Around the world, the US presidential election campaign has attracted as much attention as domestic political controversies in each of our own countries. The interest the world has taken in the US election is the best example of the US’ soft power and a lesson in democracy from the world’s only superpower. If only we could all vote as well as watch and listen, because the outcome is vital for everyone around the world.
What does the world want — and, perhaps more importantly, what does it need — from a new US president?
Much as some may hate to admit it, anti-Americanism is a sentiment that has been fed and nurtured during the years of US President George W. Bush. Yet the world still needs US leadership. Yes, we are witnessing the emergence of China, Brazil and India as important global economic players. Yes, we have watched the humiliating fall of Wall Street’s masters of the universe. Yes, US military prowess has drained away into what British prime minister Winston Churchill called “the thankless deserts of Mesopotamia,” and its moral authority has been weakened by events in places from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib.
All that is true. Yet the US remains the world’s only superpower, the only nation that matters in every part of the globe, the only country capable of mobilizing international action to tackle global problems.
A new president’s first task will be to return the US’ economic competitiveness and self-confidence. It will not be easy to rein in over-spending and over-borrowing, to restore the real family values of saving, thrift, responsibility and fair reward. Achieving these goals is bound to involve a greater regard for social equality, after a period in which the very rich have been able to protect a “Roaring Twenties” lifestyle through cleverly exploiting the “culture wars” — or, in other words, the populist prejudices of their much poorer fellow citizens.
MARKET WORRIES
With the US turning away from its global role of borrower of last resort, the rest of us will need to sharpen our competitive edge to sell in other markets. What is imperative is that this should not be impeded by a return to protectionism. A new US president would do well to remember the disastrous consequences of protectionism in the 1920s and 1930s. Former US president Herbert Hoover’s failures should be a sanguinary lesson.
We all look to the next US president to re-engage with the world community and international organizations, accepting that even a superpower should accept the rules that apply to others. The UN is far from perfect. It needs reform — as do the bodies that provide global economic governance. That will take time. But a necessary if not sufficient condition for change is the US’ commitment to and leadership of the process. Forget the distraction of trying to create an alternative to the UN — the so-called “League of Democracies.” It won’t work.
We want a new president who will aim to make a success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Renewal Conference in 2010 by scrapping more weapons, abandoning research into them and challenging others to do the same. That would be the best backdrop to establishing tougher surveillance and monitoring, beginning to engage with Iran and searching for a way to involve India and Pakistan in a global nuclear agreement.
Ahead of that, a new president should unleash the US’ creative potential in boosting energy efficiency and developing clean technologies. It would be a welcome surprise if a comprehensive follow-up to the Kyoto Treaty could be agreed upon next year. But at least we should aim to agree on the process that will move world-wide discussions in the right direction and, as part of that, the US should aim to engage Europe, China, and India, in particular, on technological developments like clean coal.
LOOKING AT CHINA
The US’ relationship with China will be a key to prosperity and security in this new century. I do not think that a struggle for hegemony is inevitable, or that it would be desirable. The US should focus more attention on China, without ever pretending that China’s record on human rights can be swept under the carpet. China cannot sustain its economic development without political changes and environmental improvements.
In the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered wise advice to the next US president upon his retirement. Israel and Palestine have become, he said, the hopeless and bloody prism through which US diplomacy often seems to see the world. It has long since been time to move on, making a sustained drive for the sort of settlement that was almost achieved in the Clinton years.
There is a paradox in all this. The world has for years called for a multilateral approach from Washington. When we get one, will the rest of us — Europe, for example — actually respond with sufficient commitment and drive? It would at least be a welcome challenge to be required to put our efforts where our mouths have been.
Chris Patten is a former EU commissioner for external relations, chairman of the British Conservative Party and was the last British governor of Hong Kong. He is chancellor of Oxford University and a member of the British House of Lords.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS