Robert D. Kaplan on Taiwan, geography and imperial decline
The most consequential geopolitical transformation of the next twenty years may be one that never happens.
In a written interview with Arcana News, Robert D. Kaplan argues that avoiding a war between the United States and China over Taiwan and the South China Sea could prove decisive for the stability of the international order. A conflict over Taiwan, he warns, could unravel the world in a way comparable to the First World War.
In five concise answers, Kaplan also returns to one of the central themes of his work: geography has never ceased to shape power. He identifies Southeast Asia as a possible future centre of the world economy and geopolitics, argues that the United States should focus on limiting Chinese and Russian power rather than dissipating its strength in Middle Eastern wars, and rejects the idea that history has somehow “returned”.
Arcana News — Which geopolitical transformation do you believe will most shape the next twenty years?
Robert D. Kaplan — The most important geopolitical transformation is not something that will happen, but something which might not happen. If there is no war between the United States and China over Taiwan and the South China Sea, our world, despite all the vicissitudes, will not collapse. A Taiwan war could unravel our world like World War I.
Arcana News — Has geography become more important again in international politics?
Robert D. Kaplan — Geography always was and always will be absolutely crucial to geopolitics. If Portugal wasn’t located where it is, it would be a completely different country. If the Taiwan Strait was only as wide as the English Channel, China would have conquered it decades ago. And on and on.
Arcana News — Which region of the world do you believe is currently receiving far less strategic attention than it deserves?
Robert D. Kaplan — Southeast Asia, which could become the world’s economic and geopolitical center. It is the most dynamic part of the world.
Arcana News — What is the greatest strategic mistake the United States could make in the present international disorder?
Robert D. Kaplan — The United States should concentrate on limiting the power of China and Russia, and not dissipate its power in Mideast wars.
Arcana News — What should readers understand about the relationship between imperial decline, instability and the return of history?
Robert D. Kaplan — History has not returned. It always was and always will be. Imperial decline augurs a less stable and more chaotic world. Empires, however much hated by intellectuals, have generally been a stabilizing force.
Interview conducted in writing by Arcana News.
About Robert D. Kaplan
ROBERT D. KAPLAN is the bestselling author of twenty-four books on foreign affairs and travel translated into many languages, including China Whisperers, Waste Land, The Loom of Time, The Tragic Mind, The Revenge of Geography, Asia’s Cauldron, The Coming Anarchy, and Balkan Ghosts. For three decades he reported on foreign affairs for The Atlantic. He is a distinguished senior lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin. He was a member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and the U. S. Navy’s Executive Panel. Foreign Policy magazine twice named him one of the world’s “Top 100 Global Thinkers.”
Photo credit: John Stanmeyer
Funcionalidade Google
Fontes preferidas disponíveis em Portugal.
A nova opção permite selecionar publicações para surgirem com maior frequência em pesquisas noticiosas relevantes.
Robert D. Kaplan warns that a war over Taiwan could destabilise the international order on a scale reminiscent of the First World War. Are Western powers capable of deterring China while avoiding the strategic overextension caused by their involvement in other regional conflicts?
Thank you for the comment — it is worth being precise about what the interview actually establishes. Kaplan states what Washington should do: concentrate on limiting the power of China and Russia rather than dissipating its power in Mideast wars. He does not assess whether Western powers are currently capable of exercising that discipline — that is a separate question his five answers do not address. What the interview does establish is the importance he attaches specifically to Taiwan: not merely one flashpoint among several, but the conflict whose avoidance he regards as essential to preventing the wider order from unravelling. Whether the strategic restraint he prescribes is achievable in practice remains, on the evidence of this interview, an open question.