THE NEW GEOPOLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT THE RISE OF CHINA AS A HEGEMONIC POWER

Fernando Alcoforado*

This article aims to present the new geopolitics of the United States under the Donald Trump administration at a time when the United States is undergoing progressive economic decline and losing its status as a hegemonic power in the world, and the efforts of the US government to use all means, economic, financial, technological, cybernetic, spatial and military, to combat its greatest enemy, China, which threatens its global hegemony. Paul Kennedy's book, Ascens?o e queda das grandes potências: Transforma??o econ?mica e conflito militar de 1500 a 2000 (The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Transformation and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000) [1], has become a great classic of geopolitics since its publication three decades ago. Paul Kennedy states in this book that, “if a great power overreaches strategically, for example, by conquering large territories as was the case with England in the 19th century, or by waging costly wars as has been the case with the United States since World War II, it runs the risk of seeing the potential advantages of external expansion outweighed by the large expenditures required”.

1. Paul Kennedy’s geopolitical thinking applied to the contemporary era

Paul Kennedy states that “the dilemma of great powers of overreaching strategically by conquering large territories or engaging in costly wars becomes acute if the country in question has entered a period of relative economic decline” [1]. This occurred with England in the 20th century and is the case with the United States in the 21st century. “The history of the rise and fall of the leading countries of the great power system, since the advance of Western Europe in the 16th century, that is, of nations such as Spain, Holland, France, the British Empire and, currently, the United States, shows that, in the longer term, there is a tendency for the hegemonic power to reduce its capacity to produce and generate revenue, on the one hand, and the excessive increase in spending on military force, on the other, which contributes to its decline” [1].

Paul Kennedy's thesis is that "the relative strength of the great powers on the world stage never remains constant, mainly due to, first, the unequal growth rate between different nations" [1], as is the case with the sharp economic decline of the hegemonic power, the United States, and the dizzying economic rise of China "and, second, the technological and organizational innovations that give a given nation a greater advantage than another" [1], as is the case of China which, after undergoing an extraordinary structural change, becoming the largest manufacturing production and export center in the world, 70% larger than the United States, and constituting a productive and business system that competes for global leadership in several segments, has also been consolidating itself as a leading country in scientific and technological innovation, tending to surpass the United States.

Paul Kennedy states that, “when the productive capacity of the United States increased, it was usually easier to bear the burden of large-scale armaments in peacetime and to maintain and supply large armies and navies during the wars it waged” [1]. Wealth is generally necessary for military power, according to Paul Kennedy, which in turn is generally necessary for the acquisition and protection of wealth [1]. “If, however, too large a proportion of the country’s resources are diverted from the creation of wealth and allocated to military purposes, then it is likely to lead to a weakening of national power” [1], as is the case with the United States today.

According to Paul Kennedy, “the economically expanding power may well prefer to be richer than to invest heavily in arms” [1], as was the case with the United States until World War II. Paul Kennedy states that “priorities change over time because economic expansion brings with it other obligations, namely, dealing with dependence on foreign markets and raw materials, military alliances and, perhaps, bases and colonies” [1], as occurred with the United States after World War II. Paul Kennedy states that “other rival powers that are expanding at a faster pace, therefore, want, in turn, to extend their influence abroad” [1], as was the case of the Soviet Union from 1945 until its decline in 1989 and is the case of China today.

Paul Kennedy states that, “in the contemporary era, the world is becoming a more contested space with great powers” [1], such as the United States and China, competing fiercely for world market share. “In these circumstances, the most disturbed power among the others, the United States, may find itself spending more on its military than before” [1]. “The world has become more hostile simply because other powers have grown faster and are becoming stronger”, as is the case with China and India. “The great power in relative decline, the United States, reacts instinctively by spending even more on its own ‘security’ and that of its allies and, as a result, stops using potential resources for ‘productive investment’. This further aggravates its long-term dilemma” [1]. This is the situation of the United States, which, now, is no longer able to assume its military spending as before without compromising its economy and putting the world economy at risk.

According to Paul Kennedy, “other emerging countries are reaching the same level as developed countries” [1], such as China and India, “and the United States is suffering relative economic decline, producing a smaller share of global GDP, even though the country is growing more than most major developed economies and is still the world’s largest economy in absolute terms” [1]. Several emerging countries are obtaining an increasingly larger share of global GDP. According to a projection by Goldman Sachs, by 2075, China’s GDP will be US$57 trillion, India’s US$52 trillion and the United States’ US$51 trillion [8]. Paul Kennedy states that “what seems indisputable to him is that, in a long and drawn-out war between great powers, generally in coalition with others, victory has repeatedly gone to the side with the most flourishing productive base” [1] which, under current conditions, is the case of China.

Paul Kennedy states that, “in the contemporary era, the world has become more hostile to the United States because other powers have grown faster and are becoming stronger” [1], as is the case especially with China today. “The hegemonic power, the United States, in relative decline, reacts instinctively by spending even more on weapons to sustain its wars and, as a result, stops using potential resources in ‘productive investment’, further aggravating its long-term economic decline” [1]. This is the situation of the United States, which, at the present time, is no longer able to assume its military spending as before, given that, according to Paul Kennedy, “the United States had become an international debtor country for the first time and was increasingly dependent on the inflow of European and Japanese capital in the second half of the 20th century” [1]. “In the 20th century, Japan was on the rise. The feeling of decadence came close to hysteria in the United States when Japanese companies bought symbolic assets of the former strength of North American capitalism” [1]. Today, in addition to depending on the inflow of European and Japanese capital, the United States depends significantly on capital from China. Professor Paul Kennedy’s thesis is being confirmed even in the contemporary era.

According to Paul Kennedy, “the United States has expanded its empire so much that it can no longer manage it, as happened with Spain in the 17th century and the United Kingdom in the 20th century” [1]. “Another empire, the Soviet one, was the first to demonstrate its inability to manage it, in the 1980s, because war spending exceeded all the limits that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union” [1]. “The increasing war spending of the United States could lead to the same outcome in the 21st century” [1]. “It is worth noting that China, although seen by many as the main beneficiary of the decline of the United States, has already gone through its own experience of decline” [1]. “Until the middle of the 16th century, it was technologically more advanced than Europe, with more efficient agriculture, and the mandarin class was unrivaled in its professionalism” [1]. “Even after the West surpassed it economically and technologically between the 16th and 18th centuries, China's economy was still the largest in the world when the English Industrial Revolution began” [1].

2. How the United States has maintained its position as a hegemonic power in the world

It can be said that, in order to avoid its decline as a hegemonic power in the world, the United States government has used its military-industrial complex [4] and its war economy [6] to combat its potential enemies, such as China, which threatens its global hegemony, and Russia, China's ally. The massive cooperation between the United States Armed Forces and its industries during World War II, when two-thirds of the American economy was integrated into the war effort by the end of 1943, helped to form the military-industrial complex and the transformation of the United States economy into a war economy in the service of the expansion of US imperialism in the post-war period. The construction and expansion of the US military-industrial complex and the war economy during World War II constituted powerful instruments in the service of the global power of the United States [7].

Since World War II, military spending has multiplied in the United States and, driven by the Cold War and then the September 11 attacks in New York, has never stopped growing [5]. War has also been used by the United States government since World War II as a permanent effort to prevent the deterioration of the country's economic conditions or monetary crises, with the US government promoting the expansion of services and jobs in the armed forces and the expansion of the arms industry, which is the largest in the world. With almost 40% of military spending worldwide, the United States exceeds what other countries combined spend on this item. The military budget for 2022 was 778 billion dollars, and for 2023, it rose to 813 billion dollars.

The power of the US military-industrial complex was denounced by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961, upon leaving office, when he stated that the country was developing “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” whose influence was felt in all aspects of the country’s life. Although he recognized “the imperative need for this development,” he did not fail to “understand its grave implications”. In particular, Eisenhower warned that it was necessary to guard against “unjustified influence” of this “military-industrial complex” within the government. He stated that “every weapon manufactured, every warship launched, every rocket fired means, in the final analysis, a robbery from those who are hungry and unfed, from those who are cold and have no clothes to cover them” [3] [4].

The permanent war of the United States sustained by the military-industrial complex has cannibalized the country, creating a social, political, and economic quagmire [2]. The permanent war economy, implemented since the end of World War II, has contributed to the destruction of the private economy of the United States and has wasted trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. The monopolization of capital by the military-industrial complex has increased the United States’ debt to $30 trillion, $6 trillion more than the country’s GDP of $24 trillion. Servicing this debt costs $300 billion a year. The United States pays a high social, political and economic cost for its warmongering. The US government has stood by passively while the United States has rotted morally, politically and economically. The United States’ military adventurism has accelerated its decline, as illustrated by the defeat in Vietnam and the waste of $8 trillion in wars in the Middle East [1].

In the United States, extravagant military spending is justified in the name of “national security”. Of the $200 billion recently allocated by the Biden administration to Ukraine, most of it went to arms manufacturers such as Raytheon Technologies, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. Meanwhile, the American people face existential threats that the Biden administration has not considered. The proposed budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in fiscal year 2023 is $10.6 billion. The proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is $11.8 billion. Ukraine alone has received more funding from the United States than is allocated to disease prevention and the environment in the United States. Social problems and the climate emergency are secondary to the U.S. government. War is all that matters.

3. The new geopolitics of the United States under the Donald Trump administration

The decline of the United States as a hegemonic power has led the Trump administration to seek to “make America great again”. With Trump’s rise to power, the geopolitics of the United States has undergone a radical change, represented by: 1) the agreement in the works between the United States and Russia to reproduce what happened after World War II, such as the Yalta agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, which concluded what is called a peace of hegemony between the two greatest military powers on the planet. This is an agreement established between two great military powers that realize that it is better to have a rule of coexistence than to engage in a military confrontation with an unfavorable outcome, as was happening during the Joe Biden administration, which financed Ukraine militarily in the war against Russia even though it knew that there would be no way to win it; 2) the end of the United States government’s support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, given its likely unfavorable outcome from an economic and military point of view; 3) the possible withdrawal of the United States from the Western military alliance in Europe, NATO, to reduce or eliminate its spending on a war against Russia that would not produce favorable results for the United States from a military and economic point of view; and, 4) the priority given by the Trump administration to the confrontation of the United States against China, which is the main enemy, whose confrontation requires the adoption of commercial, financial, technological, cybernetic, space and military strategies described in the following paragraphs.

The trade war is the name given to the economic dispute between the United States and China. The conflict began in 2017, when then-US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Chinese products and continued after returning to power in 2023. The objective of the trade war was to stimulate the purchase of domestic products, thus increasing job creation in the United States. Arguing that he seeks to protect US producers and reverse the trade deficit that the United States has with China, President Donald Trump has currently announced the adoption of 10% tariffs on products imported from the Asian country. The goal is to make it harder for Chinese products to reach the United States, which would stimulate domestic production. President Trump's central idea is to make Chinese products more expensive, encouraging the population to choose to buy domestic products. The Chinese government, in turn, responded to these announcements with retaliation, even imposing 10% tariffs on American products [9].

Financial warfare is used to destabilize the financial institutions of an enemy country and degrade its economic capacity. The United States imposed sanctions on Russia's financial system during the war in Ukraine and also against Iran in order to prevent that country from producing an atomic bomb. China is ahead of the United States with its doctrine of strategic financial warfare. In the context of the United States' financial war against Asian countries, including China, an alternative non-dollar payment system was created and is taking shape in Asia, and gold has proven to be an effective financial weapon. This situation is contributing to the construction of new banking and payment systems based on gold to replace the dollar. China is solidifying its position as a gold market powerhouse. Since 2009, China has been persistently engaged in the acquisition of physical gold. In 2023, under China’s influence, global central banks stepped up their gold purchases in an attempt to diversify their reserves away from the US dollar [10]. In addition to adopting gold, China has created its own digital currency. This is a crypto currency backed by its central bank, something that analysts say has extended the country’s lead in the global race for central bank digital money development. The Chinese digital Yuan is probably the most advanced of the world’s central bank digital currency initiatives to date. China has a goal of internationalizing its currency as an alternative to the dollar, and the digital Yuan could help in this regard [11].

The US technological war against China seeks to counter China's rapid growth, driven mainly by progress and investment in technology. China has shown exceptional local technological innovation. It is no coincidence that Chinese companies are already leading the technological path of 5G mobile networks and also of future 6G mobile networks, which should occur in 2030, and their capacity is high to launch a cyber war against the United States. China can lead the digital future even if the United States tries to prevent it by doing its part. With regard to the technological war, two areas of conflict are cited, for example: 5G technology and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The US market has been closed to Huawei, the holder of the most advanced 5G technology, since 2012, after the US Congressional Intelligence Committee concluded that Huawei poses a threat to national security [12]. China has launched a program to encourage Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Chinese government's plan states its objectives as exploiting this strategic opportunity and pioneering the development of AI, that is, moving from being a replicator to becoming a leader in this cutting-edge technology. The imminent era of intelligent machines could be a turning point in China's favor in the battle for global hegemony with the United States. There is no doubt that the country that exercises leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) could lead it to global power. Whoever gains a decisive advantage will be able to use advances in AI to undermine the economic or military power of its opponents [13].

Cyber warfare is being used by the United States and China as one of the weapons of modern warfare. Cyber warfare is based on information technology and, in modern times, also on advances provided by artificial intelligence. Cyber warfare is an interdisciplinary science based on scientific research. Cyber warfare basically consists of the use of digital attacks for espionage or sabotage purposes against a country's strategic or tactical structures. Espionage aims to steal tactical and strategic information such as troop movement data, the strengths and weaknesses of a country’s weapons system, and any other valuable information about resources needed for war. In sabotage, it can range from something as simple as taking down the servers of a government website to something extremely harmful like launching a nuclear warhead. Sabotage boils down to “doing something,” unlike espionage, which boils down to “finding something out” [12].

In cyber warfare, state-backed hackers, whether members of a country’s military or financed by that country, attack computers and networks of opposing countries that affect resources needed for war. They do this in the same way they do with any other computer or system: they study the system in depth, discover its flaws, and use those flaws to control or destroy that system. The United States Department of Defense has said that cyberspace operations are indispensable to the military strength and integrated deterrence of the United States and its allies [14].

The war in space between the United States and China is taking its first steps. China and the United States are advancing in the militarization of space with secret missions. With the launch of the X-37B vehicle, the United States is advancing in the escalation of the militarization of space. This is the seventh mission conducted by the fleet of unmanned space shuttles developed by Boeing and currently belonging to the US Space Force. The launch comes after China launched its own space shuttle into space, on its third mission. In both cases, the military is keeping the activities that will be carried out in space very secret. What will these vehicles do in space? From a military point of view, they can essentially serve four purposes: force augmentation, space support, space control and force application. The United States is therefore advancing in the escalation of the militarization of space with the launch of the X-37B space shuttle. As an increase in force, the vehicle could offer intelligence and terrain reconnaissance (spy satellite function), communications and meteorology. In space support, the X-37B could be used to take satellites into space or even recover damaged satellites, which is a mission profile that already existed for NASA's space shuttles until the Challenger accident in 1986. As a space control element, it could have offensive roles (damaging the operation of enemy satellites and even destroying them) and defensive roles (monitoring the space environment and detecting attacks on satellites, preventing them). Finally, as a force application, it could be used to attack terrestrial targets. According to experts, the vehicle could be equipped with precision weapons such as laser- or GPS-guided hypersonic missiles, which could be used to attack targets in enemy territory [15].

The war between the United States and China on the military front is advancing with the establishment of the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue formed by the United States, Australia, Japan and India) and the AUKUS (tripartite military alliance formed by Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States), while China is adopting measures aimed at strengthening its military with the constant increase in its military spending. Australia and the United States are already part of a strategic association focused on the Indo-Pacific region, together with India and Japan, the so-called QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) [16]. Created in 2007 and suspended for almost a decade, the QUAD was revived in 2017 and has been gaining increasing prominence to this day. It is a strategic forum that includes military cooperation and defense exercises between the United States, Australia, Japan and India. Japan and India are the two Asian powers that rival China, which also maintains tense territorial disputes with both and with other states in the region, such as the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia.

China sees the QUAD not only as a challenge to its growing hegemony in the region, but also as a threat to its security, which, together with the AUKUS, represents a camouflaged attempt by the United States to create an Asian NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in its neighborhood. The AUKUS, in turn, is an agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States to establish greater military coordination of the three Pacific Ocean countries and a transfer of technology to Australia to counter China [14]. In September 2021, these countries designated China as their main enemy in the Asia-Pacific and began actively forming a military alliance against Beijing. The technology transfer from the United States and the United Kingdom to Australia will take the form of nuclear-powered submarines for the Australian Navy, involving the preparation of human resources for the operation of nuclear submarines. Australia will become the seventh country to operate nuclear-powered submarines, after the United States, China, the United Kingdom, France, India and Russia. The United States government is insisting on deploying nuclear-powered submarines in Australia, ostensibly to offset the growing naval capabilities of China, which has the world's largest navy.

While the United States and its allies form the Asian NATO with the QUAD and AUKUS, China has significantly expanded its military power, including an increase in nuclear warheads. It has increased its number of aircraft carriers, as well as fighter jets, tanks and other vehicles. Today, it is the second country with the highest annual defense spending, behind only the United States. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army has the largest number of soldiers, around two million soldiers, and the largest naval fleet in the world, with almost 360 ships, and aspires to become a fully modernized combat force by 2027 [17]. To this end, it is building two new aircraft carriers to join two existing ones, developing long-range rockets and competing with the United States in the field of weapons of the future, from quantum technology to hypersonic missiles [17]. Militarily, China today is a force that cannot be underestimated. In recent years, the People’s Liberation Army, which commands the Chinese military, has made enormous advances in technology and innovation, as well as in the power of its war arsenal [17]. China’s Dong Feng hypersonic missiles, for example, can travel five times faster than the speed of sound and are armed with a high explosive or nuclear warhead. China has also undertaken a rapid expansion program for its nuclear ballistic missiles with the aim of tripling the number of warheads while building underground facilities to house these weapons in remote regions in the west of the country.

Therefore, to prevent China’s rise as the world’s hegemonic power, US military strategy is focused on the Asia-Pacific region and on defending Israel in the Middle East to safeguard its oil interests and counter the threat from Iran. China is the biggest enemy of the United States and Russia has become a minor enemy. The partnership between China and Russia exists in the arms sector. Throughout the 1990s, arms sales to China were essential to the survival of the Russian military-industrial complex. Russia continued to be China's largest supplier of modern weapons in the 2000s, and more recently, there has been a transfer of Russian military technology for the production of new Chinese weapons. In addition, the Chinese remain major customers of Russian hydrocarbons. Ultimately, the strategic partnership between China and Russia is so fundamental to both countries that differences on the energy issue, or other divergences of interests, natural between these two powers, however important they may be, have not been able to threaten the collaboration between the two countries with regard to the attempt to limit the power of the United States.

4. Conclusions

From the above, it can be said that, historically, the end of a hegemonic power has been consummated with the economic and military victory of the new holder of world power. This happened with the Netherlands when it surpassed Spain economically and militarily and established itself as the hegemonic power from the end of the 16th century until most of the 18th century. The same happened with England, which established itself as a hegemonic power from the second half of the 18th century until the beginning of the 20th century, economically and militarily supplanting the Netherlands and after militarily defeating Napoleonic France, which also aspired to world hegemony. The United States and the Soviet Union achieved the status of hegemonic powers after World War II due to England's economic decline and the military victory of both over Nazi Germany, which aspired to achieve world hegemony. From 1945 to 1989, the world was structured based on a bipolar system that lasted almost half a century of Cold War under the risk of the outbreak of a nuclear war that only did not happen because the Soviet Union fell in 1989, after which the United States exercised its hegemony in the world without challenge until the beginning of the 21st century.

For the first time in history, a great power (the United States) has assumed global hegemony without having to militarily defeat its opponent (the Soviet Union). Since the beginning of the 21st century, the global hegemony of the United States has been threatened by China, which has emerged as an emerging power. China, the world’s second most populous nation with the world’s largest army and navy, feels “cornered” by the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific with the Asian NATO (QUAD and AUKUS). In response, Chinese President Xi Jinping recently announced that China would accelerate the expansion of its defense spending and named national security as the main concern in the coming years. So how did we get to this point? Is the world moving towards a catastrophic conflict in the Pacific between China and the United States and its allies? Although tensions have now risen sharply and new incidents may arise within this conflict, both sides—China and the United States—know that a war in the Pacific would be catastrophic for all. Despite knowing that a war in the Pacific would be catastrophic, everything indicates that the American arms industry will strive to increasingly arm the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific with the Asian NATO, the QUAD and the AUKUS.

REFERENCES

1. KENNEDY, Paul.?Ascens?o e queda das grandes potências: Transforma??o econ?mica e conflito militar de 1500 a 2000. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Campus, 1989.

2. HEDGES, Chris. Política de guerra permanente dos EUA destruiu economia e faliu o país’, diz Chris Hedges. Available on the website <https://horadopovo.com.br/politica-de-guerra-permanente-dos-eua-destruiu-economia-e-faliu-o-pais-diz-chris-hedges/>.?

3. INSTITUTO HUMANITAS UNISINOS. Estados Unidos: uma economia de guerra contra a sociedade. Available on the website <https://www.ihu.unisinos.br/categorias/618204-estados-unidos-uma-economia-de-guerra-contra-a-sociedade>.

4. WIKIPEDIA. Complexo militar-industrial. Available on the website <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexo_militar-industrial>.

5. MAGNOTTA, Fernanda. Nos EUA, complexo industrial-militar se beneficia com a Guerra da Ucrania. Available on the website <https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/fernanda-magnotta/2022/05/07/nos-eua-complexo-industrial-militar-se-beneficia-com-a-guerra-da-ucrania.htm>.

6. WIKIPEDIA. War economy. Available on the website <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_economy>.

7. ALCOFORADO, Fernando. O imperativo do fim do complexo industrial-militar e da economia de guerra no mundo.? Available on the website <https://www.academia.edu/101868099/O_IMPERATIVO_DO_FIM_DO_COMPLEXO_INDUSTRIAL_MILITAR_E_DA_ECONOMIA_DE_GUERRA_NO_MUNDO>.

8. FOR?AS TERRESTRES. China e índia ser?o as maiores economias em 2075, mas com um quarto da renda dos EUA. Available on the website <https://www.forte.jor.br/2023/08/18/china-e-india-serao-as-maiores-economias-em-2075-mas-com-um-quarto-da-renda-dos-eua/>.

9. ALCOFORADO, Fernando. Da nova guerra fria, da guerra comercial, da guerra financeira e da guerra cibernética à 3a guerra mundial. Available on the website <https://pt.linkedin.com/pulse/da-nova-guerra-fria-comercial-financeira-e-%C3%A0-3%C2%AA-alcoforado>.

10. COINTIMES. China compra 23 toneladas de ouro e bate recorde em reservas. Available on the website <https://cointimes.com.br/china-compra-23-toneladas-de-ouro-e-bate-recorde-em-reservas/>.

11. NOT@ALTA ESPM. Como funciona a moeda digital da China? Available on the website <https://notaalta.espm.br/o-assunto-do-dia/como-funciona-a-moeda-digital-da-china/>.

12. ALCOFORADO, Fernando. Da nova guerra fria, da guerra comercial, da guerra financeira e da guerra cibernética à 3a guerra mundial. Available on the website <https://pt.linkedin.com/pulse/da-nova-guerra-fria-comercial-financeira-e-%C3%A0-3%C2%AA-alcoforado>.

13. DCIBER. Guerra do futuro: China e EUA disputam domínio da Inteligência Artificial. Available on the website <https://dciber.org/guerra-do-futuro-china-e-eua-disputam-dominio-da-inteligencia-artificial/>.

14. CISO ADVISOR. EUA veem atividade maliciosa da China como preparativo de guerra. Available on the website <https://www.cisoadvisor.com.br/eua-ve-atividade-maliciosa-da-china-como-preparativo-de-guerra/>.

15. NOGUEIRA, Salvador. China e EUA avan?am em militariza??o do espa?o com miss?es secretas. Available on the website <https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2023/12/china-e-eua-disputam-primazia-com-avioes-espaciais-em-missoes-secretas.shtml>.

16. AMERISE, Atahualpa. Por que a China também vê a Otan como amea?a e teme que chegue até suas fronteiras. Available on the website <https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-61321890>.

17. NOGUEIRA, Salvador. China e EUA avan?am em militariza??o do espa?o com miss?es secretas. Available on the website <https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2023/12/china-e-eua-disputam-primazia-com-avioes-espaciais-em-missoes-secretas.shtml>.

* Fernando Alcoforado, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the SBPC- Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science, IPB- Polytechnic Institute of Bahia and of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer from the UFBA Polytechnic School and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, college professor (Engineering, Economics and Administration) and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning, urban planning and energy systems, was Advisor to the Vice President of Engineering and Technology at LIGHT S.A. Electric power distribution company from Rio de Janeiro, Strategic Planning Coordinator of CEPED- Bahia Research and Development Center, Undersecretary of Energy of the State of Bahia, Secretary of Planning of Salvador, is the author of the books Globaliza??o (Editora Nobel, S?o Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, S?o Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, S?o Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Doctoral thesis. Barcelona University, https://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globaliza??o e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, S?o Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporanea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, S?o Paulo, 2010), Amaz?nia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, S?o Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econ?mico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudan?a Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revolu??es Científicas, Econ?micas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Inven??o de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017),? Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associa??o Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018), Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019), A humanidade amea?ada e as estratégias para sua sobrevivência (Editora Dialética, S?o Paulo, 2021), A escalada da ciência e da tecnologia e sua contribui??o ao progresso e à sobrevivência da humanidade (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2022), a chapter in the book Flood Handbook (CRC Press,? Boca Raton, Florida United States, 2022), How to protect human beings from threats to their existence and avoid the extinction of humanity (Generis Publishing, Europe, Republic of Moldova, Chi?in?u, 2023), A revolu??o da educa??o necessária ao Brasil na era contemporanea (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2023), Como construir um mundo de paz, progresso e felicidade para toda a humanidade (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2024) and How to build a world of peace, progress and happiness for all humanity (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2024).