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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS