|
01/17/2008
A New Foreign Policy
I’ve been meaning to pass along some thoughts from Justine
Rosenthal, executive editor of The National Interest, as spelled
out in the Nov./Dec. 2007 edition. Ms. Rosenthal writes of U.S.
foreign policy:
“America used to be the world’s relief pitcher. The secret
weapon trotted out in the ninth inning to shore up the win. With
all this talk of great-power fatigue, the end of the American era,
the squandering of U.S. power and resources, maybe it’s time to
return to truer and more tried methods. Taking a breather and
solidifying our position as global leader – not giving it away by
acting as the much-resented world policeman – may serve the
United States well.”
Rosenthal has some interesting thoughts on China.
“China certainly faces its share of obstacles. As is so often the
case, many of the state’s strengths are also great potential
weaknesses. A pretty big landmass with a population of 1.3
billion people is tough to rule. The central government has a
difficult time exerting control over the provinces. Corruption
and growing income inequality are breeding social unrest. China
also continues to thrive in areas where mimicry rather than
innovation leads the way: from Smart Cars to luxury SUVs,
DVDs to designer accessories. Counterfeit products, China’s
economic tour de force, account for about 8 percent of the
country’s GDP. And many Chinese firms continue to depend on
imported technology and foreign investment. The World Bank,
in its five-year plan for China, lists ‘increasing the capacity for
independent innovation’ as a key focus area. As the world has
witnessed recently, even the Chinese advantage of an abundance
of cheap labor is not a panacea for global growth. Without
stricter standards and regulatory bodies, China’s booming export
sector might take a serious hit.”
India, Rosenthal notes, may have a growing middle class, but 70
percent of its citizens still live in poverty, most of them in the
“extreme” category.
“Each emerging power faces substantial barriers to a meteoric
rise and each, for now, may pose a greater threat to its neighbors
than to the United States. Though increasing economic
interdependence may lead us to wonder if we’re not better served
abating wars and propping up our trading partners, why buoy
potential challengers? Let’s take the recent scares caused by
tainted Chinese products. We’re not the only ones being harmed,
but it seems the rest of the world expects the United States to
once again take the lead, providing China with the resources and
expertise needed to make its exports safe. This could well help
China – our most likely peer competitor in the near future –
strengthen its economic might. Not a lot of sensible burden-
sharing there.
“And regional powers certainly have no incentive to solve
pressing problems in their own neighborhoods if they believe
that the United States will assume the onus for them. If we can
buck-pass, why not? Take Russia: Moscow now has the ability
to shut down supply lines and blackmail countries in its sphere of
influence. Yet this recently reinvigorated state is more likely to
be a European problem than an American one for some time to
come. It is Europe’s gas supplies that Russia controls, not
America’s. So perhaps we needn’t strain our relationship with
the Kremlin further by dealing with a continental concern – even
if the Georgians keep calling us for help. And Europeans and
Japanese still expect the United States to keep the Persian Gulf
open for their oil exports. This means sailable sea lanes,
pumping pipelines and regime stability, tyrannical or not. On
every key issue in the Middle East, from the Israeli-Palestinian
impasse to the Iranian nuclear program, the United States is
expected to play the leading role. Principal regional actors –
Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – those who
would be most negatively affected by an Iraqi disaster still want
America to be commander-in-chief. And to be the scapegoat if
efforts fail.
“The United States need not be the world’s teat, particularly
when there’s so much resentment of our efforts. We’ve made the
mistake of thinking that our unipolar moment is best secured by
aggression on the world stage. Falling victim to the ‘Myth of
Empire,’ the United States is in a moment of overexpansion,
believing we have limitless resources to expend and that the
more we take on, the more we will be needed by others and the
more the rest of the world will buy into the American paradigm.”
Rosenthal says we should lay low for a while and focus “our
efforts on military and industrial R&D (that) can bolster our
position; technological development fostered the American
moment, increasing our military capabilities and spurring
economic growth. Innovation is dual use, helping us in both
hard- and soft-power terms. Ground-breaking inventions are
scattered throughout the landscape of U.S. ingenuity: the 1951
development of a nuclear power generator in Idaho, the advent of
the personal computer in the 1980s and the development of the
Internet and satellite technologies. Oftentimes, the defense
establishment took the lead, later opening the marketplace for an
initial American monopoly on these advances.”
“Once technological discoveries are made, they’re easier to
mimic. Without a sustained upward trajectory of innovation, the
United States may well find itself on the Roman scrap heap of
history. We need to keep thinking about that better mousetrap.
If we concentrated more on creating alternate sources of energy,
for example, we’d surely shore up our power on the world stage.
He who breaks the hydrocarbon monopoly rules the 21st century.
Depriving the oil-producing countries of their major tool of
coercion would go a long way towards ensuring superpower
status. Why should the United States exhaust itself on other
states’ problems, leaving an opening for potential challengers to
take the lead?”
Next Hot Spots, Jan. 24.
Brian Trumbore
|
