|
Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2005 / 18 Shevat, 5765
Robert Robb
Would a diminishing U.S. global influence actually do us good?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
America's foreign policy elites fret incessantly about U.S. influence in
the world.
In his inaugural speech, President Bush said that American influence was
"considerable," and made it plain that he intended to use it. And by using
influence, the Bush administration believes it acquires more.
Critics worry that the way the Bush administration uses U.S. influence
actually tends to diminish it.
The shared premise, however, is that a decline in U.S. influence would be
bad and is to be avoided.
But, in reality, U.S. global influence is likely to decline regardless of
what we do. And there's a good chance the United States will be better for
it.
The CIA's National Intelligence Council recently published a report,
Mapping the Global Future, speculating about the global changes that may
take place over the next 15 years.
Any such musing, regardless of how well informed, is bound to be
spectacularly wrong about many matters. But there does appear to be two
reasonably safe, and hugely consequential, assumptions about the future
that can be made.
The first is that economic diffusion, the NIC uses the more common
"globalization," will continue and accelerate.
In particular, the NIC discusses the possible emergence of China and India
as internationally important economies.
By 2020, the NIC says that China may have the second largest economy in the
world, behind only that of the United States, with India not far behind.
Regardless of whether China and India actually achieve that status, chances
are, if free markets and trade continue to prevail, the U.S. percentage of
world economic output is likely to decline.
There's a tendency to view this development with alarm, as a loss of
influence. But, in reality, the U.S. benefits from other countries becoming
more economically productive.
Right now, the chief domestic concern about globalization is outsourcing,
or the loss of U.S. jobs to other countries. The anecdotal stories are
often quite powerful. But quantitatively, this isn't much of a phenomenon.
American exports have been expanding at a healthy clip; imports have just
been increasing faster. Manufacturing has maintained its share of domestic
production.
There has been a steady decline in manufacturing jobs, but not because the
U.S. is producing less. It's because technology permits more to be produced
with fewer workers.
The NIC points to another potential benefit from the expanding economies of
China and India: they could put more of an Asian and less of an American
face on globalization.
Productive economic reforms in developing countries are sometimes resisted
because they are seen as importing American values. The rise of non-Western
economies can reduce that stigma.
The second reasonably safe assumption is that the United States will remain
the dominant military power in the world. Right now, only China is making a
serious effort to catch up.
But even with an aggressive buildup, the NIC estimates that in 15 years
China will still be spending about half of what the U.S. currently spends
on its military.
China's military buildup has significant consequences in the Pacific
region, but for the foreseeable future, only the United States will be in a
position to project military power globally.
But, as the NIC points out, the utility of that power may nevertheless
decline, as other countries develop at least enough capability, perhaps
including weapons of mass destruction, to deter U.S. military action.
The NIC treads lightly on this point, but there's also a growing reluctance
by others in the world to accept U.S. leadership, despite our bigger guns
and larger economy.
That means that managing conflicts may be more productively done through
regional alliances, and often ad hoc ones rather than standing security
organizations.
Again, this could be regarded as a loss of American influence. But it might
also reduce the U.S. burden for maintaining global peace and stability,
making the United States less of a target for malcontents in such
conflicts.
In part, diminished influence is a natural consequence of the triumph of
American ideals. The more other nations adopt free markets and trade, the
less of an advantage the United States will have. And people living in
freedom and democracy are less willing to defer to the authority of an
outside power.
An expanding global economy, however, may make the United States less
influential but more prosperous. And the reduction of U.S. military and
diplomatic influence may lighten our burden while making us more secure.
That's not a future necessarily to be feared or reflexively
01/21/05: Broadness of new Bush Doctrine diffuses focus from the true terrorist threat 02/27/04: How not to achieve a mandate
|