American Power And The 2004 Campaign
By: JOSEPH S NYEAMERICA's presidential election campaign is heating up, and with it the debate about American power.
A year ago, after the blitz victory in the four-week Iraq War, many
people thought the issue was settled.
But the subsequent difficulties in Iraq - and in America's
foreign relations more generally - have placed that topic at the
heart of the election campaign.
It is hard to recall, but a little over a decade ago,
conventional wisdom - both inside and outside the US - held that
America was in decline.
In 1992, the winner of the New Hampshire primary election argued
that "the Cold War is over - and Japan won."
When I published Bound to Lead in 1990, I predicted the
continuing rise of American power.
But today I regard it as equally important to challenge the new
conventional wisdom that America is invincible, and that the "new
unilateralism" should guide US foreign policy.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some analysts described
the resulting world as unipolar and saw few constraints on American
power.
This is misleading.
Power in a global information age is distributed among countries
in a pattern that resembles a complex three-dimensional chess
game.
On the top chessboard, military power is largely unipolar.
The US is the only country with large state of the art air,
naval, and ground forces capable of global deployment - thus, the
quick victory in Iraq last year.
But on the middle chessboard, economic power is multi-polar,
with the US, Europe, Japan, and China representing two-thirds of
world production.
On this economic board, other countries often balance American
power.
The bottom chessboard is the realm of transnational relations
that cross borders beyond government control.
At the benign end of the spectrum, this realm includes actors as
diverse as bankers electronically transferring huge sums; at the
other end are terrorists transferring weapons or hackers disrupting
Internet operations.
On this bottom board, power is widely dispersed, and it makes no
sense to speak of unipolarity, multipolarity, or hegemony.
Those who recommend a unilateral American foreign policy based
on such traditional descriptions of American power are relying on a
woefully inadequate analysis.
Many of the real challenges to American power are coming not on
the upper military board, on which the unilateralists concentrate,
but on the lower transnational board.
Ironically, the temptation to go it alone may ultimately weaken
the US in this domain.
Why is this true? Today's information revolution and the type of
globalization that accompanies it are transforming and shrinking
the world.
At the beginning of the 21st century, these two forces increased
American power, particularly the ability to influence others
through attractive, or what I call "soft" power.
But with time, technological gains will spread to other
countries and peoples, diminishing America's relative
pre-eminence.
For example, today America's 5% of the global population
represents more than half of all Internet users.
But in a decade or two, Chinese may become the language of the
largest number of Internet users.
It will not dethrone English as a lingua franca, but at some
point, the Asian market will loom larger than the American
market.
Even more important, the information revolution is creating
virtual communities and networks that cut across national borders,
and transnational corporations and non-governmental actors -
terrorists included - will play larger roles.
Many organisations will have soft power of their own as they
attract citizens into coalitions that cut across national
boundaries.
The terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, and now Madrid
are terrible symptoms of the deep changes already occurring.
Technology has been diffusing power away from governments, and
empowering individuals and groups to play roles in world politics -
including wreaking massive destruction - that were once reserved to
governments.
Privatisation has been the leitmotif in economic policy in
recent years, but in politics the privatisation of war is
terrorism.
Moreover, as globalization shrinks distance, events in faraway
places - like Afghanistan - have a greater impact on everyone's
lives.
The world has moved from the Cold War to the Global Information
Age, but the dominant foreign policy paradigms have not kept
pace.
Today's growing global networks of interdependence are putting
new items on national and international agendas; Americans simply
cannot solve many of these by themselves.
International financial stability is vital to prosperity, but
the US needs the cooperation of others to ensure it.
In a world where borders are becoming more porous than ever to
everything from drugs to infectious diseases to terrorism,
Americans will be forced to work with other countries beyond their
borders.
Because of its leading edge in the information revolution, and
its vast investment in traditional power resources, the US will
remain the world's single most powerful country well into this new
century.
While potential coalitions to check American power may be
created, it is unlikely that they will become firm alliances unless
the US handles its hard coercive power in an overbearing unilateral
manner that undermines its "soft" or attractive power.
* Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard and a former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, is author
of the forthcoming book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, March 2004.
But the subsequent difficulties in Iraq - and in America's foreign
relations more generally - have placed that topic at the heart of
the election campaign.It is hard to recall, but a little over a
decade ago, conventional wisdom - both inside and outside the US -
held that America was in decline.In 1992, the winner of the New
Hampshire primary election argued that "the Cold War is over - and
Japan won."When I published Bound to Lead in 1990, I predicted the
continuing rise of American power.But today I regard it as equally
important to challenge the new conventional wisdom that America is
invincible, and that the "new unilateralism" should guide US
foreign policy.After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some
analysts described the resulting world as unipolar and saw few
constraints on American power.This is misleading.Power in a global
information age is distributed among countries in a pattern that
resembles a complex three-dimensional chess game.On the top
chessboard, military power is largely unipolar.The US is the only
country with large state of the art air, naval, and ground forces
capable of global deployment - thus, the quick victory in Iraq last
year.But on the middle chessboard, economic power is multi-polar,
with the US, Europe, Japan, and China representing two-thirds of
world production.On this economic board, other countries often
balance American power.The bottom chessboard is the realm of
transnational relations that cross borders beyond government
control.At the benign end of the spectrum, this realm includes
actors as diverse as bankers electronically transferring huge sums;
at the other end are terrorists transferring weapons or hackers
disrupting Internet operations.On this bottom board, power is
widely dispersed, and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity,
multipolarity, or hegemony.Those who recommend a unilateral
American foreign policy based on such traditional descriptions of
American power are relying on a woefully inadequate analysis.Many
of the real challenges to American power are coming not on the
upper military board, on which the unilateralists concentrate, but
on the lower transnational board.Ironically, the temptation to go
it alone may ultimately weaken the US in this domain.Why is this
true? Today's information revolution and the type of globalization
that accompanies it are transforming and shrinking the world.At the
beginning of the 21st century, these two forces increased American
power, particularly the ability to influence others through
attractive, or what I call "soft" power.But with time,
technological gains will spread to other countries and peoples,
diminishing America's relative pre-eminence.For example, today
America's 5% of the global population represents more than half of
all Internet users.But in a decade or two, Chinese may become the
language of the largest number of Internet users.It will not
dethrone English as a lingua franca, but at some point, the Asian
market will loom larger than the American market.Even more
important, the information revolution is creating virtual
communities and networks that cut across national borders, and
transnational corporations and non-governmental actors - terrorists
included - will play larger roles.Many organisations will have soft
power of their own as they attract citizens into coalitions that
cut across national boundaries.The terrorist attacks on New York,
Washington, and now Madrid are terrible symptoms of the deep
changes already occurring.Technology has been diffusing power away
from governments, and empowering individuals and groups to play
roles in world politics - including wreaking massive destruction -
that were once reserved to governments.Privatisation has been the
leitmotif in economic policy in recent years, but in politics the
privatisation of war is terrorism.Moreover, as globalization
shrinks distance, events in faraway places - like Afghanistan -
have a greater impact on everyone's lives.The world has moved from
the Cold War to the Global Information Age, but the dominant
foreign policy paradigms have not kept pace.Today's growing global
networks of interdependence are putting new items on national and
international agendas; Americans simply cannot solve many of these
by themselves.International financial stability is vital to
prosperity, but the US needs the cooperation of others to ensure
it.In a world where borders are becoming more porous than ever to
everything from drugs to infectious diseases to terrorism,
Americans will be forced to work with other countries beyond their
borders.Because of its leading edge in the information revolution,
and its vast investment in traditional power resources, the US will
remain the world's single most powerful country well into this new
century.While potential coalitions to check American power may be
created, it is unlikely that they will become firm alliances unless
the US handles its hard coercive power in an overbearing unilateral
manner that undermines its "soft" or attractive power. * Joseph
Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a
former US Assistant Secretary of Defense, is author of the
forthcoming book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics.Copyright: Project Syndicate, March 2004.