The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians
Joseph Nye – Dean of Kennedy School of Government
from the Economist (article)
Notes:
- Bush Sr.: post 9/11: “We can’t go this alone”
- Afghanistan may show that unilateralism works “just fine”
- US not on the decline, but it’s not invincible either
- “Realists” debate US staying power, citing China, Nye not convinced.
- Realist quest for new enemy is beside the point, there are new power structures now…
- “Three kinds of power” — Described as 3-D chess board (3 levels)
- Is the world uni-polar? Multi-polar? No, US is millitarially dominant, but this isn’t everything anymore
- 1) Millitary power – top of game – uni-polar with US as only dominant playar
- 2) Economic power – middle of game – multi-polar
- “economic power is multi-polar, with the United States, Europe and Japan representing 2/3 of world product, and with China’s dramtic growth likly to make it the fourth big player. On this economic board, the United States is not a hegemon, and must often bargain as an equal with Europoe.”
- 3) Transnational relations – bottom of game
- Power is decentralized, not conforming to geopolitical boarders
- Bankers/stocks transfer money in amounts larger than government’s
- Terrorists
- “On this bottom board, power is widely dispersed, and it makes no sense to speak of uni-polarity, multi-polarity, or hegemony.”
- “When you are in a three-dimensional game, you will lose if you focus only on the top board and fail to notice the other boards and the vertical connections among them.”
- US is in the lead, right now, of all three teirs. Mostly due to US-centric IT head-start.
- Other Pro’s
- Cultural attraction/ideology
- Agenda-setting
- Economic incentives
- “Soft Power” becoming more important than “hard power”. TNC’s and NGOs can wield a lot of this. –D: even if the TNC/NGO is *in* the US
- Example: trans-border landmine abolition groups.
- Millitary power is “like oxygen”, we have to maintain it, but it will not achieve all the goals required to defend American interests or produce safety.
- So what should our foreign policy be?
- We tend to retreat (see Hegemony on the Cheap), but isolationism doesn’t help
- “Multilateralism can be used by smaller states to tie the United States down … but this does not mean that a multilateral approach is not generally in America’s interests”
- “No large power can afford to be purely multilateralist” but we should be on many issues, and pursue unilateral action. This combination is “crucial” to state’s longevity.
- Have to work with other states to control/influence NGO/TNC/etc
- Kissenger: test of history for this generation will be whether they can turn the current predominant power into an international consensus and widely-accepted norms that will be consistend with American values and interests. Cannot be done unilaterally
- Rome fell from internal decay and “thousand cuts” from external sources. Nothing points to internal decay atm, but thousands of external sources is extremely possible in this new age.
- Conclusion? America will remain in charge, but ironically “the largest power since Rome cannot achieve its objectives unilaterally in a global information age.”