Chapter 7: American Purpose (And the story goes full circle)

Well Team...give yourselves a round of applause...we made it. This is the seventh and final chapter in the P-AW and the story has come full circle. Through this book, Fareed has examined the fundamental driving forces behind Post-Americanism and the historical background which has laid the foundation for the Post-American World. We have also examined the effects that this global movement has had on two countries that are symbolic of the rest of the world, India and China. No body has said that the Rise of the Rest will be an easy transition for any single country or the world as a whole, but one could believe that in a uni-polar world experiencing a shift away from uni-polarity, the country that defines this order could experience the most turbulent, tumultuous transformation. The previous outlined and analyzed America's position in the Rise of the Rest movement up until now and both strengths and weaknesses that are present within the country that may or may not help its transition. The current chapter, American Purpose, deals with strategies for America to move forward and to help make the Rise of the Rest a true global success. The image to the right is all that Google would hook me up with when I searched for "Purpose" (American Purpose didn't really turn up anything good.) So here we go...that's what it's all about. Purpose.

As a side note, I apologize. This chapter's write up is largely going to be a giant wall of neverending text with few images to break it up. Bust out that Venti 'Pike Place' roast and lets get a'readin'!

Fareed begins the chapter with a brief example to illustrate the current uni-polarity of our world and how that is changing. In 2002, Morocco sent twelve soldiers to the Island of Leila (pictured), a tiny mound of rock a few hundred metres off the Moroccan coast, inhabited by goats, parsley and perhaps a bird or two. These soldiers planted the Moroccan flag in the soil and everybody cheered. Except Spain...who felt that the island was their sovereign territory. Spain airlifted seventy-five soldiers to the island, planted two flags and continually buzzed the lonely rock with attack helicopters and docked several naval vessels off coast. Reacting like two bald men fighting over a comb, Morocco quickly denounced the Spanish "Act of War" and the nation got all whipped up into a nationalist frenzy. Thankfully, unlike the Falkland Islands incident which occurred a while earlier, Morocco and Spain agreed to at least talk things out before starting to shoot each other. Of course, someone would have to mediate between the two countries to make sure the talks went smoothly...and that responsibility, of course, fell to the United States [1].

Wait...what? The United States? Reflecting on the situation, Colin Powel (who was charged with de-ruffling everyone's feathers) later mused to himself about the task. The United States had no interests in the region (no oil to be found there) had no special leverage or relations with either country, nor could it represent a broad, world view on the situation like the EU or the UN could [1]. So in what rational mind could it make sense to have the United States be the mediator here? It really comes down to the fact that the United States was at the top of the world order, still the sole superpower and it was able to call the shots world wide. Fareed uses this example to mark a specific point in time to compare and contrast the current world with the state of global affairs during this time. 2002 marks the apex of global uni-polarity and as Fareed puts it: "America's Roman moment." America was the new kid on the block and the coolest kid in school, dazzling the world with its roaring economy, soaring growth rates, sky-high surpluses, super strong dollar and ultra-rad Air Max I's and Breakfast Clubs.

As I've mentioned previously in this blog, America does remain the global super power but in the last 8 years has slid down a rather slippery slope, but since this book is about the Rise of the Rest, it makes sense that the most important change isn't dealing with America but with the rest of the world at large and as time goes on (regardless of the current difficulties of the global economic recession) the rise will only gain strength. Things are going America's way, but the observable slide of America (in almost every respect: economic strength, political influence, social control, world image, etc) from that high water mark in 2002 raises a big question: How did America blow it? Did they really squander the opportunities associated with being the world's sole superpower?

According to Fareed, the answer is more or less a resounding "Yup" and paradoxically, the reasoning can be traced back to America's own strength. Since the Soviet Union folded, America has more or less strutted the globe unrivalled and unchecked and while its true that this position has the potential for some amazing benefits, it's made America arrogant and lazy, rather ignorant of the 'goings-on' of the rest of the world. We can draw a parallel to the Detroit Automotive sector's business plan in the 60's and 70's. The Big Three openly scoffed and laughed at the idea that a Japanese maker could actually penetrate the American market, let alone actually offer competition with the American brands...and, well, that attitude didn't work out so well for them, did it? (My father had the "BUY AMERICAN!!" attitude when it came to cars and actually purchased a Toyota SUV recently due in part to the fact that the American equivalents were just so terrible in so many respects.) This political attitude (also mentioned in previous chapters) wasn't always the case and soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many big shots in world political circles figured uni-polarity was going to be a brief phase that would very quickly yield to a multi-polar world. However, in the years since, despite efforts of Presidents to tread lightly and to focus (LIKE A LASER BEAM, said Bill Clinton) on other issues (economy) world foreign policy just kept on ending up in the hands of America and soon became much more assertive on the way of doing things. The real enabling factor in the slide of America came along on an easy going Tuesday morning in September, 2001. Before that day, Fareed points out that there was considerable difficulty and several domestic constraints that made the pursuit of a unilateral and for lack of a better term, empirical policy possible [2]. I'm not going to get into opinions, thoughts, feelings and all that craziness regarding America and 9/11, but I will simply leave a quote from my good friend Hermann Goering, Commander of the Luftwaffe and successor to ol' Adolf. "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the Leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" [3]. Anywho, after this attack America was scared, angry, and united and this fateful day has allowed the country to live in a cocoon and, as mentioned previously in chapter 6, allowed for the development of a political structure that is lazy, ignorant and taking a lax view on competition. I know the point of this was covered in chapter 6 and I'm more or less reiterating myself, but this point is one that is incredibly important to establish.

As America moves into the future and deeper into the Post-American world, I feel that it is quite critical to look to the past in order to ensure a smooth transition. Previously, America took a much more diplomatic, cooperative and friendly approach to the rest of the world. It was the single most powerful nation in the world when it proposed the creation of the League of Nations, and was still the dominant force on the globe when it later spearheaded the creation of the United Nations [4]. Many people, then and today, are worried to live in a world in which a single nation holds so much power and influence over the rest of the globe and the purpose of America then was to foster a never ending cycle of diplomacy and friendliness. This was done with incredible care and expertise and created not only a pro-American world that served America's own interests for expansion and control, but laid the foundations for the global economy and order and was a crucial, 'unseen' force in continuing the dominance of America. These diplomatic efforts also served to calm the waters and to assure the world that "America's mammoth power was not to be feared [5]." Unfortunately, copying the past will not work as we move forward to the future (international relations are a complex bunch) but recognizing the difference between the attitudes of then and now is important.

The rules are different this time around. I've mentioned before that Washington's central challenge is in transitioning itself from sole global superpower into a new role more fitting with the Rise of the Rest. Fareed identifies this role as that of an honest, constructive global broker. By using the current standing at the top of the world order and by utilizing competitiveness with other countries and by utilizing all of the strengths of the American society (including economic, cultural, diversity...hopefully not military), America can forge unique relationships with each specific country that are stronger than those that each of these countries have with each other. The other element that I mentioned to Washington's central challenge is the need to actually accept a world order in which America will not dominate, one that allows other countries to participate in full. The ability to transform from a sole superpower into this global trust broker goes hand in hand with allowing other countries to participate in full, to rise to the zenith of their own potential. America can do this by shifting from unilateralism back to the methods of old, those used in Roosevelt's day, and by initiating and then fostering cooperation, consultation and even compromise [6].

Fareed has identified 6 guidelines that he believes will help define America's role in a post-American world and enable Washington to successfully navigate the tricky waters of its central challenge. I'll try to summarize each in brief and provide discussions where applicable. Buckle your seatbelt...here we go!

1. Choose: Choose what? Priorities. In short, America needs to rightly choose its goals and what it intends to accomplish. The age of American dominance and power has resulted in a political power that feels that they do not have to set priorities...that nothing is out of their reach. In the post-American world, when America walks into a Dairy Queen store, it's going to have to choose if it wants a Blizzard or a Sundae, but it cannot simply have both (who could eat all that icecream, anyways?) In the current world order, America wants it all and orders it all, but doesn't think twice about the possibility of getting a tummy ache or spoiling appetite for dinner (i think i'm getting a little off the tracks with this analogy...sorry.) Using several current examples, Fareed makes the point that, with respect to a specific country, by insisting on all of several choices, whether it be nuclear proliferation, regime change, policy change, globalization or whatever, we have achieved nothing all the while, worsening and weakening diplomatic relations. America needs to re-evaluate its foreign policy as well as specific policies toward specific nations and, if it hopes to make any progress at all in becoming a global broker, it must pick and choose specific policies to enforce rather than trying to achieve everything. We only need to look toward Imperial Britain at the height and downfall of their own empire to see the importance in decision making and choosing specific policies. Additionally, America needs to move away from the role of "World Police" and focus more on the issues of true importance. "By focusing on the seemingly urgent, [America] will forget the truly important" [7]

2. Build broad rules, not narrow interests: This one deals quite heavily with the central challenge to Washington. In fostering a world in which other countries are allowed to be players, America must stop trying to export its own interests abroad and instead, help to create a set of rules, practices and standards that are equal and fair to the world (as in...not pushing a western-only view on the world, either.) That also means, then that the United States must adhere to these same rules in all cases. If the United States wants to act unilaterally whenever the cause suits it (Invading Iraq despite the UN security council's disapproval is a good example) why shouldn't any other nation do what ever it wants when that course of action serves some sort of benefit? (Taiwan should be smiling right now because China is looking at them!) It's a lot easier to state something like this than to actually do something like this. Washington must realize that it has to drop the exceptions of its own special interests if it expects other countries to do the same and that it must truly take the time to understand the issues in which it is trying to preach about from a global sense and not just an American view (see the section on Nationalism in the chapter 2 write ups.) To do anything else is nothing short of hypocrisy and serves only to foster further global resentment and a further drop in American moral standing, a "do as I say, not as I do" issue.


3. Be Bismarck not Britain: As in...Otto Von...Bismarck? Yup, that's the one. Let us generalize here for a moment. There are really two main directions that the United States can go in regards to its transition within the Rise of the Rest and they are represented by Bismarck and Imperial Britain. Britain kept a pretty low profile on the European continent (more or less, anyways) and tried to compete and balance itself against the rising and great powers of the time. Bismarck, on the other hand, directly engaged everyone around him and sought to build better, stronger, deeper relations with each governing state than the relationships that those states had with each other. Bismarck was in the 19th century what America should be in the 21st century, the honest broker, the central pivot [8]. It's important to distinguish that the British role has worked in the past for America (Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia are all examples) but the past cannot be copy-pasted to the future, and such an attitude in a technological age of interdependence and interconnectivity is unwise, as it would be likely to sow the seeds of hostility and disruption as rising powers (China, for example) would seek to balance themselves against Americas original balancing against China. Arms Race 2.0 (or...global economic crazy race 1.0...something like that. I'm sure Jon Stewart would come up with a catchy popculture reference.) Anywho, it's obvious that actively (and more importantly, genuinely) pursuing the role of building real, meaningful, deep relationships with other nations gives America to positively shape the transformation of the world (and of itself in the Rise of the Rest) as a peaceful one. I find it interesting to note one thing: Fareed highlights the wacky world of Realpolitik with the following sentence: "if [Bismarckian approaches] do not work out, it also gives the United States legitimacy and leeway to move into a balancing [British] role" [9]. I find this a little interesting. As long as the United States at least appears genuine in its attempts to foster deep, friendly relations with another country (Let us use modern day Russia as an example) and the bromance doesn't work out (for whatever reason, let's say it has to do with Russia's rather aggressive actions toward its neighbours lately) the United States can then, in the world's eyes, legitimately turn toward a hostile balancing approach which serves to isolate Russia from the world community (for not cooperating with American friendliness) and thus, either forcing it to become a rogue nation (dun dun dun) or to play fair and cooperate. If America didn't attempt all of that friendliness first (and as the sole superpower, the responsibility falls on America to take the initiative here, with everyone) then it would appear to be fostering hostility, further degrading its own legitimacy and adding to the potential for disruption during the transition to the Post-American world. Interesting (and crazy) stuff.


4. Order à la carte: Fareed notes something that I feel, while being perfectly logical, is a little strange given the current shift in the world order. International Peace/stability endures best in a system where there is a single dominant world power to maintain order [10]. Britain and later America have played this role over the last 200 years, "becoming the market and lender of last resort, home to the world financial centre and holder of the reserve currency. (...) secured the sea lanes, balanced against rising threats and intervened when necessary to prevent disorder" [10]. In just about every respect, this hegemony is waning (which makes sense with the Rise of the Rest.) So...is the world going to hell in a hand basket? Of course, potentially yes, but more likely no. If America takes a British approach to things (Point 3) then that could very easily change to "more likely, yes" but as far as things are going now....we're cool, we're good and we've got this. 200 years of Anglo-American hegemony have created a system, a global system, that is much, much stronger and solid than it was in the days of that small gap between waning British hegemony and the acceptance of American hegemony (the 20's and 30's, when Britain was starting to really lose influence and control yet America maintained an isolationist policy.) This international system has been widely accepted and embraced which in turn, supports the stability of the system (obviously.) As I mentioned, copy-pasting the past won't work for the Post-American future and being accommodating, accepting, considerate and flexible when it comes to international issues will be the best path forward. As my good friend Mark Twain has famously said "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," sticking to a specific method of solving problems based on an ideology or the mindset of "how we did it in the past" just won't work. In the post-American world, we've got to put down that hammer and instead, utilize our whole tool shed of problem solving gadgets!! As such, we've got to adapt to a more interconnected system which addresses challenges through a variety of different structures and solutions to create a layered stability. To sum things up, stability within the new world order and the continued prosperity of the world as a whole require an adaptable organizer, a leader with a world view. This step goes hand in hand with America taking a Bismarckian (is that even a word?) approach to global relations.


5. Think asymmetrically: The era of my generation is one that is asymmetrical. By this, I mean that asymmetrical responses have become much easier to execute and much harder to defeat. This idea is fed by globalization and the technological revolution (as discussed in chapter 2) and, as it seems, is almost inevitable as we move into the post-American world. Let me lay down an example or two right quick:

Let us consider the brainchild the Bush administration, the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's hard to get a solid, accurate number of 'boots on the ground' troop levels through out the war, but it can be said that right now there's a solid 600,000 Iraqi security personnel (military and police forces), around 150,000 American military troops and an unknown number of contracted security personnel (Blackwater/Xe and others...let's just say 0 for the sake of simplicity.) So, okay, we've got a 750,000 soldiers on one side. What about the other? Numbers for the insurgency are even harder to estimate. Let us say around 100,000 insurgents (realistically, probably less) from all actors (Militias of various sects, Al-Qaeda, etc.) On one side, we've got a bunch of people with third-world maintained soviet-era weapons (perhaps some better weapons once funding from Iran arrived) in a disorganized network with rudimentary training. On the other, we've got JDAM's, B52-H Superfortresses, Reaper Drones and the full force of the strongest military in the history of the world, backed by trillions of government dollars, making this probably the most one-sided combat operation since David fought Goliath, right? Yeah, it seems that way, and yet that rag-tag hoard of bandits has managed to wreak havoc within the country, sending it spiralling into a hellhole of blood and violence and as of now, there's been little that the far superior American forces can do about it. Another example is the combined strength and authority of world governments versus the cultivators, producers and traffickers of narcotics. It sure seems like Mexico's drug cartels have more control over the situation in that country than government paramilitary forces do. Fareed makes the point very clear and simple, so I'll just go ahead and quote him: "In an age of constant activity across and within borders, small groups of people with ingenuity, passion and determination have important advantages" [11].

A group of three random dudes in Yemen can blow up a bus shelter and release a video claiming affiliation with Al-Qaeda, and the US Military races out to fight them (better on the streets of "insert Middle Eastern town here" than in New York, they say) and the debate soon switches from terrorism to negative foreign policy issues and imperialism. This bait and run strategy has worked very well to, in the current era, degrade the United State's moral authority and world image. The big problem is that the United States does not yet think asymmetrically. Again, the utilization of a Bismarckian (it's a word now!) approach to global affairs and the utilization of the full range of assets that American society offers will enable the country to function better as an asymmetrical entity in the post-American world. This utilization of society and not just government (or military) is critical in the transformation of America in the Post-American world as well as the successful handling of Washington's central challenge.


6. Legitimacy is power: Ice Cube said it best in the 1988 "N.W.A." hit "Straight Outta' Compton". "You are now about to witness the strength of street knowledge." Just like the afterschool musical animated "Schoolhouse Rock!" televised shorts always told us, 'Knowledge is Power!!' and in the rap game, street knowledge represents streed cred(entials) which in turn, relates to strength and power. Even though this reference is profoundly immature, the basic idea behind it (that legitimacy and knowledge are the keys to power) do hold true, whether it be in regards to, as the kids say, 'phat beats' and mainstream culture or international relations. Unfortunately for the United States, legitimacy is the one real power that they're lacking these days. They've got economic, political, military and sociocultural power in unlimited supply, but in today's world (and even more so in the post-American world) that just doesn't cut it. The lack of legitimacy within America on the world stage is a critical deficiency.

Regardless of this lack, the United States still does hold a tremendous capacity to set the agenda in world matters and thus, confer legitimacy on the agenda that it has set (for example, the Bush Jr. administration still did managed to swindle and wheedle a group of nations and NGO's into the 'coalition of the willing,' thus attempting to add legitimacy to its own agenda.) However, even that doesn't cut it. The world has become flat and empowered by the digital revolution (chapter 2) and in a 'Rise of the Rest world' that is gains increasing access to digitial communication, the discussion of ideas and, to the very core, the legitimacy of those ideas, is the most important thing.

I, personally, hold trust pretty dearly. I don't quickly trust many people and if one were to violate my trust, they will almost never get it back...that's just who I am (i believe it has only happened once and even then, it was a very limited amount of trust that this person regained...but I'm getting off topic here.) Y'see, in my mind, trust is a lot like legitimacy and on the world stage...I think many people would agree with my own feelings toward trust. A separate but important element to Washington's central challenge(s) is that it will have to regain this trust and legitimacy and that is something that will be very hard to do...but it is absolutely vital that Washington make efforts to regain legitimacy. The scope of this book and thus, my project, do not deal with the process of how Washington should go about this (it's a complex situation, which many policy makers, think tanks and useless news pundits nation wide could write endlessly about) but the first step in solving your problem is admitting that you have a problem and thankfully, America has in fact taken this first step (executive branch initiatives to make the government more transparent are a good start.)

In the second part of Chapter 2, I spoke a bit about the culture that has taken ahold in America that threatens to destroy the very ability for that country's success. This can largely be summed up as 'fear' and as my good friend Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself, (...) Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror." Right now, America has managed to get itself all in a terror and panic about, well...nothing. We're living in times that are largely peaceful and safe. Now, back in FDR's day, there were things to actually be scared about and they still managed to hold it all together. The blame for this cannot solely be laid on the people and has a lot to do with the political culture of the country (remember this from chapter 2? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iFhGtKO-Q&feature=channel .) Before America can even begin to implement or work toward the points outlined and discussed above, it needs to pick itself up, get over the rhetoric of fear and regather its confidence and this process must begin with the people.

In the process of transformation to the Post-American world, America does hold a distinct advantage (which I mentioned earlier, in chapter 6) and that is its population demographic. This ability of "The American Dream" to assimilate new immigrants is increasingly at jeopardy as Americans descend further into the hysteria of fear. Insinuations like those above, in the Rudy Giuliani TV ad (THEY'RE ALL OUT TO GET YOU!!!!!) only serve to spread irrational fear and panic and to change (and in this case, degrade) the community's relationship with a select group of people (in this case, American Muslims.) Just a quick protip out to Rudy G (I know he's reading this) In a world that is going to rely on unity and the strength of relationships...uhmmm, your ads and policies probably are not the best way to go, slugger...thanks for coming out though.

In the end, the greatest strength of all that America will have is openness. The vigour of its society and the pure, all out will to succeed have led America to actually succeed. America thrived because America kept itself open to the world and through its own foreign policy and ideas, the rest of the world is now beginning to really truly, globally thrive from those same principles.

References:
F. Zakaria The Post-American World, New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2008

[1] Pp 215-216
[2] Pp 223
[3] G. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary, New York: Da Capo Press, 1995 Pp 278-279
[4] Pp 229-230
[5] Pp 230
[6] Pp 229-231
[7] Pp 238
[8] Pp 233, 241-242
[9] Pp 242
[10] Pp 242-243
[11] Pp 245