U.S. leadership benefits the world
“Hegemon” is an ugly word. “Empire” sounds, well, imperious. “Unipolar” is academic. But they all mean the same thing: In this world, the United States holds overwhelming supremacy.
Three highbrow magazines recently tackled the question of whether this country deserves and will hold onto its position. The score was 2-1 that we will, and the logic of it came out even stronger.
The journals with cover stories favoring U.S. dominance were Foreign Affairs and The Economist, and they made the case compellingly. By comparison, Foreign Policy sounded pathetically antique arguing U.S. power is in decline.
The July-August Foreign Affairs and the July 5 Economist deserve to be read as antidotes to the notion that foreigners, resentful of U.S. power and “arrogance,” are intent on ganging up on us and will do so sooner or later.
In Foreign Affairs, Dartmouth College professors Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth acknowledge other countries do harbor resentments, but assert they are unable — and unwilling — to do much more than express them rhetorically.
A chart in The Economist shows the United States, with just 4.7 percent of the world’s population, represents 31 percent of its gross domestic product, 36 percent of its defense spending, 40 percent of its research investment — and its films account for 83 percent of world movie box-office revenue.
Historically, whenever a nation showed signs of seeking the kind of pre-eminence the United States now has — France under Napoleon, Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin — other countries have teamed up to thwart the effort.
But Brooks and Wohlforth argue that it isn’t likely to happen this time because the United States is “both less vulnerable than previous aspiring hegemons and also less threatening.”
Brooks and Wohlforth argue that no country big enough to counter the United States — such as China or Russia — is rich enough. And no rich countries, like Japan and major European powers, are so far willing to devote sufficient resources to defense to do so.
Also, were China to develop a powerful military to challenge the United States, the chances are they would scare Japan, India and Russia into countering it — and probably into closer alliance with the United States.
And yet, countries critical of the United States can’t decide which they like less — a too-passive United States (the one led by President Bush before Sept. 11) or one that’s too active (the post-Sept. 11 version, the one that’s headed toward a showdown with Iraq).
Moreover, it’s simply not true that the United States is just resented. It’s also respected. That’s why Russian President Vladimir Putin has thrown in his lot with the U.S. and why Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf did so.
As the Economist notes, “America’s national interest is special, and not only to starry American eyes. It offers the closest match there is to a world interest.”
The fact the United States is mighty — perhaps an “empire,” but without an emperor or colonies — does not mean it has to act heedlessly, arrogantly or unilaterally.
Where possible, it ought to inspire other nations’ “voluntary help” through “magnanimity” and “restraint,” they say, including fostering world prosperity by lowering U.S. trade barriers and testing a policy of engagement with China.
The Bush administration, post-Sept. 11, has acted with firm purpose against terrorists. It intends to eliminate Iraq’s capacity for mass destruction. It has acquired allies in the war against terrorism. It could use them in Iraq.
(Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.)