The eclipse of the American Empire? Not yet.

In the nineteenth century Britain was the preeminent global power. The British Navy commanded the seas. The majority of the vessels which made up this navy were built in the mighty shipyards of the Clyde (Glasgow), the Lagan (Belfast) and the Mersey (Liverpool). This navy helped to maintain an Empire which stretched around the globe. This navy carried primary goods from the colonies and finished products from the industrial heartlands of the metropole. This navy helped to grab and maintain control over Britain's colonial possessions. It was a symbol of British prowess and a principle means through which British global hegemony was maintained.

All of this changed in the twentieth century. British global dominance was challenged internally by anti-colonial movements demanding national-self determination. Britain's position was challenged externally by the rise of other Great Powers, Japan in the East, Germany in Europe and, across the Atlantic, the United States of America. After the Second World War it was the United States which emerged as the preeminent global power. The United States repudiated Empire in favour of the right of nations to self-determination, and tied the world (and themselves) into a multilateral global governance in the form of the United Nations.

The historical example suggests that the United States cannot continue to maintain its global supremacy indefinetely. The high level of US indebtedness suggests that it is increasingly forced to draw on resources which the country can't back with collatoral. The grumblings of its Allies, particularly Germany and France, about the irresponsibility of US foreign policy, (under Bush, at least), suggest that their loyalties have become more fickle. But who would take over the US role as a global power?

A number of commentators look to the BRICs, the rising econcomies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. So the meeting of the BRICs in Russia this week has generated interest. Is this a new global alliance to challenge US dominance?

The BBC reports that Rory MacFarquhar, a Moscow-based economist at Goldman Sachs (Goldman Sachs, incidently, coined the term BRICs, before the four countries made any moves to cooperate), says: "There is considerable interest, you could say from all (the Bric) countries but Russia in particular, in creating an alternative" to established international organisations.

The Report goes on to note that both 'Russia and China have questioned the role of the dollar in the world's economy, leading to speculation that Bric might be considering the creation of a new global reserve currency'. And the 'BBC's business reporter Katie Hunt says that fears that such big holders of dollar assets may be looking to switch from the US currency have unsettled financial markets and US politicians'.

The are, however, a report in the New York Times points out, limits to cooperation between the BRICs. They have very different economies, and very different relationships with the United States:

'China, whose economy dwarfs those of the other three, depends on the export of manufactured goods to the United States and Europe. Russia sells oil, natural gas and other natural resources abroad. Brazil focuses on agricultural exports, while India’s growth has been largely based on its domestic market'.

The Report concludes by noting that: 'China’s dependence on exports and enormous holdings of dollar-denominated assets give it a vested interest in the status quo, leaving China’s leaders reluctant to pursue far-reaching changes. While China’s official news media often give sizable attention to coming international gatherings, they have offered little coverage of the BRIC summit meeting.

Xu Xiaonian, an economist at the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai, said the silence reflected a desire not to raise hopes for the meeting. “What can they agree on? So little,” Mr. Xu said. “This meeting is more symbolic than of real effect.”