Kissinger Article
Spain certainly was one of the world's great colonial powers when the US fought them. It was a multi polar world then and Britain had to share power with Spain, France and the Ottoman Empire, as well as China.
The US came into being as a nation by defeating Britain, almost immediately fought the Ottoman Empire over their demands for "tribute" from our merchant ships, forcing them to back down and relent after the bombardment and blockade of Tripoli and capture of Derma. We tangled with our former ally against Britain, the French, then again with Britain (not such a good result that time) and then invaded and conquered Mexico, keeping half for ourselves. After recovering from our Civil War, we took on the Spanish and won that one too, keeping several of their possessions to this day. I wouldn't call that an example of a nation achieving eminence without conflict with the then-dominant powers.
And the article is a bit deceptive about how China under the Qing dealt with foreign nations. The US, for example, had diplomats in China from 1844 forward, calling these diplomats "Commissioners" and then "Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary". The Qing didn't have a method to accept the Letters of Credence that accompany ambassadors, but China certainly had diplomatic relations with sovereign nations and understood them to be sovereign and not vassals of China.
Somewhere around 2003, I watched a program on C-SPAN in which a researcher tried to analyze the causes of American military interventions throughout the world. To this end, he claimed he had analyzed one hundred and some American military interventions
since the end of the Cold War. The show host was impressed, and I suppose everybody too. He had to repeat the time frame. More than one hundred military interventions in something like a dozen years. The researcher was from the Naval War College.
No, the US is definitely NOT a pacifist country. But Kissinger is
not saying that, and he's no peace-nik himself. He knows his history well, in that regard. Kissinger's point is actually quite simple, and you're missing it. Maybe for you, the point needs to be made in reverse: not from the point of view of the rising power, but of the power which is being eclipsed, or which, at any rate, is losing it's priviledged position as lone superpower.
Here it is. Britain, which was the pre-eminent power through the 19th century, managed to secure itself a
decent position through the 20th century,
without losing any wars (to the other powers). In particular, it managed to negotiate for itself a respectable place in the next world order (post World War II),
without fighting a war with either of the two major powers (the US and the Soviet Union) that inherited the position it had held alone through most of the 19th century. This, in my view, is the importance of the point, and is something to be considered, because a new world order is coming whether anybody likes it or not. We don't have to agree on what this new world will look like, but some "negotiation" will have to take place. In my view, the Brittish showed some skill, and this is worth pondering.
As to war being inevitable, NOTHING is inevitable. Between the US and China, I don't think it's even likely. The reason is two fold. First, both are nuclear powers. During the cold war the Soviet Union and the US never fought a direct shooting war with each other. The second reason is simply that China does not want a war. In fact, China has no use for such a thing as, basically, a peaceful situation works to its advantage.
Will the US launch a war against China? There is a record we can go by. The last time the US did this was during the Korean War, when China was generally considered to be poorer even than India. That ended in a stalemate, and it seems to me the US leadership deemed the attack on the Yalu river installation a mistake. The next "opportunity" was the Vietnam War, during which the US chose to NOT even cross the DMZ! In 1965, the US considered nuking China before China had tested its own bomb. For whatever reason, it didn't. It has been nearly 70 years since the US fought a war against a relative peer. And the US did not
launch this war: it had been going for a couple of years before the US jumped in.
Sure, times are different than the 50's and 60's, but the year which just ended may give you an indication of a certain pattern. After trying to confront China throughout the year on every question of global politics (climate, currency, trade, UN reform, Iran), on every question of regional politics (Korean peninsula, Sea of Japan, South China Sea), and on quite a few of China's
internal issues (Tibet, Taiwan, Google), the year ended in a decidedly conciliatory tone. Even Hillary is talking softer now, not only Gates. Why? Because, while the US made some gains in Vietnam, China also made some gains, not only in Turkey and Brazil, but also in GERMANY and FRANCE. This is not a good trade. 10% yearly growth, plus 20% growth in trade, gives China a certain advantage: its GDP doubles every 7 years.
The US, or any country, for that matter, will only choose war if a) it looks
easy, or b) it seems
necessary. Obviously, China does not qualify as "easy". But note, on the other hand, that China is NOT threatening the US. It is only American pre-eminence that is being threatened. And it is not China which is doing this, but, essentially all emerging markets together. If the US were to win a war with China, it would only benefit India, Russia, Brazil, etc. I could put this another way: it is the
logic of the market, and economic development worldwide, which is threatening the priviledged position of the United States. What use is it to fight a war for "free enterprise", if precisely
this is what is bound to erode your position in the end?
P.S.: The choice of countries making up your "multipolar world" at the end of the 19th century is just odd.
