Highlights of the next 100 years
•The U.S.-Jihadist war will conclude–replaced by a second confrontation with Russia.
•China will undergo a major extended internal crisis, and Mexico will emerge as an important world power.
•There will be at least one global war occurring toward the middle of the century, but armies will be much smaller and wars less deadly.
•Technology will focus on space — both space travel and energy resources.
To have STRATFOR's free intelligence reports emailed to you each week, click here.
Dollar Reserve Currency
I though the book was great. It was very helpful in explaining states interests and behaviors. One thing I wish stratfor would discuss, maybe I have missed the articles is analyzing the significance of the U.S. dollar as the global currency reserve. With additional pressure being put on the dollar, will the pressure effect the United States geopolitical decisions? Will it effect the decisions of other states? Every fiat currency in the history of the world value has eventually reached zero. Can the United States keep printing money, borrowing money as long was it remains the global hegemon? Is this a difference case because the U.S. controls the oceans and its power is so much greater then other states? I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that this is the first time a fiat currency has been the reserve currency of choice. I think it would be an interesting analysis considering the current financial crisis. Thanks a lot.
TN100Y
Agreed. It was a great book.
The Next 100 Years
I just got done with TN100Y by Dr. Friedman. I really got a lot out of the book. It laid out a realistic, well thought out forecast of the future and taught me a lot about geopolitics. The latter point was very important to me as most work on geopolitics found in academia today is so called "critical geopolitics." Critical geopolitics seems to be concerned with delegitimizing geopolitics as historically dangerous, while being ineffective and based on "oppressive constructs." Dr. Friedman's work discusses and teaches geopolitics as geopolitics should be understood; that being as a way to analyze the behavior of States over space and as a tool that policy makers use to maximize power spatially.
Dr. Friedman’s techniques for forecasting the future are fairly simple. He examines the challenges and opportunities that States will face in the future and tries to determine the means that States will use to deal with and take advantage of them with. He considers technological and demographic trends while examining political and economic cycles that have occurred in the past. He considers these variables and determines how the behavior of States will play out over a spatial context.
The major theme of the book and the 21st century is the power of the United States. While it’s all the vogue today to write about “America’s decline,” “the rise of the rest,” or the “end of history” Dr. Friedman makes a compelling argument that America is only at the beginning of its power life-cycle. He explains how the U.S. has many advantages geographically, demographically, technologically, and economically, while explaining away many of the States that are supposedly going to dominate this century(ie China).
Dr. Friedman also covers the three most important industries of the 21st century. These three industries are robotics, genetics, and space travel. The first two are necessary due to the demographic trends that the world will experience this century and the latter (space), has its importance in military dominance and energy production. This part of the book is very exciting but concerned me as I thought about our current progress in space. My concern was due to the current debate on America’s grand strategy. One school of thought argues for the US to give up its capabilities to fight large State on State warfare. This school argues that America needs to fight COIN wars across the Middle East and Africa in order to “spread democracy.” After reading the book I realized that this grand strategy would be great mistake. America needs to maintain and expand its hegemonic position and controlling space is probably the most important way of doing so. I would strongly encourage policy makers and military professions to read this book while thinking about and forming America’s grand strategy.
The only subject I’m not as optimistic about is the demographic transition occurring in U.S. Dr. Friedman appears to believe that America’s demographic shift will be smooth, or at least until the late 2090’s. I believe this issue is the biggest challenge the U.S. faces in remaining the global hegemon. I really do hope this transition will be smooth, but the current signs are troubling. America appears to be entering a period where identity politics are intensifying. The right/left dichotomy is becoming one of a rightwing white middle/working class party vs. a leftwing party of everyone else. Issues of foreign and economic policy are difficult enough to work out but worse when the most basic characteristics of the Nation as a whole cannot be agreed upon. If America can work these issues out, I believe the 21st century will be “America’s century.” If we can’t, then the 21st century will be no one’s century, as chaos and disorder will rein until a new order can rise.
Dr. Friedman has really done a great job in writing this book. I’ve read three of his other books but this is the best by far. America’s policy makers will be failing us if they don’t read this book. The book offers a glance into the future but should also be looked as a guide for what America should strive to be in the 21st century.
Good point about US ethnic transition
I agree with your point about the demographic shift in the USA occurring during this century not being as smooth as outlined in the book. I find that there are more indicators of ethnic balkanization than the traditional “melting pot” immigration assimilation in the past. Language is becoming more of a barrier than a unifier, and with the massive welfare state apparatus that exists, the gradual assimilation into US society is not as mandatory for immigrant groups to survive in the USA as they have been in the past.
I think a good example is what is happening in Los Angeles, where multiple cases of violent racial conflict are occurring as more Hispanic immigrants move into traditionally African-American areas. There are quite a few cases of the murders of random victims at the hands of ethnically-based street gangs. Some examples with media attention were the cases of the murders of Jamiel Shaw or Cheryl Green.
Although immigration has always been a contentious issue throughout the history of the United States, I think it would be interesting for STRATFOR to examine some of the challenges that the United States faces with this present demographic shift, especially in lieu of the factors that are particular to this era.
Geopolitical foundations of Mexico's rise as a superpower?
Very interesting points. From a theoretical-geopolitical point of view, what are the main drivers that will push Mexico towards the status of global power? Aren't there also physical and human geographical settings that risk to make Mexico a weak state? It would be very interesting to discuss such a question both with the Author and the readership.
Best,
F.
I dont think Dr. friedman
I dont think Dr. friedman ever used the term "Superpower" when referring to Mexico, but I could be wrong. I think that he was just making an argument that Mexico has the potential to challege U.S. continental hegemonic power. Since it potentially does have an ability to become the continental hegemon, and if North America is indeed the geopolitical pivot of the international system, than Mexico has a proper geopolitical platform to become a world power. Dr. Friedman cautioned against gazing upward at passing clouds and seeing permanent structures. I think that the drug trade, and the resulting criminal chaos we are currently witnessing south of the boarder would be considered one of those passing clouds he was referring to.
Mexico as major power?
I also question how Friedman arrived at the conclusion that Mexico would become a major power. Why not Brazil, which has a much larger land area, a larger population than Mexico, the ability to gain complete hegemony in South America, more oil discoveries, a better run enegy industry, and enough distance from the United States to rise without being seen as an immediate threat? The only thing I can think of is that Mexico will, in Friedman's view, eventually reap the benefits of having large numbers of its citizens in the American Southwest and find a way to benefit from the vastly larger American economy. However, being dependent on the benevolence of another power seems a risky strategy for any second-teer state.
reply
I think that he did explain why Brazil or any country in South America for that matter could not become a world power. If it wasnt in the book it has been written about on the site.
Without getting too indepth in the interest of time, I believe the stratfor argument was that geographically South America is a hollow continent, populated only on the outskirts with impassable terrain on the continental interior. Thus making it nearly impossible for any nation to become hegemonic nor coelesce into a unified polity. Brazil's geographical shortcoming is that is not bicoastal. Friedman argues that since trans-pacific trade equaled trans-atlantic trade, any nation that was native to both oceanic bodies would become a world power, almost by default. That is why, North America, the only continent with nations native to both bodies of water has become the center of gravity of the international system.
Mexico
Mexico will either be a world power or the next Somalia
I disagree, simply due to
I disagree, simply due to the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, Mexico would not become another Somalia, the U.S. wouldnt allow it. As friedman said in his book, Mexico benefits from its locality alone. Its in North America first and foremost, and boarders the largest market in the world, the United States, who gives it free, nearly unfettered access. As I recall, the U.S. already intervened to prevent this outcome from occurring in the 90's.
Didn't he also say that
Didn't he also say that Mexico will take back the land that it lost to the US in the US-Mexico war in the 1800's and with that bigger population as well obviously.
Mexican American Lands
I believe Dr Friedman simply stated that the demographic trends in the south west will lead to an ethnically Mexican California, Texas, Nevada and Arizona that are still part of the US. This will create huge problems for Washington because the US will be in effect occupying foreign territory, with the majority of the local populous loyal to another state. Friedman didn’t claim that Mexico would be in a position to force the issue militarily or would ever be in a position to replace the US as dominant power in North America, just that Mexico could mount a challenge due to the internal instability Mexicans would cause within US borders (& Mexico’s growing stature).
Personally I doubt if Mexico will ever match the US in terms of real industrial output or military capability, at least not in the foreseeable future. As Friedman stated the US enjoys too many geographical blessings, Mexico (apart from being a transcontinental power) on the other hand does not.