Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2005 / 18 Shevat, 5765

Robert Robb

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


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.

Donate to JWR


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 resisted.



JWR contributor Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic. Comment by clicking here.

Up

01/21/05: Broadness of new Bush Doctrine diffuses focus from the true terrorist threat
01/05/05: Why is this any of the government's business?
12/15/04: Finally a maverick Nobel Prize winner for economics?
12/10/04: The challenge four more years of the Bush administration presents to conservatism's fundamental beliefs
12/02/04: Sportsmanship? What's that?
11/22/04: Tax reform limited by, uh ... tax reform
11/14/04: Empowerment agenda reality check
10/13/04: And what tax rate should Americans making over $200,000 a year pay? Some pre-debate advice for the President
09/24/04: Too many of the wrong people have too much ability to influence public opinion too quickly?
09/20/04: Kerry asks good question about security costs
09/07/04: Right city, right message
08/30/04: Bush's key task: His reinvention as a true uniter
08/20/04: Bush's burdening the Middle Class
08/13/04: For prez to win, he must change his campaigning style
08/03/04: Missing in Beantown was a sense of the art of the possible
07/26/04: Kerry inflated agenda reveals he's failed to truly make the transition from legislator to presidential candidate
07/12/04: Edwards punctuates Kerry fantasies
07/06/04: Kerry ups the ante in bid for Latino vote
06/30/04: High Court gave administration limits
06/25/04: Parallel (political) universes
06/21/04: Al-Qaida-Iraq interaction strengthens case for war
06/02/04: Gas whiners don't believe in or trust markets
05/10/04: Border reforms fail on black-market issue
05/07/04: It wasn't Bush's recession nor Bush's recovery
04/28/04: Arizona to become test market on immigration as a political issue
04/23/04: Accusations that the Bush administration has been shredding civil liberties are hyperbolic
04/16/04: Learning the limits
04/14/04: Aug. 6 memo is not even a water pistol, much less a smoking gun
04/11/04: Once 9/11 Commission's political theater ends, we must debate real security issues
04/09/04: Fact checking Kerry's federal budget plans
04/08/04: Should the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq be delayed beyond the current deadline?
04/02/04: Kerry's tax epiphany makes some cents
03/31/04: What could have prevented 9/11
03/26/04: Knock off the high-stakes blame game
03/23/04: McCain a ‘straight talker’? Who is he kidding?
03/17/04: Bin Laden makes distinctions?
03/12/04: In the dangerous neighborhoods, cause for hope, if not yet optimism
03/01/04: Greenspan view scary, but Dems in denial

02/27/04: How not to achieve a mandate


© 2004, The Arizona Republic