Passive-aggressive World Order

Listen to article

In the Syfy network series Warehouse 13, the building by that name, located in South Dakota, is a repository where several field agents store artefacts possessing magical powers. These agents are tasked with collecting such objects. We are told that before this, a dozen similar warehouses existed, each located at the heart of the predominant global power of that time, starting from Alexander the Great to Great Britain. The change of location is irreversible. By the end of the series, we learn that the warehouse is relocating to China and that this shift cannot be stopped.

I know this analogy was like a PIA flight — long, hard and perilous — but we got there in the end. I don't know what possessed the makers of an American series to predict something as dramatic and political as the passing of the baton of power and civilisation from the US to China, but there is something in there. We keep hearing about the alleged decline of the US, often from Americans themselves. Sometimes, such predictions remind you of Gríma Wormtongue's poisoning of King Théoden of Rohan. Nevertheless, it is a common talking point among experts. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say the rumours of American power's decline have been greatly exaggerated.

But you have to appreciate why so many people think a decline is inevitable or a cold war is. There are no guiding rules of international relations to turn to. The whole field is littered with half-baked theories, which are usually incapable of predicting the future. Then, there is the matter of insufficient data. There are 195 countries in total, and the idea of nation-states is only 377 years old. Before the Treaty of Westphalia, the concept did not exist.

What are the key rules of a scientific theory? It should be based on empirical evidence, replicable and falsifiable, have explanatory power, be able to make predictions, be supported by a large body of data, and be subject to peer review and potential revision. How on earth can you replicate the results of an experiment when the subject is a nation-state? No wonder the discipline has never been able to satisfactorily predict any serious development.

So, what happens in the absence of hard data and reliable ground rules? Many experts behave like lobbyists for powerful interests, both foreign and domestic. In the words of Dr Ken Booth, instead of speaking truth to power, they end up talking power to truth. Keep this in mind - it will be useful later.

Still, things are getting interesting. We have seen intriguing, albeit unsuccessful, attempts at decoupling the US and Chinese economies. The restrictions imposed on selling AI microchips to China, the attempts to wish away China's growth, and its Belt and Road Initiative are among such efforts. But both economies are so deeply intertwined that you cannot decouple them without undoing the economic progress of the last half-century. These efforts, however, have reinforced the fear of encirclement and increased suspicion about US intentions in the Chinese mind. If you want to name this world order anything, it ought to be called the passive-aggressive world order.

National power does not decline without context. If you go to YouTube and search Margaret Thatcher and Russia, one of the top results will be a short clip where she tells us that the country possesses everything. The Soviet Union fell apart due to mismanagement, flaws in its economic model, and what Paul Kennedy calls imperial overreach. Otherwise, defeating Russia on its home turf has never been easy. This is why President Putin railed against the economic sanctions to the extent that he was ready to upstage the world economic order by weaponising BRICS — until President Trump's re-election convinced him otherwise.

America is no different. Read The Accidental Superpower: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder by Peter Zeihan, who meticulously catalogues all the factors working in America's favour. Only very serious mistakes can diminish your power, but even small mistakes can have significant consequences at that altitude. It is like driving a fast-moving car — one split-second error in judgment can cost you your life and countless others.

America's main mistake since the Cold War has been a paralysis of judgment. It was told it was the sole superpower, yet it did not develop a Marshall Plan for the former Soviet Union. When you freeze, others go on the prowl. Lobbying efforts increased. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations became a central talking point among pundits. This punditry class was the worst — it convinced its own country that instead of building its power, it should outsource to regional partners.

And since it was the age of globalisation, America's partners and assumed rivals flourished while American taxpayers suffered. If you can see through the media's spin, all President Trump is trying to do is reclaim America's power and wealth. If you want power, he says, you pay for it. A strong America will not need go-betweens to handle rivals. Will he succeed? Only time will tell. But by giving him a decisive mandate, American voters have settled the domestic debate for a long time — to the extent that his critics in the media and elsewhere don't know how to get back at him.

Two sobering developments should, however, remind his administration that American tech companies are not in great shape. One is, of course, the rise of DeepSeek, which we have already discussed before. American companies kept trying to monopolise compute, while a Chinese start-up went ahead and optimised the limited compute available, achieving outstanding success. The other is in the field of quantum computing.

After Google, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM released their quantum chips, all requiring cryogenic temperatures, Chinese companies deployed photonic quantum computing — which can function at room temperature and has fewer scalability issues. This paints a sloppy picture of herd mentality, where, in your race, you are moving so fast that you do not have time for lateral thinking. Instead, you go down the herd mentality route. Shouldn't competition mean you explore more ideas rather than obsessively pursuing one single, overhyped solution? This is how you lose the muse of innovation to your competitors.

Empires and nations have risen and fallen in the past, but you need to know when to tune out the pundits. America's decline is not inevitable. In fact, it is not even plausible — nor is another Cold War. What you are looking at is economic competition within the same system. If we had better pundits, all of this could be turned into a win-win for everyone.

Sigh!