What's the role of the US?

[eynon81]

[gla22]

[exploited]

[The Comrade]

[broken robot]

There are several problems with your post leviathan. First you’re ignoring the fact that there are already regional systems of stability. Let’s take south asia as an example. In 1971 india invaded east Pakistan and helped the creation of what is now Bangladesh. The us backed west Pakistan (now just Pakistan), supporting the genocidal dictator yahya khan, but even still they weren’t that invested in the conflict given they just let bangladesh happen. realpolitik commitments, in this case negotiated by henry kissinger, are hardly that stable, except in the case of israel which is a very unique historical case. If india wanted to it could have pushed the conflict further. Why not? Because even though india and Pakistan get into skirmishes and wars in contested regions such as Bangladesh and Kashmir, there has evolved a set of relations and exchanges between the two countries. Moreover I’m saying this with partition in mind, when several hundred thousand people were killed crossing the border between india and Pakistan in 1948. Again, what role did the us play? None. It’s hard to imagine that levels of violence would exceed those proportions in the early days of the independence. moreover, India and Pakistan are not homogeneous units: they have a balance of class forces that is expressed through the organization of the state. Groups such as landowners, merchants and industrialists, working classes, and others all have different stakes in the state and which prevent any one group or constituency from assuming total control to act on its own foreign policy ambitions. If the us were in fact to suddenly disappear, it may very well spark major reforms in Pakistan actually, as the military would lose a significant amount of control and be under more pressure to negotiate with the civilian establishment. The us’s role in Pakistan has been far from helpful, enabling the generals to replace civilian leaders such as zulfikar Bhutto while creating a virtual military dictatorship.

Similar events might happen in other countries: Israel would still receive backing from countries in Europe but would be under increased pressure to end the occupation and maybe even become a binational state. The us isn’t the only country involved in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Most recently Netanyahu went through france to try and scuttle the us-iran nuclear deal. Elsewhere things might significantly improve for the stability of other countries, particularly the massive reduction in drug conflicts in latin America. Around much of the world you’d likely see the rise of regional hegemons such as Russia and china that would work within some of the constraints and parameters of the existing system, balanced with a modest amount of internal reform given the new balances among class forces + absence of us propping up regimes that have fewer bases of domestic support. Far cry from the apocalyptic future you envision.

Second, you’re ignoring what international relations scholars have termed “polyarchic” forces. states aren’t the only actors in the world. There are global institutions, ngos, diasporas, etc. these again impose constraints on the state to act unilaterally. Let’s take another example from south asia. Sri lanka after the end of its civil war in 2009 is facing pressure from both india, south Africa, and western countries to investigate potential war crimes committed by the state. the us is pretty much absent from this picture. Why are the western countries in particular doing this? Because in addition to human rights organizations they have powerful diasporic Tamil lobbies that are represented in their political systems. Again, on the face of it you’d wonder why Canada cares about anything going on in a tiny developing country smack in the middle of the indian ocean. But given the fact that there are other actors, canada is pressured to act. Moreover the institutions the us has played a fundamental role in creating such as the imf and world bank will continue to exist and impose economic constraints. since you mention political theory, I’m sure you’ve heard of bob keohane. He argues that while hegemons may help found international regimes they are not necessary to its continued survival. In fact that’s where many political theorists say our world is already heading.

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

no, china likes not having north korean refugees. if they could guarantee victory, on the other hand. well. a chinese puppet in control of all that south korean industry would be nice.

taiwan would inevitably fall. without a doubt. and yes, a hotwar between china and japan would break out over hegemony in the pacific. it's also inevitable. no one said anything about invading japan but you

[exploited]

I could see a hot war breaking out... maybe. But I doubt it, because Russia is all up in China's shit. Going to war with Japan would be a massive undertaking... next thing you know, you've got an India-Japan alliance, being fed arms by Russia, who hates China way more than it hates Japan. Meanwhile, Russia sits back and waits for China to attrition the shit out of their forces.

I don't see it happening, personally.

Also keep in mind how utterly poor this would make the global economy. Another serious reason to believe it won't happe.

[gla22]

[The Comrade]

1. everyone needs to stop talking about wars now like they'd be fought 90 years ago. no one is invading siberia. there won't be a stalingrad in vladisvostok. even if that did somehow come to pass, chinese soldiers would be more prepared than german conscripts.

2. russia and india would likely not get involved if they weren't directly threatened. the SOVIETS hated china. russia is too concerned with consolidating oligarchical power and money to care. and chinas biggest business partner, the US, no longer exists. their economy would be operating within that reality and so their trading partners would, likely, be non-combatants. no serious disruption of trade would occur for very long. the JDF would crumble pretty quickly and the north would start shitting out south korean products ASAP. there's no need for wars of attrition. china just needs to demonstrate the other nations have utterly zero hope of defending their claims.