Alot of strategic thinking and discussion in our deeply troubled world has been taking place around questions of dominance. Who will dominate the world? Who will dominate the 21st century? Will it be the USA or China? What strategies will they adopt in the race for emerging as the dominant power? Which countries will be their closest allies?

While exceptionally favourable conditions led to the emergence of the USA as the dominant world power in the post-1945 days, this dominance was never total during the cold war years and was constrained by the presence of the Soviet Union as an alternative centre of considerable power.

An ultimate contest for dominance could be avoided by self-harm caused by the USSR plus some shrewd diplomacy by the West, leading to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Hence the status of the USA as the most powerful country was confirmed. With no serious competitor in sight and the dollar ruling strong in the world economy after the unilateral discarding of the gold standard, the USA only had to use soft power tactics to maintain its supreme position in the world of power-politics.

If given a position of dignity in Europe, Russia in its hour of adjusting to rapid changes would have happily accepted the position of a friend well integrated with other European allies of the USA. China was getting integrated in the globalized economy. With vision and wisdom, this was the time for the USA to cement its position strongly as the most powerful country with no real competitors and no big enemies.

In such conditions, the peace dividend the UN agencies talked about could have been actually realised with funds released from the arms race being used to end deprivation and check such serious environmental problems as climate change before these could spiral out of human control. Unfortunately this was not to be and instead of leading the world on the path to peace from a well-established position of strength, some influential US strategists started thinking more and more in terms of ensuring US-imposed dominance (as distinct from willingly accepted leadership) in the world.

These strategists have been thinking more in terms of who can challenge US dominance, taking preemptive actions against them and rearranging ruling establishments in critical regions. Thus the potential path of peace which would have strengthened US power in the world by winning more friends and providing a credible framework for resolving serious problems was given up by these aggressive strategists to instead favour a path of wars, violence and coercion. While this led to several avoidable destructive wars in which several hundred thousand people died, a stage is also being gradually set up for an equally avoidable ultimate contest for dominance of the world.

The concept of dominance of the world by any single country has always been a very dangerous one. With the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and the possession of such weapons by all those aspiring to be dominant powers, the quest for dominance is now not just very dangerous but has also lost all relevance. After all, for what is dominance sought? Ultimately this is sought for the greater glory, prosperity and safety of the dominant country and its people. But if the path of attaining this dominance involves the greatest risks of massive, unprecedented destruction caused by weapons of mass destruction on both sides, then what is the point of dominance? What happiness can dominance bring if in the process of trying to achieve this you ruin yourself, apart from ruining others? If such simple truths are not being realized by some influential strategists, then it is the duty of other organs of democratic systems to draw attention to the inherent and very serious dangers of such aggressive, irrational pursuits.

This applies as much to China as to the USA or anyone else with similar ambitions, or desiring to be a close ally of the dominant power or riding piggyback on its strengths. If China emerges as a dominant power tomorrow, there is no convincing reason to believe that it will behave in less aggressive ways.

This should be thought over by those rushing to bolster China’s leadership role by reading imaginary benefits for peace or creation of a better world in this. China in fact has been quite aggressively nationalist in several ways, apart from being authoritarian and fostering leadership cults – a dangerous combination.

A great new beginning by the USA to openly and clearly renounce a role of dominance and replacing it with a leadership role, guided by peace and soft power, would be one of the best things to happen to our deeply troubled world. Surely this change would get overwhelming support at the world level.

(The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children and A Day in 2071.)