The recent tensions between the US and China, as well as Europe, draw my mind to history - but not to the 1930s, an analogy which everyone seems compelled to make, but to the events leading up to the Great War.
Consider: Back then, you had a new power on the scene: Germany. It was a vigorous state, with the second most powerful economy in the world (after the US), the most powerful military, and a young population, whose number doubled in 30 years. Its workers enjoyed an unheard-of level of social rights because the Iron Chancellor decided treating workers well was preferable to revolution, and it had acquired colonies totalling four times the size of Germany. It was ruled by Kaiser Wilhelm II, it was an autocratic state, and a power on the rise.
However, its antics made everyone nervous. Its army raised fears in France, still bitter over its defeat in 1871 and the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. Germany insisted on building a navy, which made Great Britain uneasy, since an island nation depends on shipping and trade for survival.
Now, we should not judge the Kaiser too harshly. Churchill, of all people, did not. Wilhelm was raised to believe that he had a divine right to rule, and governed a nation on the rise. More importantly, sources suggest that he did not actually wish his army to camp in Paris or to descend upon London - he simply wished that Germany be acknowledged as a world power and consulted in matters of global importance. Of course, he also wanted to have all the trappings of a powerful empire, such as the navy. And, while he did not want war, he refused to shy away from it.
But his one-sided antics upset too many carts and gored too many pet oxen. Britain and France, colonial rivals and not exactly friendly neighbours since the Middle Ages, responded to Germany's destabilising influence by forming the entente cordiale. Germany's alliance with Austria-Hungary, a crumbling empire with ambitions in the Balkans, made Imperial Russia nervous, since it saw itself as protector of all Slavs. So Russia forged an alliance with France (a republic being an unlikely ally for the last Western country with an absolutist monarch), despite strong pro-German sensibilities of the Russian court.
At this point everything could have ended well. But opposing alliances drew up battle plans, designed to automatically enter into force when a general mobilisation was called. Alliances themselves became ossified, since a state shirking its obligations would risk isolation. Add to that a romantic view of war, the consequence of a long period of stability, and it became clear that the whole situation war ready to blow up.
And so it did, the world being dragged into a war which no one really wanted but which no one shied away from. All it took was one state overreacting to a provocation and one state not backing down.
I think that situation is instructive of our current state of the world. China has become increasingly assertive, which is perfectly legitimate. I think its influence should be recognised and respected.
But matters aren't quite so simple as giving it seats in the IMF and the World Bank. The manner in which China asserts its influence, like that of Germany in the beginning of the 20th century, is destabilising. Everything about it screams "You will respect my authority!" with about the same effect. Its mercantilist policy harms the US; it has shown to be perfectly willing to use natural resources for short-term political gain, a blatant violation of treaties it has signed.
But no one cares about treaties, except states and we lawyers. As Talleyrand remarked, c'est pire qu'un crime; c'est une faute! Quite a few of China's weapons are transitory. Rare earths? Pfft. Give it a couple of years, less with a crash programme, and they can be mined and processed elsewhere. Its exports? Industry can be developed quickly in times of crisis.
Because of things like this, while a state may have temporary leverage, no state can dominate the world single-handedly and cannot afford pure one-sided behaviour. The Cold Warriors knew this. Both sides had more or less willing allies, members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. And this is the lesson the Bush Administration forgot.
This is also something which makes me lose sleep.
You see, I see signs that a new entente is emerging, slowly but inevitably. Europe and the US have stuck together. More interestingly, Russia, although it happily sells resources to China, is strengthening its ties with Europe. And no wonder: They have a latent conflict with China over southern Siberia, which China has long regarded as "its" land (Russians disagree) and where it allows large number of emigrants to go. Accidentally, of course. Incidentally, this explains why Russians are so adamant about Chechnya not seceding: They want to show Russia will remain territorially intact, with the people living there being an optional bonus. They don't want to risk fragmentation or the loss of their resource-rich areas.
I would not be surprised if another entente were to emerge out of this, comprising the US, Europe, and Russia (the US might not be a member if insane, unilaterally acting Republicans gain power). China, it seems, wants to strengthen its ties with other emerging powers, such as Brazil.
So it may well happen the world will polarise again in a very unhealthy way. I just hope we can get it out of our system without a global war this time.