[Written in July 1997.]
Influence comes from three sources: words, money, and guns.
By words, I mean the ideas that influence people. The ideas of the rule of law, of some personal freedom, of the right to choose which power group to support --- these are all very influential around the world. And they lead to peaceful methods of settling disputes, which is very civilized. They are competing against or sometimes in harmony with ideas that people should be godly, helpful to neighbors, uncorrupt, and hard working, as among the Taliban in Afghanistan.
By money, I mean the ability of a government to fund those it supports. Much of Britain's power as an empire came from this; for example, in the wars of the Spanish Succession, some British fought, but much of Britain's power came from its ability to pay others. Nowadays, much pay goes through international organizations, such as the IMF or World Bank; or goes via private investments after the IMF has, in effect, provided a `seal of approval'. These are more sophisticated managerial techniques than many in the past, provide other players with more power, and enable a great power, such as the US, to retreat gently as needed, by simply cutting the money it spends.
By guns, I mean military power, and the perceived willingness to use it. With the appropriate advanced technology, military power comes more cheaply. Technology is not the only aspect, but it is important. It is said that for some kinds of war, such as those fought between regular armies in a desert, modern technology plus billions of dollars is all important. Consider, for example, the 1991 Gulf War.
But for war fought in landscapes where it is harder to track people or machinery, technology is less significant. Consider the fighting in Afghanistan the past 18 years. (But note also, how important one technology was, namely helicopters; and how a second technology, shoulder launched missiles, countered them.)
Now for the future:
What happens when the Chinese ability to buy technology, to fund foreign projects, and pay for foreign wars, comes to exceed that of the US?
The Chinese have historic grievances, a desire to look good in their own eyes, and long horizons (by `Chinese', I mean, the powerful in the country).
In times past, other countries have not readily assented to the requests of countries whose power has increased, so the newly powerful countries have often tried to redefine power relationships via war. In the case of Germany, it did this after its economy grew bigger than its main European opponents, but before its economy grew bigger than the coalition that raised against it.
This rendition of history suggests that eventually, China will seek power over what is now called a `rebellious province' and over other nearby countries; either those countries will assent peacefully, or they will not. In the latter case, we may see war.
Historically, wars have occurred when two (or more) countries disagree over their relative power. When the countries agree over power, they negotiate a settlement; the weaker acquiesces peacefully, often retaining benefits and considerable autonomy, since it forgoes the costs of war. But when countries disagree, they fight. For example, in the 1960s and 70s, powers in Vietnam and powers in the US disagreed over who could outlast whom in a war of attrition, and the US lost.
The great advantage of democratic arrangements, both domestically and internationally, is that they permit rearrangements of power without war. That is what the European union is about, fundamentally: a way for France and Germany to readjust to each other without having to fight. Civilized.
Or return to: Rattlesnake Home Page