Senator Barack Obama’s election comes at a moment when a new bit of conventional wisdom is congealing. It concerns the end of the US’ global dominance.
True, freewheeling US-style capitalism has not acquitted itself proudly of late. And the US’ military superiority has not proved all that useful in accomplishing US ends. But who may pick up the slack in providing global leadership?
The uncomfortable answer that Obama is likely to confront is this: nobody. The US may be damaged, but no replacement is on offer. Europe is self-absorbed, focused on creating whatever kind of entity it ends up deciding to be. China’s standard response to any suggestion that it exercise global leadership is to hide beneath its vast internal agenda and plead poverty. No other country comes close to having either the capacity or the ambition.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
In the face of the familiar litany of desperate global problems — not just financial instability, but also climate change, energy insecurity, potential pandemics, terrorism, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction — the prospect of a rudderless world is more than alarming. What is to be done? And by whom?
Given that the US has not been playing much of a leadership role on many of these issues recently, it is worth taking a look at what happens when no one country exercises effective leadership. One set of answers might seem apparent from the collapse of international trade negotiations and the unraveling international system to control the spread of nuclear weapons. Things can certainly get grim. But that is not the whole story.
To see why, consider climate change. It is now clear that avoiding catastrophic climate change requires dramatic and rapid reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, cuts that would lower annual emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Yet emissions are not just rising, but accelerating. The coming recession may stem their growth temporarily, but only slightly. The necessary reductions imply a rapid and radical transformation of industrial, energy, and land-use systems around the world.
What are governments doing about this? Supposedly, by December next year they will agree on a new treaty to set limits on emissions. But the prospects that an agreement will be reached in Copenhagen in December next year are close to nil.
The new Obama administration will have only a few months to develop meaningful proposals that can win domestic support, and will be preoccupied with the aftermath of the current financial debacle and the Iraq War.
Europe is pushing for ambitious targets but is having trouble with its own vested interests. The large emerging countries, although they will suffer disproportionately from wilder weather and rising sea levels, show little interest in picking up the slack. Negotiation watchers term the current American-Chinese dance of mutual blame a suicide pact. In short, the process is a mess.
This is hardly surprising. An inter-governmental system that falls apart under the challenges of trade negotiations and proliferation threats is unlikely to master the deep complexity and multitudinous vested interests that the issue of climate change entails. Traditional diplomacy will at best devise a face-saving but meaningless accord next year.
In many areas, frustration with inter-governmental intransigence and incompetence has sparked extraordinary innovation by non-governmental organizations, corporations, and ordinary people. Private organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Marine Stewardship Council provide and, increasingly, implement environmental standards where inter-governmental action has failed. Private actors from foundations to pharmaceutical corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are actively experimenting with alternative ways to tackle transnational health challenges.
Often governments are part of these experiments — but they are not necessarily the drivers, and progress does not depend on signing treaties.
Indeed, there are many ways to put matters on the global agenda, as shown by Irish rock star Bono’s campaigns on African development and former US vice president Al Gore’s on climate change. Agreements about how to make things better already frequently include NGOs and corporations in various capacities — and sometimes exclude governments altogether. Private groups using everything from satellite imagery (as in forestry) to the unofficial equivalent of on-site inspections (as in human rights) monitor who is abiding by — or violating — what standard of behavior.
While enforcement in the coercive sense remains the domain of states, coercive enforcement is rare even when it comes to inter-governmental agreements. Whether countries abide by agreements has far more to do with international processes of persuasion, socialization, and capacity-building — and those can be done by anyone with a good argument.
The big question today is whether all these alternative approaches can add up to more than a bit of desperate tinkering around the edges. Standard international-relations thinking does not even entertain the question, and those conventional ways of seeing the world have blinded us to looking at this crucial question.
As a result, we do not yet know the answer. Data remain scarce. There are hundreds of global public-private partnerships working on various global ills — but few have been examined to see what good they do. The mishmash of initiatives, actors, campaigns, and appeals creates opportunities for major progress — and mass confusion.
If there is to be real progress toward more effective and efficient global governance that can address the unprecedented challenges posed by climate change and the rest of the global agenda, we must do much more than look for an easy replacement for American hegemony. We must figure out how to make sense of this enormous diversity of ways of saving the world.
Ann Florini is director of the Center on Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS