A very dangerous new imperial era has begun

As the first quarter of the 21st century draws to a close, the global system of interstate competition finds itself at a turning point.

The modern system arose in the 17th century when the Dutch and English created capitalist state machines at home and capitalist empires abroad.

It has been remade several times since, first with the rise of industrial capitalist states and the European colonial system in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The system was remade again after its collapse in the two world wars of the first half of the 20th century, or the “30 Years’ War,” as historian EH Carr called the period 1914-1945.

The Cold War that emerged from this global conflict marked the beginning of the era of American dominance.

We live today in an era of the decline of the United States and the rise of a multipolar world system.

Protectionism combined with isolationism

Some of the effects of this have become clear over the past 12 months.

Donald Trump’s protectionism is only one aspect of this tectonic shift. Emerging industrial powers often introduce protectionist policies, as the United States did in the first half of the 20th century and Britain before 1840.

However, industrial powers in dominant market positions are less likely to resort to protectionism.

Indeed, they tend to favor free trade, as the United Kingdom did after the Industrial Revolution took full effect and as the United States did when it became the world’s leading power after 1945, using their economic superiority to open the protected markets of other states.

Today, China is a champion of free trade and the United States is taking a protectionist turn for the first time since the 1930s. Trade wars can, but do not necessarily, lead to military conflict.

But in Trump’s case, protectionism is allied with isolationism, leading to a broader perception – nurtured by Trump for electoral reasons during the Iraq Syndrome era – that he is opposed to US involvement. United States in “foreign wars”.

However, this is a misinterpretation of the situation in which American imperialism finds itself. Trump may want to distance himself from the failed wars of the last generation, including the war in Ukraine, but he is by no means a pacifist.

Trump wants to focus on China; he is in favor of pronounced hostility towards Iran; and his well-known disparaging remarks about NATO are a threat designed to get European powers to increase their arms spending – a tactic that was remarkably successful during his first term.

He already launched a similar offensive against European NATO states before his inauguration, demanding that they pay an unprecedented 5 percent of their GDP for weapons, while the United States itself pays than 3.5 percent.

It is surely a sign of the decline of American hegemony as the imperial capital can no longer finance its own military supremacy and demands an increasing tribute from its satraps.

Sustained preparation for war

Trump may very well be willing, and perhaps be able, to facilitate an uneasy peace between the exhausted participants in the Ukraine war — a peace that freezes hostilities without diminishing the likelihood that they will erupt again in the future.

But that war pushed NATO powers onto a path of sustained preparation for war and strengthened Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alliances with others, including China.

Ukraine, however, is not the only place where we can detect a weakening of American hegemony. The situation in the Middle East tells the same story.

First, the United States may want to reduce its commitment to controlling the Middle East – the old imperial problem, so to speak – in order to focus on the new imperial problem in the Far East.

Disengagement is virtually impossible. The world’s most profitable oil is found in the Middle East, and it is much easier to extract from its sands than anywhere else, including the United States itself.

But disengagement is virtually impossible. The world’s most profitable oil is found in the Middle East, and it is much easier to extract from its sands than anywhere else, including the United States itself. And as the Houthis have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt, the Red Sea-Suez Canal maritime route is decisive for world trade.

Moreover, political instability in the region always has a global impact and is never simply a regional affair.

American imperialism appears to have had a good year, as its ally Israel destroyed Gaza, reduced the effectiveness of Hezbollah and witnessed the overthrow of the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

However, the political price of this situation has been enormous. Israel has become a leprous state, widely accused of genocide. Its prime minister is a man wanted for war crimes in 124 countries, and it is unclear whether this rogue state is somehow entirely under the control of its imperial master.

Yes, the United States prevented a full-scale regional war with Iran, by ordering Israel not to strike Iranian oil installations or nuclear weapons sites.

The challenge of China

But apart from that, Israel has recognized the American “red lines” more in violation than in respect. The latest breach is the occupation of more Syrian land in the Golan Heights, further complicating Syria’s already balkanized map.

The political landscape of post-Assad Syria, as Trump has admitted, will be decided as much by Turkey – an ally of the new regime – as by the United States directly.

Indeed, it could be argued that the advantages Israel created through force of arms were negated by the diplomatic and political damage this caused as well as the prospect of renewed conflict in post-Assad Syria , where the new government faces the Kurds and, with less enthusiasm, the Israelis.

Finally, China itself.

Despite all the difficulties that American imperialism experiences in evading its commitments in Europe and the Middle East, it will continue to concentrate substantial forces to face the new challenger to world hegemony.

In a competitive global market and in a competitive international state system, it cannot be otherwise. This is a structural imperative of the imperial global order, regardless of the noises of “peaceful coexistence” made by the Chinese state and its Western trumpets.

In the past, it was widely expected that China’s economic strength would continue to grow, that its military might would also increase, and that such a challenge to US imperialism would lead to dangerous international incidents. and the threat of wider war.

Hegemon weakened

Such projections have some validity. However, even an economy that industrialized as quickly as China’s – perhaps especially those that industrialize as quickly – does not continue to grow exponentially forever.

There have long been signs that China’s growth rate has fallen, not just for this year or that year, but permanently from its peak.

The dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party has of course realized this and is trying to develop its domestic market to compensate, as many industrializing states have done before.

However, such radical changes in economic development, with all the social disruptions inevitable in such circumstances, could lead to greater economic and political challenges than China’s leaders have faced before.

This does not reduce the likelihood of international tensions; on the contrary, it risks increasing them. Empire and the management of domestic unrest are mutual drivers, as the British and American ruling classes can attest.

As we enter 2025, we have a weakened hegemon led by a president who, for the first time in nearly 100 years, is poised to move toward running an empire that combines protectionism, isolationism, and delegation to agents.

In China, it faces a global challenger whose most spectacular years of growth may already be behind it, while the most serious internal problems created by that growth lie ahead.

Governments faced with such problems almost always attempt to partially outsource them, seeking solutions through imperial success and enemies who can be accused of maladministration.

This combination of factors alone will make the second quarter of the 21st century an era where ordinary citizens will have to mobilize to maintain the peace.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of Middle East Eye.