I would encourage others to appreciate that the multi-polar world of 2009 is not the same as that of 1914. In 1914, the powers were mostly European; mostly Christian; mostly accustomed at their policy making level to Victorian values and understanding; and even often related at the dynastic level to one anothers's Royal houses. That did not prevent them savaging one another 1914-18, nor their bourgeois successors doing the same 1939-45.
Not so today. The cultural differences of the 2009 galaxy of powers are much greater; the possibility of pressure from public opinion much more complicated, and, frankly, the crucial nature of natural resource dependence far more important. The fluidity of "allied" connections is liable to be more complex going forward, and the importance of Caucasian, European/American influence much more reduced in future.
The critical nature of strategic arrangements and of ideological solidarity is going to be much more dependant on the availability of natural resources; on access to water, and on who the most important markets are going to be. As the 21st century economy develops, assuming there is ongoing development, the consumer markets that are mass-dominated by low cost goods will be the more important. There may be far, far more demand for low cost appliances and for access to electricity and clean water than there will be for BMWs and other expensive consumer products.
Those material market demands may be much more important than ideological concerns about political economy, or about irrelevant religious issues that only benefit fanatical "medicine men."
In short, don't look for a reprise of the world order 1871 to 1914.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 08-Apr-2009 at 02:08