In an attack on the Obama administration’s policy of “strategic reassurance,” Robert Kagan and Dan Blumenthal make an interesting point
“Strategic reassurance” seems to chart a different course. Senior officials liken the policy to the British accommodation of a rising United States at the end of the 19th century, which entailed ceding the Western Hemisphere to American hegemony. Lingering behind this concept is an assumption of America’s inevitable decline. Yet nothing would do more to hasten decline than to follow this path. The British accommodation of America’s rise was based on close ideological kinship. British leaders recognized the United States as a strategic ally in a dangerous world — as proved true throughout the 20th century. No serious person would imagine a similar grand alliance and “special relationship” between an autocratic China and a democratic United States.
Leaving aside that the writers are straining to detect how Obama differs from his predecessors — some see unusual continuity — it is true that the US lacks a natural protege. Brazil and India come much closer than China, as multicultural, democratic countries strongly shaped by Western culture, but real “kinship” is absent.
In any case, having a protege offers no guarantees: the US actively worked to deprive Britain of its chief global-power asset, its empire, even as the “special relationship” formed.
Given the strong odds that China and other countries will singly or collectively surpass the United States, the lack of proteges reinforces the value of the embedding the rising powers in an international system that Americans find amenable. It also argues for vigorous pursuit of soft power, converting rising powers to think more like us. Both of these tools were battered by the Bush administration, but Obama is pursuing them.
It should also be noted that an “autocratic China” is not forever. In many respects China is already less oppressive than South Korea and Taiwan were 50 years ago, when they were bastions of “the free world.” China may follow a similar course, and Kagan and Blumenthal imply that that matters. (Pure realists might object. After all, the US and Britain spent the first 100 years of their relationship warring or talking about warring with each other.)
Decline can be gradual: Britain remains a great power, 120 years after losing its place as the world’s largest economy. By that math, America will still matter in 2150.
(Image copyright FutureAtlas.com — usable with link and permission)
Marian Salzman asked me and others to talk about re-branding the United States. These are extracts from two of her blog posts, about challenges and solutions.
My remarks:
Brand America is suffering from the hangover of the Bush years, which intensified perceptions of the U.S. as arrogant, violent, greedy, ignorant and self-interested. One of the tragedies of the Bush administration’s missteps was that about a billion people came of age during those eight years, forming their first impressions of the U.S.
One path to future reputation is making an impression on the vast cohorts of young people growing up now. We don’t want to battle the BRICs with our legacy strengths, the size of our economy and our military power, which are declining or sullied advantages. We can fight the challengers in areas where they have weaknesses and we are admired: freedom, egalitarianism, creativity and opportunity, for instance.
As Davids says below, diversity is another area of comparative advantage over the BRICs.
Keith Reinhard:
We have become an unwelcoming brand—with visa policies that discourage the best and the brightest from coming to study … We are not taking the lead in addressing challenges the global “market” most cares about—climate change being an important current example. America is still the leading nation brand. Surveys on innovation and competitiveness still rank us as No. 1. But other nation brands, like China, are gaining on us.
Our position as the world leader did not come overnight, and our brand recovery will take some time—maybe a generation.
Axle Davids:
A smart marketer would push diversity and inclusiveness for Brand America. Show us how you are a world nation, instead of acting like the standard-bearer for all nations.
N. Sedef Onder:
A global audience watched as we failed the most basic test of our authenticity during the recent financial crisis. A country built on the premise of capitalism, or the ability of anyone with any background to succeed based on individual effort, hard work and innovation simply failed to deliver on that promise.
Brand America was, and is still, a bit “drunk” on its faded glory as the pinnacle of opportunity and invention during the industrial age. We’ve yet to reinvent ourselves for the Brave New World. Understanding our role as international partners and working in collaboration with other nations will be critical to regaining respect and credibility.
Joy Donnell:
It seems all my overseas acquaintances felt America had gone rogue during the Bush administration and hoped our new president would signal a return to the world stage.
Michael Margolis:
What “big story” initiatives might the government introduce that bring to life how our country continues to fulfill the larger promise? What about a global entrepreneurship competition sponsored by the U.S. government, with both monetary prizes and immigration visas?
Several of those interviewed wisely point out that it is not about PR — real-world actions matter.
(Image courtesy Ctd 2005, Flickr)
India’s vast film industry has generated relatively little cultural power for the country over the decades: its productions have tended to be formulaic and simplistic, and have found only limited audiences beyond South Asia and its diasporas.
That may begin to change. Buoyed by India’s rising wealth, Bollywood is gaining resources, professionalizing, and linking to the global entertainment industry, reports indicate. Indian films are starting to attract global talent, and movies are taking on more diverse and serious subjects, while simultaneously becoming more accessible to non-Indian audiences.
The result may be that India’s values and views will be shared with the world more broadly and more convincingly, the hallmark of a great power.
Despite vigorous efforts to increase Venezuela’s “soft power,” Hugo Chavez does not appear to be succeeding, according to data released by Pew this week.
In 5 of 6 major Latin American nations, majorities have little or no confidence in Chavez as a leader. In Brazil and Peru, majorities have “no confidence at all” in him. Only in Argentina is opinion divided, with 40% of the population feeling somewhat positive about Chavez.
In short, the prospects for Chavez’s “Bolivaran Revolution” transforming the politics of Latin America remain poor.
Earlier this month Lee Kuan Yew, who effectively created the nation of Singapore based on his personal vision, suggested to the New York Times that the United States–unlike China–was not effectively preparing for the future in Asia:
One of his concerns now, Mr. Lee said, is that the United States has become so preoccupied with the Middle East that it is failing to look ahead and plan in this part of the world. “I think it’s a real drag slowing down adjusting to the new situation,” he said, describing what he called a lapse that worries Southeast Asian countries that count on Washington to balance the rising economic and diplomatic power of China. “Without this draining of energy, attention and resources for Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, there would have been deep thinking about the long-term trends — working out possible options that the U.S. could exercise to change the direction of long-term trends more in its favor,” Mr. Lee said. As the United States focuses on the Middle East, Mr. Lee said, the Chinese are busy refining their policies and building the foundations of more cooperative long-term relationships in Asia. “They are making strategic decisions on their relations with the region,” he said.
Mr. Lee also notes a pattern that suggests Singaporean cultural power vastly disproportionate to its small size: China’s ministers meet with Singapore’s twice a year “to learn from their experience,” and “50 mayors of Chinese cities visit every three months for courses in city management.”