CHINA
04 June 2026
Trump is rebalancing America, according to Stephen Kotkin
According to distinguished historian Stephen Kotkin, the US is not in the process of imperial decline.
Some analysts argue that the US has elements in common with an exhausted British empire in 1945 – it would be deindustrialising, overcommitted, and complacent. An exhausted Britain would have ceded world leadership to the US. And today China would be emerging as the world’s new superpower.
First of all, according to Kotkin, Britain did not cede world leadership to the US. The US took world leadership because it was the world’s dominant economic power.
This was most evident in the 1956 Suez Crisis. This international conflict was triggered when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, a vital waterway previously controlled by British and French interests. This provoked a joint invasion by Britain, France, and Israel.
Under pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union, the invading forces withdrew, marking the decline of European imperial dominance and the rise of Cold War superpowers in the Middle East.
The US has long been the world leader. It has had roughly 25 percent of global GDP since 1880, some 150 years – with only 5 percent of the world population. It is unheard of in global history that a great power has been in such a dominant position. The US even had the world’s biggest economy when Britain led the world.
There was however an anomalous period, from 1946 to 1960, when the US accounted for 40 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of global manufacturing. For a time, it also had a nuclear monopoly. There's never been anything like that before and there may never be again. This was because of the destruction in Europe and East Asia from World War II.
This was the period when the US took on the responsibility of the whole world with, for example, the Marshall Plan, NATO, the resuscitation of foes notably Germany and Japan. Former arch enemies were transformed into close allies.
That anomalous period wasn't going to last. As the war torn countries recovered, the US share of world GDP reverted to 25 percent again. But the US did not readjust our global commitments. Indeed, it took on more and more commitments.
The US enjoyed a second wind with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. So who needed to readjust commitments? It looked like the US could have the whole world. So the US went from containment to enlargement with the spread of democracy and open markets.
The US global position has remained stable even with the rise of China. Europe and US allies in East Asia have declined in tandem with the rise of China. As late as 1992, Europe represented 30 percent of global GDP, now it's 17 percent. Europe has missed the software and AI revolution, and does not have a serious tech sector. Japan went from 18 percent of global GDP in the early '90s to 4 percent today.
The US is still the world’s superpower – an economic, science and technology superpower, energy, immigration, soft power and alliance superpower, despite the rise of China. No matter how much damage it does to itself, it is a superpower in every domain. And there's never been any power like that and it is not in decline.
But the US took on too many commitments. There is now a need to rebalance US commitments to the world. Now it's finally happening under Trump too. His approach not pretty or diplomatic. But it is necessary.
But there are two aspects of this rebalancing which are being very badly handled. A key aspect of US power is its alliance system, and the poor treatment of allies is undermining US power. Further a key driver of US economic power status has been immigration. And the US mismanagement of immigration policy is also undermining US power. China may enjoy several dimensions of great power status, but not in the area of alliances or immigration.
There's this anecdote about when Xi Jinping went to pay his respects to Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, the elder statesman of East Asia. Xi Jinping would have bragged that China would win its competition with the US because it had an enormous talent pool with its population of 1.3 billion. Lee Kuan Yew would have told XI that he was wrong because the open US has 8 billion to choose from in its search for talent. In sum, America’s status as immigration and alliance superpower is at risk.
Any student of American history could pick their epoch of craziness, of instability. An interesting insight is provided by the novelist Philip Roth in his 1997 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, American Pastoral. He coined the literary and cultural concept of "indigenous American berserk". It describes the sudden, violent eruptions of madness, chaos, and political destruction that lurk just beneath the surface of seemingly calm American life.
Today we live in the social media age which presents its own challenges. But history shows that things can change dramatically. In 1981, the unlikely figure of Ronald Reagan won the US presidency and led a dramatic revival in the US.
First of all, according to Kotkin, Britain did not cede world leadership to the US. The US took world leadership because it was the world’s dominant economic power.
This was most evident in the 1956 Suez Crisis. This international conflict was triggered when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, a vital waterway previously controlled by British and French interests. This provoked a joint invasion by Britain, France, and Israel.
Under pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union, the invading forces withdrew, marking the decline of European imperial dominance and the rise of Cold War superpowers in the Middle East.
The US has long been the world leader. It has had roughly 25 percent of global GDP since 1880, some 150 years – with only 5 percent of the world population. It is unheard of in global history that a great power has been in such a dominant position. The US even had the world’s biggest economy when Britain led the world.
There was however an anomalous period, from 1946 to 1960, when the US accounted for 40 percent of global GDP and 50 percent of global manufacturing. For a time, it also had a nuclear monopoly. There's never been anything like that before and there may never be again. This was because of the destruction in Europe and East Asia from World War II.
This was the period when the US took on the responsibility of the whole world with, for example, the Marshall Plan, NATO, the resuscitation of foes notably Germany and Japan. Former arch enemies were transformed into close allies.
That anomalous period wasn't going to last. As the war torn countries recovered, the US share of world GDP reverted to 25 percent again. But the US did not readjust our global commitments. Indeed, it took on more and more commitments.
The US enjoyed a second wind with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. So who needed to readjust commitments? It looked like the US could have the whole world. So the US went from containment to enlargement with the spread of democracy and open markets.
The US global position has remained stable even with the rise of China. Europe and US allies in East Asia have declined in tandem with the rise of China. As late as 1992, Europe represented 30 percent of global GDP, now it's 17 percent. Europe has missed the software and AI revolution, and does not have a serious tech sector. Japan went from 18 percent of global GDP in the early '90s to 4 percent today.
The US is still the world’s superpower – an economic, science and technology superpower, energy, immigration, soft power and alliance superpower, despite the rise of China. No matter how much damage it does to itself, it is a superpower in every domain. And there's never been any power like that and it is not in decline.
But the US took on too many commitments. There is now a need to rebalance US commitments to the world. Now it's finally happening under Trump too. His approach not pretty or diplomatic. But it is necessary.
But there are two aspects of this rebalancing which are being very badly handled. A key aspect of US power is its alliance system, and the poor treatment of allies is undermining US power. Further a key driver of US economic power status has been immigration. And the US mismanagement of immigration policy is also undermining US power. China may enjoy several dimensions of great power status, but not in the area of alliances or immigration.
There's this anecdote about when Xi Jinping went to pay his respects to Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, the elder statesman of East Asia. Xi Jinping would have bragged that China would win its competition with the US because it had an enormous talent pool with its population of 1.3 billion. Lee Kuan Yew would have told XI that he was wrong because the open US has 8 billion to choose from in its search for talent. In sum, America’s status as immigration and alliance superpower is at risk.
Any student of American history could pick their epoch of craziness, of instability. An interesting insight is provided by the novelist Philip Roth in his 1997 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, American Pastoral. He coined the literary and cultural concept of "indigenous American berserk". It describes the sudden, violent eruptions of madness, chaos, and political destruction that lurk just beneath the surface of seemingly calm American life.
Today we live in the social media age which presents its own challenges. But history shows that things can change dramatically. In 1981, the unlikely figure of Ronald Reagan won the US presidency and led a dramatic revival in the US.