The US government’s National Intelligence Council projects that US dominance will be “much diminished” by 2025, and that the one key area of continued US superiority — military power — will be less significant in the increasingly competitive world of the future. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has called the recent financial crisis a sign that the US’ global leadership is coming to an end. The leader of Canada’s opposition Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, suggests that US power has passed its mid-day. How can we know if these predictions are correct?
One should beware of misleading metaphors of organic decline. Countries are not like humans with predictable life spans. For example, after Britain lost its American colonies at the end of the 18th century, Horace Walpole lamented Britain’s reduction to “as insignificant a country as Denmark or Sardinia.” He failed to foresee that the industrial revolution would give Britain a second century of even greater ascendancy.
Rome remained dominant for more than three centuries after the apogee of Roman power. Even then, Rome did not succumb to another state, but suffered a death of a thousand cuts inflicted by various barbarian tribes. Indeed, for all the fashionable predictions of China, India, or Brazil surpassing the US in the coming decades, the classical transition of power among great states may be less of a problem than the rise of modern barbarians — non-state actors. In an information-based world of cyber-insecurity, power diffusion may be a greater threat than power transition.
INFORMATION
So, what will it mean to wield power in the global information age of the 21st century? What resources will produce power? In the 16th century, control of colonies and gold bullion gave Spain the edge; 17th-century Holland profited from trade and finance; 18th-century France gained from its larger population and armies and 19th-century British power rested on its industrial primacy and its navy.
Conventional wisdom has always held that the state with the largest military prevails, but in an information age it may be the state (or non-state) with the best story that wins. Today, it is far from clear how the balance of power is measured, much less how to develop successful survival strategies.
In his inaugural address, US President Barack Obama stated that “our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”
Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America. We must use what has been called ‘smart power,’ the full range of tools at our disposal.”
Smart power means the combination of the hard power of command and the soft power of attraction.
Power always depends on context. The child who dominates on the playground may become a laggard when the context changes to a disciplined classroom. In the middle of the 20th century, former Soviet leader Josef Stalin scornfully asked how many divisions the pope had, but four decades later, the papacy was still intact while Stalin’s empire had collapsed.
POWER DISTRIBUTION
In today’s world, the distribution of power varies with the context. It is distributed in a pattern that resembles a three-dimensional chess game. On the top chessboard, military power is largely unipolar, and the US is likely to remain the only superpower for some time. But on the middle chessboard, economic power has already been multi-polar for more than a decade, with the US, Europe, Japan and China as the major players, and others gaining in importance.
RSS