America's Role in the World

1.         The United States is unquestionably the most powerful country in the world today.  Our dominance is military, technological, economic and financial.  No other country can come even close to us.  This puts us in a unique position.  Other countries have to respond to U.S. policy, but the United States is in a position to choose the policy to which others have to respond.  We have a greater degree of discretion in deciding what shape the world should take than anybody else.  Therefore it is not enough for the United States to preserve its supremacy over other states; it must also concern itself with the well-being of the world. 

*

2.         Under President Bush, the United States is not living up to this responsibility.  What is worse, it does not even acknowledge that it bears such a responsibility.  The Bush administration – or more precisely a dominant faction within it -- has a visceral aversion to international cooperation and is resolutely opposed to any limitation on American sovereignty.  It held these views before September 11, but it has pursued them more strongly since then.

The Bush administration’s concept of American leadership can be summed up as follows.  International relations are relations of power, not law.  Since the United States is the most powerful, it has earned the right to impose its will on the rest of the world.  This position is enshrined in the Bush doctrine that was first enunciated in the President’s speech at West Point in June 2002 and then incorporated in the National Security Strategy last September.

The Bush doctrine is built on two pillars: first, the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy and, second, the United States arrogates the right to preemptive action.  Taken together, these two pillars support two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations and the sovereignty of all the other states which is subject to America’s right of preemptive action.  This is reminiscent of George Orwell’s Animal Farm: all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.  To be sure, the Bush doctrine is not stated so starkly; it is buried in Orwellian doublespeak.

The Bush doctrine represents a sharp break with the more balanced, pragmatic foreign policy of previous administrations.  There is an aggressively unilateralist, imperialist faction within the Bush cabinet.  Perhaps at no other time in the history of the United States has the executive power been in the grip of so radical an ideology. 

I strongly believe that President Bush is leading the United States and the world in the wrong direction and I consider it nothing short of tragic that the terrorist threat has induced the country to line up behind him so uncritically.

*

3.         Before I go too far in criticizing the Bush policies, I must sketch out an alternative vision of America’s leadership role.  If President Bush is leading the world in the wrong direction, what is the right direction?  Unfortunately there is no alternative currently on offer.  The Democratic Party has been cowed into submission in the aftermath of September 11.  This is likely to change as the presidential election campaign heats up but I should like to hasten the process.

My vision is for the United States to lead the world towards what I call a global open society.  This sounds utopian and unattainable, but that is only because the concept of open society is not well understood. The term “open society” was first popularized by Karl Popper, the philosopher, who argued in his book published in 1944, that totalitarian ideologies – communism and fascism - pose a threat to open society because they offer the final solutions.  Popper asserted that the ultimate truth is beyond human reach.  The best we can do is to strive towards it by a critical process.  Open society is an imperfect society that holds itself open to improvement.

Popper offered no universally valid definition of an open society; that has to be supplied by those who live in it and it may vary from time to time and place to place.

I regard the current world order as a distorted form of a global open society.  It is distorted because the provision of private goods takes undue precedence over the provision of public goods.  We live in a world characterized by global markets but politics remain firmly grounded in the sovereignty of states. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent, a world order based on the sovereignty of states cannot take care of our common interests such as preserving peace, protecting the environment and ensuring economic stability, progress and social justice. 

Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept, which has its origin in 17th century Europe.  Moreover, sovereignty has never been absolute.  Treaties and conventions have always circumscribed it. Strong states have always exercised influence over weak ones.  States have also ceded part or all of their sovereignty in the common interest.  That is how the United States was formed.  The member states of the European Union have also gone quite far in surrendering their sovereignty and it remains to be seen how much further they are willing to go in that direction.

It may be anachronistic, but the concept of sovereignty remains the foundation of international relations.  It has to be accepted as the starting point for improving the prevailing state of affairs.  Creating a global open society must begin with fostering the development of open societies in individual countries.  The main source of poverty and misery in the world today is bad government – repressive, corrupt regimes and failed states.  And yet it is difficult to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries because the principle of sovereignty stands in the way.

One way to avoid running afoul of the sovereignty issue is to offer countries positive inducements for becoming open societies.  This is the missing ingredient in the current arrangements.  There are penalties for bad behavior ranging from IMF conditionalities through trade sanctions to military intervention but not enough incentives and reinforcements for good behavior.  A global open society would maintain certain rules and standards by providing assistance to those who are unable to meet them. Those who violate the standards can then be punished by excluding them.  There would be a better balance between rewards and reinforcements on the one hand and penalties on the other.  A global open society would make sure that every country would derive sufficient benefits from belonging to it.  Developing countries would get better access to markets under the WTO; countries like Brazil would be assured of an adequate supply of credit through the IMF as long as they follow sound policies; and there would be a genuine attempt to meet the UN’s Millennium goals.  There is a little known declaration, the Warsaw Declaration, which asserts the principle that it is in the interest of all democracies to foster the development of democracy in other countries.  This principle would guide policy to a much greater extent than today.

Providing incentives, of course, will not be sufficient to create a global open society.  Not all countries have governments that want or tolerate an open society.  A rogue regime like Saddam Hussein’s does pose a threat to the rest of the world and a global open society must be able to defend itself.  But the use of military force must remain a last resort. 

The United States cannot create a global open society on its own.  No single country can act as the policeman or the benefactor of the entire world.  Equally, it cannot be done without the participation of the United States.  This means that the United States must engage in international cooperation.  It must be willing to abide by the rules it seeks to impose on others, accept its share of the costs and, most importantly, accept that other participants are bound to have other opinions and other states other national interests.  This is in accordance with the principles of open society and it is not an infringement of United States sovereignty, especially as the United States will always have veto rights due to its weight and importance.

*

4.         There is not much point in discussing in detail what a global open society would look like because that is not the direction in which the Bush administration is leading the world.  The Bush administration has a radically different vision of American leadership.  It seeks to enhance the role of the United States as the sole superpower.  This is an imperial vision in which America leads and the rest follow.

Here, then, are two competing visions of America’s role in the world.  I contend that the imperial vision is more utopian and unattainable then the vision of a global open society.  It is also more unappealing: it contradicts the values that the United States has historically stood for.

I should like to point out that the two visions are not diametrically opposed to each other.  Both recognize the dominant position of the United States.  Both agree that the United States has to take an active leadership role in international affairs; both favor preemptive action.  It is when it comes to the kind of preemptive action that America ought to take that the two visions differ.  A global open society requires affirmative action on a global scale, the imperialist approach leads to punitive action.  In the open society version, crisis prevention cannot start early enough; It is impossible to predict which grievance will develop into bloodshed and by the time we know, it is too late.  That is why the best way to prevent conflicts is to foster open societies.

*

5.         That is not how the Bush administration sees the world.  It does not believe in international cooperation and finds the idea of affirmative action repugnant.  It believes that people – and countries – should look out for their own interests and the common interest will look after itself.  Life is a struggle for survival and freedom is a free-for-all.  In the economy the struggle is among firms, in geopolitics among states.  That is how market fundamentalism fits together with American imperialism in a kind of crude social Darwinism ideology.

The imperialist vision is not totally false but it does distort reality by emphasizing one aspect to the exclusion of others.  The aspect it stresses is power and in particular military power.  But military power is not the only kind of power; no empire could ever be held together by military power alone.  Joe Nye in his recent book introduced the concept of soft power to bring home the inadequacy of the imperialist vision.  I would go even further.  Applying the concept of power to human affairs is altogether questionable.  In physics, power or force governs the behavior of objects; that is a misleading analogy for human affairs. For better or worse, people are influenced by other considerations.  Military power may be difficult to resist, but that does not make it paramount.  Might is not right.

Nobody can accuse President Bush of not seeing the world in terms of right and wrong but his concept is a simplistic one.  He has no doubt about who is right: “we” are right and “they” are wrong. He held this view before September 11, but the terrorist attack reinforced it.   He was born again, again.

But reality is more complicated.  As Karl Popper was at pains to point out: “we may be wrong”.  Nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth and those who believe so are bound to be wrong.  They can impose their views on the world only by coercion.  That is where the Bush administration comes in conflict with the principles of open society in spite of all the rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.  Just as the global capitalist system is a distorted form of a global open society, the Bush administration’s approach to international relations is a distortion of the quest for a global open society.

Of course, the fact that the executive branch is in the hands of people who have an exaggerated view of their own righteousness does not turn the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship.  The institutions of our democracy impose checks and balances and the President needs to obtain the support of the electorate to be reelected.

What I find so disturbing is that a majority of the electorate does not seem to be disturbed by the policies and attitudes of the Bush administration.  Some members of the administration have taken extremist positions that ought to disqualify them from office.  Perhaps I am too sensitive because of my background, but President Bush pushes the wrong buttons when he asserts that those who are not with us are against us.  Donald Rumsfeld has gone overboard in berating our European allies who disagree with us and in belittling the United Nations.  And Attorney General John Ashcroft asserted that those who opposed the Patriot Act gave aid and comfort to the enemy.  To me, these are manifestations of an extremist ideology.

*

6.         The Bush administration came into office with a coherent and internally consistent set of principles – albeit a mistaken one.  It is based on military power and market fundamentalism.  The Republican election manifesto harked back to the happy days of the Cold War when the United States could combine being a superpower and the leader of the free world.  Now that it was the sole remaining superpower, it could aim even higher: global hegemony.  NATO has turned into a multilateral institution that the Bush team holds in low esteem.  But we would have sole control over our National Missile Defense program. That is why it loomed so large in the Bush Administration’s strategy. National Missile Defense required an enemy.  North Korea was deemed suitable as a temporary stand in.  For the longer term the administration was positioning China as a potential strategic rival, but even Russia was not left out of consideration.

The first head of state who came to Washington to meet President Bush was Kim Dae Jung of South Korea.  He wanted to gain President Bush’s endorsement for his “sunshine policy” towards North Korea and he had the support of Colin Powell.  But President Bush rebuffed him rather brusquely.  Then you had the axis of evil speech.  This is the origin of our current predicament with North Korea. 

On the economic front, market fundamentalism in economic matters fitted in well with the pursuit of global hegemony.  It allowed the United States to enjoy its dominant position without even admitting that it benefited from an uneven playing field.  A strong defense posture reinforced America’s technological leadership.  The Bush administration took a hands off, passive attitude towards the global economy and the centerpiece of its domestic economic program was a major tax cut heavily slanted towards the rich.   

Multilateral institutions and agreements, by contrast, imposed unwelcome limitations on American hegemony.  The Bush administration signaled its hostility towards international treaties by renouncing the Kyoto Agreement on global warming in an unequivocal fashion and by refusing to accept the protocol implementing the 1972 Biological & Toxin Weapons convention.  Not only did it oppose the International Criminal court but it engaged in a campaign to undermine it.  Its negative attitude extended even to the international financial institutions.  The activism of the Clinton Treasury was followed by the passivity of the Bush Treasury.  This has had a particularly negative effect on Latin America which has found itself largely excluded from international financial markets.

*

7.         All these policies were clearly in place prior to September 11, but they did not constitute a radical break with the past because President Bush did not have either a clear mandate from the electorate or a clearly defined enemy.  Both these constraints were removed by the terrorist attack.  September 11 was a traumatic experience that shook the nation and engendered many questions.  After only a momentary hesitation, President Bush had the answer.  He declared war on terrorism and the nation lined up behind the President.

Terrorism is the ideal enemy because it is invisible and therefore never disappears.  Having an enemy that poses a genuine and widely recognized threat can be very effective in holding the nation together.  That is particularly useful when the prevailing ideology is based on the unabashed pursuit of self-interest.  By declaring war on terrorism, President Bush gained the mandate to pursue his goals that he had previously lacked.  The choice between the Bush vision and America as the leader of a global open society was decided without even being considered.

*

8.         That is a pity because the Bush vision is as unappealing as it is unattainable.  How unappealing it is can be seen from global public opinion polls.  It can also be felt by listening to what people all over the world have to say.  The shift in attitudes has been truly amazing.  The tragedy of September 11 evoked almost universal sympathy in the world but the Bush policies since then have engendered widespread resentment.

Public opinion is not the only criterion by which leadership should be judged.  If a policy works, public opinion may swing around.  That is why the Bush policies must be judged by the results they bring.  Let us consider the results to date.

·         The war on terrorism has made little progress.  Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban defeated but Bin Laden is alive and so are the various terrorist cells.  It is impossible to tell how much damage they can do now that the whole world is on the alert but the psychological effect is enduring.  Fear is pervasive and the administration is fostering it – how far we have come from Roosevelt’s words that the only thing to fear is fear itself. 

·         The invasion of Afghanistan was a resounding success and an impressive demonstration of America’s military capabilities.  We were greeted as liberators but we failed to follow through.  Law and order could not be established beyond Kabul because Donald Rumsfeld was opposed to the extension of a UN peacekeeping force.  President Karzai needs to be protected by American bodyguards.  His government is making slow progress but the historic moment has passed and the opportunity to demonstrate dramatic improvement in a war torn Islamic country was missed.

·         The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued to fester with no resolution in sight.

·         The Bush administration has focused its energies on toppling Saddam Hussein instead.  It has built up an irresistible momentum for invading Iraq but this has generated tremendous resentment throughout the world.  While Saddam constitutes a threat that needs to be dealt with, occupying Iraq may be less of a problem than what happens afterwards.

·         In the meantime an even more menacing situation has arisen in North Korea.  President Bush declared North Korea to be part of an axis of evil in his State of the Union message in January 2002.  Subsequently, North Korea admitted that it is engaged in an uranium enrichment program.  This prompted the Bush administration to cut off the supply of fuel oil and threaten other retaliation.  North Korea responded by renouncing its adherence to the International Non-Proliferation Agreement and restarting its plutonium program which could produce 6-8 bombs in a matter of months.  It is eager to engage in bilateral talks with the United States, but the U.S. is reluctant.  There has been a rift with South Korea which now regards the U.S. more of an aggressor than North Korea and the Bush administration is at a loss what to do.

·         The disagreements between the United States and Europe have never been greater.  The U.S. is perceived as a fearful giant throwing its weight around – the classic definition of a bully.  The European Union is deeply split between an “old Europe” that is opposed to the Bush policies and a “new Europe” that is more ready to follow – to use Donald Rumsfeld’s expression.

·         Bilateral relations have been fostered with mixed results. Relations with China and Russia have undergone a remarkable improvement since September 11 because the United States is no longer in search of an enemy. 

There is also greater cooperation with Pakistan and the Central Asian republics.  On the negative side, the United States is no longer in a position to criticize human rights violations by those countries.

Closer relations with Latin America were given high priority at the outset but they have been neglected since September 11.  President Fox of Mexico feels badly let down.  Argentina has suffered the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.  Venezuela is in political turmoil and all of Latin America is hurting.  The U.S. remains largely disengaged except for greater involvement in Columbia’s war on drugs.

·         There has been a welcome increase in international assistance but most of it is to be disbursed unilaterally.  Even the large increase in money to fight AIDS is bypassing the Global Fund and is to be subject to the so-called gag rule which forbids recipients from discussing abortion.  What a strange condition to impose when so many people are dying!

·         Looking at the global economy, there is a worldwide slowdown, stocks are in a bear market, the dollar in decline.  The IMF is floundering.  The Doha development round of the WTO is running into difficulties over access to cheap drugs and agricultural subsidies. Not even the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is making much headway.

·         On the domestic front there has been a dramatic shift from budget surplus to budget deficit and a significant erosion of civil liberties under the influence of John Ashcroft.

It can be seen that results to date are pretty dismal.  Indeed, it is difficult to find a similar period during which economic and political conditions have deteriorated as rapidly.

But the game is not yet over.  A rapid and (in terms of American lives) relatively painless victory in Iraq could bring about a dramatic change in the overall situation. The price of oil could fall, the stock market could celebrate, consumers could overcome their anxieties and resume spending, and business could respond by stepping up capital expenditures.  America would end its dependency on Saudi Arabia, Palestine could become more tractable and an accommodation could be found with North Korea without appearing to cave in.  That is what the Bush administration is counting on. 

The jury is out.  But I dare to predict that the Bush approach is bound to fail eventually because it is based on false premises. I base my prediction on my theory of reflexivity and my study of boom-bust sequences, or bubbles, in the financial markets.

There is a certain underlying reality which in this case consists of the undeniable economic and military superiority of the United States.  This gives rise to a set of beliefs which is unsound and eventually unsustainable but it may be reinforced for a while by the underlying reality.  During the self-reinforcing phase the trend seems irresistible and those who try to resist it are swept aside but eventually a reversal becomes inevitable.  The later it comes the more devastating the consequences.  There seems to be an inexorable quality about the course of events but, of course, a boom-bust process can be aborted at any stage.  Most stock market booms are aborted before the extremes of the recent bull market are reached.  The sooner it happens, the better.

We are at a crossroads.  Every moment in history can be conceived as a crossroads, but these are not normal times.  The choices that confront us are truly momentous, partly because of our unprecedented power and dominance and partly because our government is guided by a utopian, unattainable and dangerous ideology.

It is not enough to criticize the policies of the Bush administration; we must also adopt an alternative view of America’s role in the world.  That role has to be a constructive one.  We have to recognize that, while we cannot do anything we want, nothing constructive can be done without our participation.  We must accept the limitations that go with that role.  We have to address problems that have no final solutions in the sense that every solution is bound to raise some new problems.  Nuclear proliferation is one such problem.  Globalization presents many others.

Acting as the leader of a global open society will not protect the United States from terrorist attack.  But by playing a constructive role we can regain the respect and support of the world and this will make the task of fighting terrorism easier.  There are many other national interests American foreign policy will have to take into account and there will be many delicate tradeoffs.  It would be unrealistic to expect the United States or any other country to give precedence to the common interest over its national interests; but the common interest deserves greater consideration than it is currently receiving.  It can be seen that the vision of a global open society is much more realistic and pragmatic than the vision of a new American empire.

There is one major practical obstacle to the vision of a global open society.  It requires the United States to give adequate weight to its responsibilities as the leader of the world; but the rest of the world does not have a vote in Congress.  The members of Congress are supposed to look after their constituencies; who will look after the rest of the world?  Only a far-sighted leadership could overcome this obstacle and it requires a far-sighted electorate to elect such a leadership.  That is the challenge we face.