Arbiter, Enforcer, Hegemon

The talk lately of the "Post American World" is a line of thinking I simply don't agree with, for a number of reasons. I see the idea as the fallback position of those who want to retreat from the responsibilities assumed by our nation for nearly 6 decades. They may not realize it, but such a vision is an expression of desire for a world absent leadership.

In many ways it represents a position absent the context of history. For example, if we are in a recession, and I tend to believe we are heading that direction, one only has to point to the early 90s to see the last time we experienced such economic conditions. I guess that means the 90s were terrible, right?

Hardly. The world is much more complicated, and when the US took an economic hit due to Fannie/Freddie, it took all of about 24 hours for the entire world to feel it. We live in a world where your mortgage payment effects the investment economies of Europe and Asia, and somehow this is a sign of American decline to these supposed thinkers. These are the same people who claim an oil bourse in Iran would break the dollar, as if Saudi Arabia is going to look at the dollar and the Euro and come to the conclusion the Europeans will protect their investment. I'm sure European power backing their oil investments is the first thing that crosses their mind as they observe F-16s with the letters U.S.A.F. fly over the Persian Gulf as those jets maintain security.

I point this out because there were some really good reads, all pre-election, that I think are worth consideration post election. When one begins talking about national power, it must account for its association of economics and military power. Every smart foreign policy accounts for both but is based on neither. In the 21st century, the discussion must also account for shared interest and building cooperative relationships. If we have learned anything from the economic crisis facing the nation, it is that our economy now has reach into the wallets of the middle class of citizens in other countries, meaning many domestic decisions are now bigger than just us.

That leads into this interesting editorial by Robert Kagan. I recommend it is read in full, but I found this interesting as we fight the myth of decline.

Yet the evidence of American decline is weak. Yes, as Zakaria notes, the world's largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore and the largest casino in Macau. But by more serious measures of power, the United States is not in decline, not even relative to other powers. Its share of the global economy last year was about 21 percent, compared with about 23 percent in 1990, 22 percent in 1980 and 24 percent in 1960. Although the United States is suffering through a financial crisis, so is every other major economy. If the past is any guide, the adaptable American economy will be the first to come out of recession and may actually find its position in the global economy enhanced.

But economic power is only part of the basis for American power, we must also account for military power, which is done very well in this editorial by Christian Caryl as he highlights the role the US plays in maintaining regional stability in this example with the seventh fleet.

The problem with East Asia, though, is that none of its countries trust each other. If, let us say, the Seventh Fleet were to evaporate tomorrow, China would suddenly get very nervous about protecting what strategists call its "sea-line of communications." Four-fifths of China's entire supply of oil comes through the Strait of Malacca. Were China to beef up its military presence there, though, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—all dependent on the same oil—would immediately have to confront similar concerns. And because China hardly offers a model of transparent government, they would find themselves having to do a lot of guessing. Unpredictability is a very dangerous thing when the vital national interests of states are involved. Just to make it more interesting, China, for its part, has good historical reasons to worry about the motives of Japan, while South Korea is intensely paranoid about both Japan and China. Like it or not, the Seventh Fleet is a powerful insurance policy that ensures more or less stable rules of the game.

Both editorials are a must read, interesting opinion worth consideration.

Since the end of WWII we have created a world in our image. We won the cold war without a shooting war with Russia, and discovered that Levis jeans, hair band rock, coke, and Hollywood contributed to global influence just as much as American intervention. In other words, it takes both hard and soft power. The language of international air travel is English, not by accident. Are we supposed to believe that now, after we have spent decades shaping the world in our image, that as other nations improve themselves under our model this is a threat to our dominance and position? Hardly, Christian Caryl uses the word imperialism in the title of his editorial, but that simply highlights a view regarding what military power means to him.

The real term that describes the American power model at work in the 21st century is connectivity, which is taking place in the realm of information and ideas as the world continues to adopt our international liberal trade order. As we look ahead to what the future brings, I'm reminded of an article Thomas Barnett wrote last month regarding the Post Caucasian World, another very interesting editorial that rejects the decline of American power.

For the foreseeable future, America appears certain to lean in the direction of more regulation, after a three-decade streak of deregulation that was pivotal in fueling globalization's rapid expansion. In many ways, this course correction will feel like a rerun of our turn-of-the-20th-century Progressive Era -- in effect, first shaming and then taming a capitalist market that's become too rapacious and uncontrollable.

Pursued with real vision, our example should trigger similar policy innovation and clean-up efforts on a global scale, meaning a "league of democracies" constitutes an insufficient quorum for making globalization's future consolidation both sustainable and far more just.

Instead, it is a league of capitalist great powers that must be immediately called to order, but with the clear understanding -- unclouded by fear -- that globalization comes with rules but no ruler.

And that is a most American world.

In every challenge there is opportunity, and right now the nation is facing many challenges that give a sense of pessimism. I reject the pessimism, and the associated "Post American World" as one and the same. We began the 21st century with a serious challenge from non-state forces who reject a world building itself on connectivity. We have resisted that challenge, and with a new government forming and General Petraeus taking over at CENTCOM, we are a nation regrouping for the next phase of dealing with these challenges.

Yes, it is a dangerous world, but it is trending towards a better world, a safer world, as we find shared interest globally with rapidly growing nations that desire connectivity to the American world that already exists today. This process of emerging powers like China and India still leads to a world where the United States remains the arbiter, enforcer, and hegemon in the rising order. The words chosen aren't unintentional, after all, we must keep in mind that hegemony is a Greek word that means leadership.