There was always a negative stigma towards a nation's expansionist ideas. In The Second World, Khanna describes the three most powerful nations, China, EU and United States as the world's three "natural empires" To be a natural empire, a nation must be geographically unified and strong enough militarily, economically, and demographically to expand. Nowadays, we feel that the consequences for nations to expand or imperialize other nations have increased, however, there are fewer dominant power centers in the world than there were ever before. The European Union has over two dozen countries integrated into it, while the modern China used to be many small feudal entities. The main weapon of expansionist countries have also changed. Before WWII, a strong military meant a strong nation, a nation that can expand territorially. Now, however, many nations have nuclear weapons, but exercise the restrain to use them. This puts nations at a somewhat "levelled" playing field. However, countries have extreme variation in economic power, with wealth and industry, a country can be a superpower with unprecedented potential.
The Geopolitical Marketplace
The 21st century is a time where the world speaks so strongly of morals and where nations come together to discuss their issues. If it is also a time to prevent weak countries from being absorbed by strong nations, how can the three global powers still be expansionist?
Lets take a look at the European Union. The EU is a contemporary empire that expands year after year, absorbing new countries, with many more begging to join (p.xxvii). Instead of a nation physically taking over another by military force, the EU actually absorbs them through economic integration (most European trade is within the EU) as well as demographic expansion.
China. At about the same time as the expansion of the European Union, the United States declared that they were going to contain the rise of China to prevent another world power to be formed. Even though China has had an uneven past, Asian countries surrounding this power have welcomed the rise of China based on the benefits it will bring: cheaper gods, integrated markets, and regional pride (p.xviii). This makes China fair game for competition over energy supplies in almost all regimes.
The United States seem to be falling behind in the competition between these three superpowers. Throughout the years, the United States have used military threats to obtain what they want, but using this method, America has not created any strong alliances. While EU and China were spreading its influences, the US has created no friends (a relevant example of Saudi Arabia in the video below).In the past, subduing nations used to be called imperialism. In light of the new era, this exact thing has become globalization.
Geopolitics vs. Globalization
What is geopolitics? Geopolitics is the expansion of regions and power based on a country's geographical location. Some argue that the access to the ocean is the key to global dominance while some argue that a continental power, inaccessible to the sea (therefore inaccessible by foreign armies) produce a world power.
What one can't get from its existing location, one will attempt to obtain from somewhere else. This is globalization. Because of globalization, I think that geopolitics plays less part in whether a nation can become a superpower. Lets look at my example of Canada. Canada holds a very valuable resource, fresh water. In terms of geopolitics, we are in an enviable location. However, in terms of the ability to globalize, we are not at par with other nations. Using economical pressures, our country can very easily succumb to the wants of other nations. As Khanna puts it, "Colonies were once conquered, today countries are bought".
The Second World
The second world is what this book is about. Sure, a nation's location does give it incentive to ally with a nearby power. However, when it comes to the well-being of an entire people, it is important to side with the nations who give you what you need. An example in real life that can relate to this a partner assignment. If my professor told me that I can pick my own partner, I would most likely pick my friend, right? What if my friend, say Kelsey, was extremely lazy and wouldn't put in the effort needed. At this point, I was approached by another student, whose name I just acquired as Ken. Now, Ken seems like a worker, and from just taking to him, it seems as though he is very passionate about the project at hand. As someone who wants to get a good mark, I would pick Ken as my partner, even though I was friends with Kelsey. This is similar to a second world's situation.
I think the term second world undermines the power that these nations have in determining the global balance of power. A power needs the support of second world nations to thrive. Because nations are made up of people and people make its decisions, there are different decisions for each nation. Some may partake in "multi-alignment", sweeping benefits from as many superpowers as possible, while others may "fall into the sphere of influence of a single one (p.xxv). It is important for a second world nation to play its cards right because it can mean the difference between falling back to the third world, or rising to the first world.
Summary
This video of Parag Khanna discussing his book The Second World, is a good summary of what is to come in the book, as well as a quick recap of the introduction. The example of Saudi Arabia in the video comes hand-in-hand with the US not creating friends and allienating other countries. It shows how this nation must strive to build relationships so that it can compete with the other powers.
For the countries of "Eastern Europe to Central Asia, from South America across the Arab world and into Southeast Asia (p.xxvii), the race to win is on!
Standing on the sidelines,
Candy
