19th and 20th century.
The cost of Afghan war brings nothing for its future. Brown University’s cost of war report says that, “since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $ 2.313 trillion on the war, executing expenditure on life time care for American veterans of the war and future interest payments on money borrowed to fund the war”. CNBC writes, “yet it takes just nine days for the Taliban to seize every provincial capital, dissolve the army and overthrow the US backed government”.
Since the beginning of the 21th century, American’s contributions to global GDP have been decreased from 30% to 15% in 2020. A new power has emerged on the world stage to challenge American supremacy—China— with a weapon the Soviet Union never possessed. The Formal Bilateral Influence Capacity (FBIC) index, a quantitative measure of multidimensional influence between pairs of states. Its report shows the erosion of US influence relative to Chinese influence across nearly every global region. Chinese influence outweighs US influence across much of Africa and Southeast Asia and has increased in former Soviet states. Chinese influence has also eroded the US advantages in South America, West Europe and East Asia.
US has also become more inward-looking country. Biden has made clear that US foreign policy should serve only US interests. Even its military involvement will be scaled down even more.
The last two decade have brought significant shifts in global geopolitical dynamics. As Indian-American political commentator Fareed Zakariya argued in his 2008 book The Post-American World, “the fact that new powers are more strongly asserting their interests in the reality of the post-American world”.
As the US came to dominate the globe, the order it was morally underpinned by its belief in Manifested Destiny and economically underpinned by the US dollar as the reserve currency. The global order has unraveled mostly at the hands of the US itself. Its moral dimension started to come apart, when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, not only disregarding the UN but also propagating lies about Saddam Hussain regime possessing weapons of mass destruction. The credibility of the economic order was damaged by the great recession of 2008, when major US financial institutions collapsed one after the other.
All of this coincides with the resurgence of Asia and emergence of China as the global economic power house. The rise of Trump, the glowing racial injustice the triggered the Black Lives Matter Movement and the near collapse of the health system amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
America’s competitors like Russia and China now hold the space in Afghanistan. Another bar for the American influence in the region. The lost military credibility in Afghanistan has global ramifications for the U.S.
American intelligence agencies even could not assess the capability of Afghan National Army. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction 2016 report noted massive corruption and ‘ghost soldiers’ in Afghan army.
Back to the question: Does the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan represent the end of the American era? It can certainly be said that the international image of the United States has been damaged. The U.S. retreat from Afghanistan represents part of a larger inward turn, or the U.S. may soon reassert itself somewhere else to show the world that it still has muscle. Right now, it feels as if the American era isn’t quite over, but it isn’t what it once was, either.
The Future Role of NATO
Norway Today reported on 27 September 2021, “Norway will sign an agreement on military cooperation with Sweden and Denmark on...
Leading Thinkers to Meet in Dubai for Great Narrative Meeting
The World Economic Forum and the Government of the United Arab Emirates will host the Great Narrative meeting in Dubai...
Economic Recovery in East Asia and Pacific Faces Setback
The East Asia and Pacific region’s recovery has been undermined by the spread of the COVID-19 Delta variant, prolonging the...
Can democracy save the environment?
In 13 short films, each roughly 5 minutes long, Nicolas introduces us to the individuals behind environmental and community-based groups...
Vietnam President Visit to US for UNGA Meeting
Following his visit to Cuba, Vietnam president Nguyen Xuan Phuc visited New York to attend 76th meeting of the UN (United Nations) General Assembly and participated in the deliberations...
5 Valuable Reasons Why You Should Care About Your Instagram Audience Engagement to Succeed
Have you ever wondered about the connection between successful social networking and audience engagement? If you are trying to impact...
The Curious Case of Russian Cyberattacks in India
As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, the technological shifts have made working remotely a reality for millions of...
South Asia4 days ago
Afghanistan may face famine because of anti-Taliban sanctions
Economy3 days ago
Turkish Economy as the Reset Button of Turkish Politics
South Asia3 days ago
What, in fact, is India’s stand on Kashmir?
Reports4 days ago
Global economic recovery continues but remains uneven
Economy3 days ago
Afghan crisis: Changing geo-economics of the neighbourhood
Urban Development3 days ago
City Climate Finance Gap Fund completes first year of operation
Americas4 days ago
Early Elections in Canada: Will the Fourth Wave Get in the Way?
Intelligence3 days ago
The Role and Place of the Taliban on the Global Map of Islam: Challenges and Threats