At “Ground Zero” in lower Manhattan, two empty spaces will be filled by water cascades, memorializing in a serene and respectful way the victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Next to them, a powerful tower, designed by the architect Daniel Libeskind and nearly completed, rises vigorously into the sky, a symbol of the triumph of life over the forces of death. One word comes to mind to characterize the impression made by this place, the site of an unprecedented crime: resilience.
In a building that houses what will one day be a memorial museum, one can buy a DVD entitled 9/12: From Chaos to Community. Ground Zero is the architectural and human proof that, despite the US’ current economic woes, it would be -premature, if not dangerous, to write the country off as a declining power. The US has the moral and intellectual resources that it needs to rebound.
However, what is necessary is not sufficient. To reinvent itself, if not to manage its relative international decline, the US must proceed toward a rebalancing of its domestic and international priorities. In the immediate aftermath of World War I, a triumphant US withdrew from global responsibility, with tragic consequences for the balance of power in Europe, which was left to face its inner demons alone.
In the aftermath of World War II, by contrast, the US managed successfully to contain Soviet ambitions. Today, unlike in 1945, Americans do not confront an imminent threat. Russia may speak loudly (using its permanent seat on the UN Security Council as a megaphone), but it is a greatly reduced rump of the Soviet Union. Likewise, while the nationalism of the US’ principal rival, China, has become more assertive lately, the communist regime’s clear priority — indeed, the key to its stability — is domestic economic growth.
Indeed, the only obvious danger that the US faces stems from weapons of mass destruction, which could proliferate or be used by terrorist groups. However, confronting this threat does not require a massive military budget or huge deployments of US troops all over the world. The US has a much-needed opportunity to refocus on itself — to recover its inner strength without withdrawing from the world. As Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, puts it, the US must enter a period of “restoration” of its fundamentals.
US foreign policy starts at home, and that means reining in budget deficits over the long term, reviving economic growth and job creation in the short term and addressing the country’s deteriorating infrastructure. Indeed, the US’ “aged modernity” has become a drag on its competitiveness, as well as an insult to its international image and a risk to the safety of its citizens.
Moreover, imperial fatigue has set in. Recent US history has been characterized by cycles of enthusiasm about foreign engagement. In the mid-1970s, following the war in Vietnam, the US, guided by former US president Jimmy Carter’s moralizing impulse, opted for “regionalization” of its engagements. However, given that the Soviet threat still existed, this effort came too early (and probably was carried out in the wrong manner).
Today, by contrast, the starting point for a reassessment of US priorities is more economic than ethical. However, the reasoning is the same, for it is based on the conviction that more US influence in the world today implies less costly and confused interventionism tomorrow. That means that US foreign policy itself — defined in recent years by too much attention to the Middle East and too little to Asia — must embrace a shift in priorities.
Of course, in the midst of today’s ongoing Arab revolutions, the US cannot simply ignore the Middle East. Nor must the US give up hope on the Israel-Palestine front, or on its efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, it is in Asia that history is unfolding — and where the US must define its long-term global strategy.
Must the US, as former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger suggests in his latest book On China, consider the prospect of a “Pacific Community” that, unlike the Cold War-era Atlantic Community, is not based on common culture and values in the face of a direct threat, but on common interests in an “age of rebalancing of world order”?
The US’ resilience may contrast with Europe’s multiple weaknesses. However, resilience will not be enough. The US must get back into shape to face tomorrow’s challenges, and that means restoring economic growth, reducing deficits and improving infrastructure. Paradoxically, only a more confident US can accept a reduced global status, because reconciling oneself to change is always easier once one has taken the steps needed to adjust to it.
Dominique Moisi is the author of The Geopolitics of Emotion.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry