Throughout modern history, there has been a continual clash of cultures with various power blocks vying for hegemony but no one power being able to maintain its dominant position for longer than a century or so. Spain, Portugal, Holland, England, Russia and China have competed with others for spheres of influence and striving for hegemony. Since the fall of the USSR and the neutralization of China by its conversion to capitalism (though of the non-democratic variety), the USA is the only super-power. No other nation or bloc is likely to match its power and influence using the usual methods- dominance of a means of production to produce wealth and power and the organisation of a population to support it within an empire or state.
So we are now without any checks or balances between power blocs. Only one hyper-power exixts. Is this good or bad?
From a narrow western perspective there seems to be a minimal problem, but how would the West feel if such global hyper-power status belonged to, say, a fundamentalist Islamic state ranging from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Morocco to Indonesia?
Suppose that such a hyper-power controlled the source of and the new technology to develop energy without cost, so undercutting all previous western manufactures, and used such advantages to dominate the world.
What would be justified in resistance as the United Islamic Jihad States enforced their will by:
1/ Using the UIJS riyals (currency) to control world trade in the interests of the UIJS
2/ Insisted on other states adopting Islamic style governments if they were to benefit from association with the UIJS.
3/ Enforced de-militarization on non-UIJS associated states as a cost of continuing to trade with the UIJS.
4/ Ignored the United Nations as not being in the interests of UIJS citizens.
5/ Gradually removed all effective value within the international trading system back into the UIJS, leading to a precipitous decline in the West and descent into abject poverty for the citizens of the West.
What would the citizens of the West be justified in doing to avoid such hegemony?
Would actions that we now define as ‘terrorism’ and ‘evil’ become seen in the West as ‘resistance’ and ‘good’. Could such actions be defended as being appropriate to reinstate western liberal democracy against Islamic theocracy?
WOuld the resistance groups in the west feel justified in destroying symbols of government and economy of the UIJS by resistance/terrorism.
How would the citizens of the west feel when the UIJS started destroying one impoverished democratic state after another, claiming they were only removing these governments as they supported western resistance movements?
What would the West’s next move in defence of western democratic capitalism be?