Having always been very interested in politics, and pondering the future, its no wonder writing about the future of geopolitics is one of my favourite pastimes. The first post I ever wrote on this blog detailed a hypothetical war between the United States and China, the two most obvious rivals in any possible Third World War scenario, and their allies - http://futuregeopoliticalscenarios.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/world-war-three-united-states-and-china.html. Today I'd like to further flesh out that scenario, and update it by looking at how recent events have unfolded on the world stage, particularly concerning the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War.
Something I've taken note of lately, and spent a lot of time thinking about, are the parallels between the modern rise of China in the early 21st century and the similarly dramatic rise of Germany in the early 20th century. In the 1800s Britain was the global hegemon, but the Pax Britannia came to a dramatic end once Germany, with its larger population and industrial base, challenged British supremacy at the outbreak of WW1 in 1914. In a similar fashion America's global supremacy is now being challenged by China, also due in no small part to its larger population and growing industrial base. Notably total Chinese industrial output overtook the US in 2011, ending America's position as the world's foremost industrial power after more than a century.
WW1 was of course far more than a conflict between just two states. France, a country which had industrialized not long after Britain and long been its historical enemy, was also unnerved by Germany's sudden rise and sought an alliance with Britain to oppose Germany. Russia, a country less economically developed than either of them, sought to contain Germany's rise as well. Part of the reason the Germans took the opportunity offered to them to strike in 1914 was that while their economic rise was well underway, Russia's had barely begun, meaning that every year a war was delayed Germany's odds of beating Russia would decline. For those unfamiliar with the major players in the First World War, here's a handy map.
There were several other major players in the war. Austria-Hungary and Turkey, both old empires in decline, chose to ally with Germany in the hopes of regaining some of their former glory, and opposed the western allies partly due to ideological differences. Italy was originally a German ally, but ultimately decided it was in its interests to side with the Allies in the hopes of gaining some territory and concessions from its traditional enemy Austria. The last major player was the United States, however there isn't really a modern equivalent to the US (given that it is now in the role of Britain), so we can ignore this for now.
How is this history lesson relevant to the modern geopolitical scene? While there are still many differences, there are some marked similarities between the positions of the great powers of Europe in 1900, and the great powers and superpowers of the world today. First off, we can put labels to the two main players who today parallel the rivalry between fading hegemon Britain and rising great power Germany in 1914. That is, America and China.
Then however, things get more complicated. The outbreak of a major war between the United States and China may be unlikely, but in the event it does occur, the actions of many of the world's other great powers could easily resemble that of other players in and around Europe in 1914. There is an obvious parallel to France for instance, i.e. an already industrialized country that is an ally of the United States, has much to lose by China's rise and is a historical and ideological enemy of China. The modern France in this regard is clearly Japan.
Nearby are two countries that would likely be drawn into this hypothetical war. Taiwan, as a breakaway region of China and the source of a great deal of tension between the superpowers, could go down in history as the modern Serbia, i.e. a small country who's antagonism with a great power sparked a global war. The other obvious player is South Korea, which through its sheer geographic position makes it very unlikely to avoid being drawn into a conflict between China and Japan. It finds itself in the role of Belgium, an otherwise neutral country unlucky enough to have been caught in the crossfire between two great powers. Much like Belgium in WW1, South Korea would of course be sided with the US and Japan in such a war. North Korea would, mostly due to ideological reasons, be a natural ally of China.
But where and why might this war even start? Taiwan is one option, but given the stalemate that has existed there for fifty-odd years, it seems unlikely the Chinese would simply one day decide to jump the Formosa Strait and launch an invasion. Events would have to escalate elsewhere first. In the years leading up to WW1 the Balkan peninsula in southern Europe was referred to as the 'powder keg of Europe' and was the site of a number of small wars in the lead up to WW1. Where does such a similarly war-torn region exist today? There's an obvious answer.
There's various ways a local war in the Middle East could spark a global conflagration. Iran, long an enemy of the United States ever since the overthrow of the Shah, has naturally increased its ties with other long-time strategic rivals of the US like Russia and China. An American attack on Iran could see either of those great powers drawn in. The rapid spread of the Arab Spring since late 2010 has laid bare the deep ethnic and geopolitical cracks that divide the region. Already things have escalated to the point where the Russians have provided weapons, and the Iranians troops, to the Syrian regime (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html) while NATO is on the verge of supplying the rebels with weapons as well (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/23/syria-rebels-us-arms-shipments-congress).
Another possibility could be the spread of the Arab Spring to Saudi Arabia. If the US-backed regime in that country were to fall and be replaced with a more populist Islamist one, not dissimilar to Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, then a serious geopolitical dilemma would be created. As the world's leading producer of oil, Saudi Arabia (as well as the surrounding gulf states) is an immensely important strategic asset for the Americans to control. If the new regime refused to sell oil to the United States in favour of China and Russia, the stage could be set for a global war.
As for a comparison between Russia today and the rival players in WW1, an obvious one can be made to either Turkey (also known as the Ottoman Empire) or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Russia is most definitely a country in decline just as those two great powers were in the lead up to WW1. Its population base is shrinking and the massive military arsenal it was able to maintain under communism is rusting away more and more with every passing year. The Russians know their influence on world events is declining, and only by allying themselves with a freshly rising power might they regain some of their former glory and be able to once again challenge their old western rivals. Just as Turkey decided to throw in its lot with Germany within a few months of the outbreak of WW1, the Russians could very well do the same if the Chinese were to launch a major challenge to the west. Both Turkey and Austro-Hungary were also dictatorships, meaning they shared ideological ties with Germany much as China and Russia do today. Even though the latter is no longer Communist it still maintains a quite strong authoritarian streak.
As for who else might be drawn into this global struggle, there are several possible candidates.
Western Europe, particularly the major powers of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, are unlikely to avoid participating in a global war in which the US is a major combatant. The NATO alliance, while perhaps not as unified as it was when faced with the cold war-era threat of the Soviet Union, is unlikely to be dissolved any time soon. Most NATO countries have sent troops or aid, to varying degrees, to help wage America's recent wars in the Middle East in Afghanistan and Iraq. These countries also share strong ideological and historical bonds that are unlikely to break easily. For these reasons, European participation in any hypothetical Third World War is likely to occur, though like Italy in WW1, its entry is far from certain and may only occur once the war is well underway.
India is also an interesting case. In 1914 Germany was Britain's enemy because it was a freshly rising power, likewise Russia was Germany's enemy in turn for the the exact same reason. India's industrialisation has progressed much more slowly than China's, but its population is growing much more rapidly (partly due to the lack of a one-child policy). The Chinese are certainly aware that even if they do surpass the United States as the world's greatest superpower in the next few decades, their tenure in that position may be short-lived as India completes its rise. By mid-century its population is predicted to surpass China's, and the size of its economy may soon follow. India, as a democracy and former British colony, meaning it still maintains a strong Anglo heritage including a large minority of English speakers (not that British rule over India is widely looked back upon fondly of course) shares some ideological ties to the west. Its not hard to believe the Americans would be keen to see them enter the war on their side. The involvement of Pakistan is also a possiblity. Pakistan's population and economic base are far too small to take on India alone, however with China on side, the country's leaders may be tempted by what would surely be their only ever firm opportunity to deal the Indians a severe strategic blow.
The last player on the map I've marked is Australia, which oddly enough is still in much the same role it was in a century ago. We may now be an American lapdog rather than a British one, but given our eagerness to help the Americans even during their most infamous wars in Vietnam and Iraq, its hard to see how we'd avoid being drawn into a conflict between America and China. Our primary insurance policy against the threat of an invasion from Asia has always been an alliance with a more powerful country. Its not an alliance we'd break easily.
So, in summary.
Blue = Allies Red = Central Powers
Exactly which Middle Eastern countries might fight on either side is impossible to know for certain. Various Balkan countries entered into WW1 once it was well underway, generally to settle old scores against their neighbours. Bulgaria entered on the German side in 1915 and Romania and Greece on the Allied side in 1916 and 1917 respectively. Looking at the modern Middle East, Iran would most likely be a Chinese ally due to its historical antagonism with the west and the populist nature of its government. Depending on the outcome of the current Syrian Civil War, that country could go either way, the same goes for Iraq. Turkey is a NATO member, and so would likely be on the American side, however the country has stronger ties to Iran than many may be willing to admit, particularly concerning their mutual opposition to Kurdish rebels. This combined with Turkish fears of Russian power makes its involvement uncertain. Saudi Arabia has already sent aid to the Syrian rebels, and unless it undergoes a populist, Arab Spring-style revolution it would surely remain an American ally. Israel would of course be an American ally, with the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon naturally opposed to it.
Many countries are pure wild cards. Egypt has been wracked by a string of political crises since 2011, and may very well descend into a Civil War akin to what is already occurring in Syria. Jordan is a fragile monarchy, and is probably at an even greater risk of suffering a revolution than Saudi Arabia. The -stan Republics in central Asia could also be drawn in due to their growing economic ties with Russia and China, or their religious ties with various Middle Eastern countries. Various Eastern European nations could become involved. NATO has expanded its borders since the cold war to include states such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Romania and parts of the former Yugoslavia. Poland in particular is an increasingly close US ally, and of course extremely antagonistic to Russia. Belarus, due to it being a dictatorship essentially propped up by Moscow as a buffer to NATO, is possibly the only former Soviet state firmly in the Russian camp.
Worldwide, a number of other countries could participate, generally joining one side or the other to settle old scores, or perhaps because of political pressure from their more powerful neighbours. Every single country in the Americas eventually gave in to Allied pressure to declare war against the Axis in WW2 for instance, although only Brazil and Mexico directly sent troops. Canada, as a NATO member and US ally, could very well send forces to fight. Australia and New Zealand would be in much the same situation. Much more so than during the cold war, there are a large number of populist left-wing governments in Latin America. Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador and Nicaragua are among them. Due to their opposition to the US, its unlikely such countries would voluntarily join NATO's war effort. However American military, in particular naval, dominance of the western hemisphere makes it unlikely these countries would dare to actually militarily oppose the western allies.
To add a final bit of analysis, here are the populations and GDP figures for the possible participating nations covered above:
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
'Allies' Population GDP (2012)
United States - 315 million $15.94 trillion
Japan - 127 million $4.7 trillion
South Korea - 50 million $1.64 trillion
Taiwan - 23 million $918 billion
United Kingdom - 63 million $2.38 trillion
France - 65 million $2.29 trillion
Germany - 80 million $3.25 trillion
Italy - 59 million $1.86 trillion
Poland - 38 million $814 billion
Spain - 47 million $1.434 billion
Portugal - 10 million $250 billion
Netherlands - 16 million $718 billion
Belgium - 11 million $427 billion
Greece - 10 million $281 billion
Turkey - 75 million $1.14 billion
Israel - 8 million $252 billion
Saudi Arabia - 29 million $921 billion
India - 1,210 million $4.76 trillion
Australia - 23 million $986 billion
New Zealand - 4 million $134 billion
'Central Powers'
China - 1,354 million $12.61 trillion
Russia - 143 million $2.56 trillion
Pakistan - 183 million $523 billion
Iran - 76 million $1.12 trillion
Iraq - 33 million $242 billion
Syria - 21 million $107 billion
North Korea - 24 million $40 billion
Belarus - 9 million $149 billion
Lebanon - 4 million $64 billion
Palestine - 4 million $12 billion
Total
Allies - 2.263 billion $45.095 trillion
Central Powers - 1.851 billion $17.427 trillion
On the face of it, the Allies have a massive advantage, particularly in economic terms, controlling over 50% of the global economy (which is estimated to have a GDP of $83 trillion as of 2012). The participation of India could be crucial in the event of a conflict between China and the US, as it almost completely neutralizes China's massive advantage in numbers. Much like Germany in WW1, China would bear the overwhelming burden of waging this hypothetical war, given the inherent weakness of most of its allies. Something to note however is that these figures are only the case as of 2012. Most of America's likely Allies are developed economies, while China's are still developing and many have rapidly growing populations. Over time the balance of power will shift inexorably in the latter's favour. By 2020 or 2030 the Chinese may find themselves in a much stronger position. It will probably be the case that only by mobilizing a significant number of developing countries itself, particularly India, that the Americans can stem China's rise, war or no war.
