A World Without Superpowers: de-centered globalism

Speaker: Professor Barry Buzan
This event was recorded on 10 May 2011 in Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building
As the inequality of power between the West and the rest diminishes, the most likely scenario for world politics is de-centered globalism, in which there will be no superpowers. But what does a world with no superpowers mean for regional coexistence and international cooperation? Barry Buzan is Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at LSE and senior fellow at LSE IDEAS.

[@jamesadams6360]

I would have dated this lecture as 2016-18, but NOPE. This is 2011, and we're seeing the beginning of what he's talking about today.

[@patrickbass3542]

It's now 2021 and WE ARE NOW THERE!!!!

[@yttean98]

It is already 18yrs after this talk, the world is emerging into at least a bipolar world(US and China) and possibly moving towards a multipolar world and the US refuses to give UP its hegemonic status. As you can see it is very difficult to predict the direction in which the history of the world is moving.

[@ijustwannafuckher.4773]

There can never be a world without superpowers. Since the beginning of time, large nations have ruled over small nations. All that would happen in a world with no ruling global superpower is a vacuum: a vacuum in which another big nation would fill the gap.

[@srdxxx]

Understanding that this talk was given six years ago now, I still have some issues with it. While I disagree that America will decline, I do believe that we will withdraw, which is functionally the same...no superpower. We will leave NATO, probably the WTO, and possibly the United Nations. We will withdraw from our worldwide network of alliances. I also agree that no new superpower will rise to replace the US, which will leave a world of great powers. I disagree that this will be benign. Pick any city in world. Imagine that it wakes up one day and there are no police. Will the outcome be reasonable and measured? Professor Buzan is giving insufficient weight to the fact that the existing world order is only possible because America maintains it. When America is no longer keeping Iran and Saudi Arabia from each others throats, ISIL Syria, and Yemen are only the start. When America is not acting as counter to Russia, then Crimea and Donbass are only the start. When America is not resisting China, the South China Sea is only the start. Then there are the energy wars. And the demographic time bombs. And nuclear proliferation in the absence of the US nuclear umbrella. And so on. Six years ago was before the Shale Revolution made the US de facto energy independent. So perhaps the professor thought that the US would remain more involved with the world than we are going to, and would still need to underwrite global security. But we're not.

[@TheREALJackFurious]

Comment fail level +1000

[@0150Tricia]

😂

[@sherlockholmeslives.1605]

I like to think that there are doctors and professors who are far more intelligent than me.

[@josetan799]

Well said 😊

[@jenpsakiscousin4589]

All this assumes that there is no hegemonic oligarchy and no elitism on part of global banking system. Globalism also assumes that no entity will seek dominance over another entity. How has history treated nation states?

[@yellowburger]

Barry needs to read Black Swans. Anything can happen in economics. And the lesson we can take from that is that anything can happen in international relations. One thing we can almost be certain of is that the future is unlikely to be a kinda middle of the road journey, without shockingly calamitous events. Barry presents the "meh" theory of international relations. "Not much gonna happen. Superpowers gonna wither. Don't worry about it." For some reason, this really makes me worry. Having said all this, Barry Buzan is my favorite IR theorist, and I'm pretty sure he's read Black Swans.

[@yellowburger]

Man, I hope he's right.

[@yellowburger]

What is the name of that awesome fellow who introduces Barry. Sounded like, "My name is Mick Hubs." He was priceless.

[@sels56-36]

michael (mick) cox

[@TheNonAntiAnarchist]

When I think of "ethnic" background, I think of genetic and cultural variances between groups of people, not what nation they claim allegiance to - not "nationality" (why would we have two terms to refer to the same thing?)

[@yellowburger]

Why would he have two expressions to reference the identical concept?

[@acazacu1810]

Right...

[@motanelustelistu]

I could hold a speach about a world without superpowerds and de-centered globalism,and eradication of globalisation.

[@yellowburger]

Shift from hunters and gatherers. Shift from feudalism to capitalism. Industrial revolution. We have already undergone another revolution with computer technology. And AI may create an even more rapid revolution just around the corner. Barry is right that these things have not happened very often in the past. But the shift from H and G to agrarian took tens of thousands of years. Later shifts seem to have occurred faster and faster.

[@Neshuah1]

in America, almost everyone would say "im american" instead of "im new mexican" or "im californian", try to ask people in China or Russia about their nationality.

[@sirlordhenrymortimer6620]

And what would they say ? Why don't you specify it

[@Neshuah1]

I dont really like hearing about China, Russia, Brazil and India as being anti any superpowers, as wanting to cooperate in these mild checks'n'balances. There is going to be a competiotion between those, it has always been that way and it's in human nature. Whether some of these countries are going to "win" (become the ONE superpower), is a question of far future.

[@TheNonAntiAnarchist]

I don't get the point you're trying to make (haven't watched the lecture yet), but how could you say the USA is homogenous?

[@MartinJames389]

Professor Pangloss couldn't be more wrong that "advance of material capability, technolcogy and suchlike" is seen as a universal benefit. Permanent economic growth is impossible on a finite planet already running out of resources. Fresh water is first, of course, and water or the lack of it, is likely to be the factor shaping the world order more than any other over the next 50 years. Neither do territorial states look so clever or so relevant any more. Yes, they retain widespread popularity, but that perception is increasingly ill-founded and atavistic, offering no useful model for the future. Chinese economic imperialism in Africa and elsewhere was missing from the analysis that "China has no friends". It's BUYING them -or attempting to do so. Whether that will work remains to be seen. Lastly, the rising power of religion has been overlooked. I don't refer only to Islam, but to Hinduism and to two radically different versions of Christianity centred on (but not wholly exclusive to) the USA and Russia..

[@kimlersue]

No globalism...too much power in too few hands, always leads to totalitarianism! People are numbers to be counted, provided for...or eliminated! Nationalism..in the USA at least...is a good thing. We've decided to keep it...bye bye! We have poverty...but at no level is it as extreme as India, for instance!

[@motanelustelistu]

Yeah,thats right,but still,Globalisation and Corporation are the 2 words i hate the most.

[@motanelustelistu]

Yes it has any significance.Search on google for British Commonwealth and you shall see.

[@richardchak696]

British Commonwealth is a legacy of the fading organisation where by at the end of British Empire they just wanted the future generations to remember them to feel good about themselves. It is only a talk shop that doesn't have any significant impact on the world...let be realistic. British important in the world is long gone that one read in history book...that will never again come. It will sound unpalatable to British but that is reality.

[@motanelustelistu]

Well off course they will.Its moronic not to say that(despite it won't be so hard to belive,as most of them can't indicate US on a map).About Russia,i almost bet they think alike.China is a weird country,nothings sure there ...

[@yuritorchinov9603]

Joker disease, that changes the game. Nice forecast.

[@motanelustelistu]

Apropo,sunt roman ...

[@kheludeel-obeidi5013]

The Arabs are good candidates but you would never mention them as a candidate

[@TheREALJackFurious]

Man, that jab at China didn’t age well…

[@Neshuah1]

USA have the benefit of being relatively ethnic homogenous. The only other examples I can think of are Asian Arabs (meaning Northern Africa is too nationalist & old) and POSSIBLY Subsaharan Africa (as to their language family, relatively similar history & religion). South America is more difficult, regarding Argentina's hostility to the UK, Paraguay's hostility to Arg. and Venezuela as such.

[@Neshuah1]

The main reason that the USA is a superpower, is that there's no one else that can compete them. Europe and India are ethnically divided, China is economically unstable and Russia is healing its wounds from the fall of the Soviet Union (not only the fall, but the wounds that Soviets caused themsleves). The world has had PLENTY of time to "catch" up with the west since the 19th century, but they did not manage to do so (except that for a while Russia LOOKED as if it did).

[@nathanielchan9049]

Wz😂🤟🎼🤟

[@slovenasimkaras_ztelegrame3287]

Why do you lie or mislead? UK was Great power since 1500, before Mongol empire & many more. There's always struggle & fight to the king of the hill crown. You can't eliminate this strive as everyone seeks own benefits. To eliminate power we must have an overlord over our planet then nobody will fight but will be enslaved to this overlord as U.S would like to be one ruler. Fairly tales

[@chatsource]

Without superpowers every independent nation would have to be self-reliant too, no?