The Future Does Not Belong to America or China

It has become popular to describe our current era as post-Western or perhaps post-American. The problem is not necessarily that these words are wrong. Rather, it is that they focus on what is being changed rather than what is changing. I’ve been as guilty as anyone. Several years ago, I had an editor mention one of my books The Future Belongs to Asia. I was impressed by his bold composition. There is only one problem, I scolded him: “Now this is already Asian for most people.”

One of the hardest parts about finding the right term for the world we live in is adjusting the setting. Western international relations theory, along with the conventions of foreign policy research, has left everyone trying to identify the laws and institutions that define the emerging international or international order.

One of the hardest parts about finding the right term for the world we live in is adjusting the setting. Western international relations theory, along with the conventions of foreign policy research, has left everyone trying to identify the laws and institutions that define the emerging international or international order.

But nothing about the natural nature of history or geopolitics requires that there be a fixed and defined order. Geopolitics is the deep science of space power dynamics, not a popularity contest for who becomes the secretary general of NATO or the United Nations.

Geopolitics encompasses many scales and domains, whether territorial, financial, or digital. The evidence is overwhelming that today’s landscape is filled with many different regimes that interact in many ways, and there is no credible alternative to change it. There is no status quo authority and no meaningful institutions of international governance. In this world, James Der Derian’s idea of ​​“heteropolarity” by Amitav Acharya “multiplex world” closer to moving beyond the clicks of “Who’s No. 1?” to capture the richness of global trends.

Not surprisingly, Der Derian and Acharya are supporters of the “Global IR” movement whose origins lie in the work of Australian-born Oxford professor Hedley Bull. In his 1977 work, Anarchical societyBull argued for a “new medieval faith,” with overlapping powers and loyalties transcending the Westphalian system of government. Before the emergence of the modern European system of government, power on the continent was contested between lords, kings, and popes, whose writings mapped a complex array of duchies, principalities, and the Holy Roman Empire. In key geographies such as the Baltic and North Sea regions, confederations of city-states such as the Hanseatic League set the de facto rules of international trade beyond any “state” or international authority.

Although we live in Bull’s world—full of multi-level, multi-actor dynamics involving imperial states, multinational corporations, stateless digital communities, and more—our common discourse falls on reductionism, as if the complex world of 2050 can be explained by a coin toss between the US and China. Instead, we should embrace pluralism, renounce universalism, and explore the connections between powers at the microcosm level.

Bull’s prominent intellectual successor, Barry Buzan of the London School of Economics, criticized Bull’s position on Europe at the international level while promoting the idea of “Provincial Security Parks”. Indeed, a regional lens is necessary to demonstrate the lack of global uniformity. In fact, the more closely one looks at a particular part of the world, the more discussions about power hierarchies collapsing and not following the lines of today’s world reveal themselves. Instead of armchair pundits weighing successive episodes of “Who Gets Super Power?” instead we should look at which authorities have more or less influence, where and how that power is used.

Consider South America. For two decades, China has been making great efforts in financing critical infrastructure and building strategic trade relations and opening up raw materials and promoting its exports. Then, in a matter of months, the Trump administration shook all this up. It succeeded in forcing Panama to unconstitutionally allow a Chinese company to operate the Panama Canal ports; ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and redirected oil flows to the US instead of China; and signed bilateral agreements to advance the mining and processing of important minerals such as lithium with governments from Mexico to Chile and Argentina. Although many deride the “Donroe Doctrine,” the National Security Strategy 2025 and the recent American Shield summit clearly embody the 19th-century geopolitical logic of prioritizing international relations over distant conflicts. Therefore, the Western World is as unipolar as ever—for now.

The picture looks completely different when you switch hemispheres. Europe, long considered a geopolitical player, has shifted into higher gear. After decades of white-ribbon commissions followed by inaction, Europe has finally decided to do “whatever it takes” to no longer depend on the United States. Not wanting to go along with US President Donald Trump’s plans to annex Greenland and abandon Ukraine, the European Union is accelerating its plans for nuclear defense and strengthening, technological freedom, capital markets union, banking union, and several other plans to consolidate its power. Its equity markets pass speed S&P 500 in 2025, and for the first time, more Americans transferred to Europe than vice versa. Americans are making Europe great again—another example of how quickly geopolitical tides can turn. And if the US were to withdraw from NATO, Europe’s quest for strategic autonomy would only increase.

The Indo-Pacific Empire also shows how strategic entropy blows away the illusion of pursuing a single empire’s grand strategy. A decade ago, it was common to argue that China’s Belt and Road Initiative represented the country’s transcontinental ascension, linking rail and pipelines with a vast fleet of naval vessels in a neo-colonial mining operation stretching from the Arctic to Africa. But increasingly it is India that is flexing its regional muscle in its maritime backyard, with more than 100 warships, new naval exercises, and a strategic doctrine focused on mutual security and rescue. For decades, it was said that only the United States could protect the world’s sea lanes. It turns out that maritime security has to be discussed on a case-by-case basis and can be coordinated without Washington.

But don’t count the US out of Eurasia just yet either. Europe, India, and Japan claim their strategic interests, and they need Washington to ensure that Beijing cannot dominate the Eastern Hemisphere as the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. Trans-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific powers are coming together to build sophisticated supply chains that are not under Beijing’s control. Think of it as NATO joining forces with the Quad but on a performance basis rather than formal agreements with security guarantees. And make no mistake that Washington has been an important driver behind the scenes – just look Pax Instinct.

Indeed, even the building blocks of the global system differ depending on where you look. While Western intellectuals see (their own) states withering, in much of Asia, and by extension much of humanity, the state has never been stronger. China today actually has more governmental power than any other empire in the history of the world. The Gulf States of West Asia have prioritized internal modernization and economic diversification, with their energy trade relations leaning eastward and their military cooperation moving westward. A war with Iran will accelerate this trend as they embrace alternatives to the dollar while also buying more Western weapons to counter Iran’s missiles and drones.

Yet at the same time, while some mega-states are growing stronger than ever, other city-states continue to punch above their weight. They include geophysics in which gravity and convergence impose influences beyond size alone. Cities such as Singapore and the United Arab Emirates have become magnets through which capital and talent flow in turbulent times. In fact, despite the war with Iran, the majority of UAE residents in South Asia have not fled, and even many Western Europeans who left earlier now. return. Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, independent islands of booths – Lisbon, Athens, Dubai, Bali, and others – have created a cycle through which entrepreneurs and knowledge workers flow.

And what does all this mean for the United States? This ancient environment is neither glorious nor doom. The unipolar world is gone, on paper and in reality—but no single force or order will replace it. We are not leaving the stable world of nation-states for a period of post-national chaos. Instead, we are witnessing the emergence of systems that do not conform to conventional hierarchies or historical concepts. One consistent fact is that power is constantly contested, varied and shifted almost daily. The Middle Ages were not mentioned until long after the era had passed. Today, we must learn to recognize the New Middle Ages we are already in.