|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
080124
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
071071
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
077954
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
080126
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
081304
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A growing body of literature indicates that the balance of power may shift from the West to the East as China rises and the United States declines. The sum total of America's global interests and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country's power to defend them all simultaneously. In this respect, the problems the United States confronts are almost identical with those of previous imperial powers, such as Britain, France, Spain, and the Soviet Union. If we accept an American decline for a moment, China is the only country that has the economic potential to challenge the United States for the global economic leadership in the next generation. There have been two great shifts in global power over the past 400 years. The first was the rise of Europe, which around the 17th century became the richest, most enterprising, and ambitious part of the world. The second was the rise of the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it became the single most powerful country in the world, the globe's decisive player in economics and politics. For centuries, the rest of the world was a stage for the ambitions and interests of the West's great powers. China's rise, along with those of Japan and Korea, represents the third great shift in global power, the rise of East Asia.1 They used to say that when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches pneumonia. Some analysts say that this old adage no longer is true, because a great shift in economic power is taking place from a single dominant influence of the United States to a bipolar system driven by the United States and China. However, this paper argues why the United States will continue to maintain the world's economic leadership in the next generation and beyond. In addition, it discusses the importance of multilateral actions on world affairs with respect to the North Korean nuclear standoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|