A US Military View of Global Geopolitical Shifts

 April 24, 2012

A year ago, a group of superior US officers with Republican credentials were involved in a geopolitical brainstorming session at the National Defense University in Washington. The group was asked to provide answers regarding the US’ place in the world and to outline a ten-year national security plan. Edward Luce was invited to attend and he subsequently summarised the group’s findings in a book, Time to Start Thinking, America in the Age of Descent, published in 2012.

The sixteen officers arrived at the conclusion that the biggest threat to US national security was not represented by the country’s external enemies, but by America’s decaying economy, infrastructure, education and health systems, and by its ballooning public debt. In their assessment, it will be next to impossible to keep the US as a world hegemon after 2020 : eventually, America could continue to provide the public goods associated with international law and order only if it were to share domination of the world with equally powerful nations, like China or super-states such as the EU.

The brainstorming group advocated reducing by 100,000 soldiers the numbers of the military, as well as cutting US military spending by 20 percent. It also proposed to close down military bases from Germany, South Korea and elsewhere, and to allow China to rule over Taiwan in exchange for accepting the reunification of South and North Korea.

The amount of money thus saved from military spending should be used to improve America’s infrastructure and to greatly expand foreign aid programmes, which currently stand at only one percent of every $100 the US spends every year.

Their assessment of the dire situation of the US economy was reinforced by Admiral Mike Mullen, who said that, as a country

“we are borrowing money from China to build weapons to face down China, which is clearly a broken strategy”.

The conclusions of the brainstorming session are echoed in the article “A National Strategic Narrative”, by Captain Wayne Porter and Colonel Mark Mykleby writing under the pseudonym “Mr Y”, in Foreign Policy magazine. The two officers claim, quite rightly, that the US should – in order to practise “smart power” abroad – practise “smart growth” at home first.

As anyone would agree, the ranks of the US military do not seem to conform to the cliché of a military caste bent on world domination. If anything, the two examples above go to show that the enlisted men and women of the United States army are perhaps more patriotic in their approach to their country’s problems than many Washington politicians up to the highest level. This happens, unfortunately, because the latter all too often fall prey to well-written but deeply flawed articles and studies such as Robert Kagan’s “The Myth of America’s Decline”, that represent the views and ambitions of the neo-conservative political fringe.

The "Rise of the Rest"

 April 17, 2012

In an intelligent and highly readable essay, Fareed Zakaria, a close Obama adviser, analyses the fundamental changes in the distribution of power in international affairs, away from US dominance. He claims that what we are witnessing today is one of geopolitics’ “tectonic power shifts”, the third in the last five hundred years in order of magnitude. The first such power shift started in the 15th century, propelling the western world to global dominance. During the period, which peaked in the 18th century, the modern world was shaped by the agricultural and industrial revolutions.

The second power shift occurred at the end of the 19th century, with the rise of the United States of America. For 120 years, Zakaria writes, the US economy enjoyed an almost constant 25 percent share of the world’s GDP. The country’s political, military, economic and cultural predominance peaked between 1945 and 1975, remaining to this day the dominant political and military power globally.

The third and latest major shift in geopolitics is currently underway, being labelled by Zakaria as “the rise of the rest” (Japan, China, India, Brazil). As a result of this, the economic and financial power is moving away from the US, even if technically speaking the world is still being dominated politically and militarily by it. This veritable “imperial decline” of the United States is squarely blamed by Zakaria on a dysfunctional political system, one that is unable to correct the malfunctions affecting the US’ economy. Still, he is optimistic that “the US will remain a vital, vibrant economy, at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology and industry”.

From an international relations point of view, the problem left unsolved by “the rise of the rest” is the reallocation of political and military power among the main protagonists of the new age. The danger inherent in the current situation is that the new economic superpowers might in turn join the ranks of the EU, as the political dwarves and military worms of our time.

If during the 18th century the world’s affairs were dealt with by “the concert of European powers”, in a multipolar fashion, during the 20th century leadership in global affairs was exercised in a bi-polar manner by the US and the USSR. Since the USSR’s implosion, we continue to live in a unipolar world, although efforts are being made to suggest a variety of new leadership formulae, from G2 to G3 to G20. For IR specialists, politicians and geopoliticians alike, the challenge is to select the best possible leadership arrangement, one which would reflect – from a military and political point of view – the new shifts in economic and financial power that have taken place over the past two decades. Failing this, global governance could remain the sole preserve of the United States, which in turn could generate significantly increased international tensions and anti-American sentiment.

Is the EU Ready for a G3 World ?

 April 10, 2012

One of the key issues in IR & geopolitics is that of hegemonic transition. In the space of only thirty years, the world as we knew it has gone from bi-polar (international affairs dominated by the USA and the USSR) to unipolar (with the US as the only superpower left), to what is now a disorganised and anarchic state of affairs most commonly known under the label of G-zero.

As much as we would like to see a multi-polar world order emerging, the most touted options in IR to date are that of a G-2 order (“Chimerica”), or a G-3 world with the USA, China and the European Union in charge of global governance.

The G-2 formula was first advanced in US academic circles in 2006 by Jimmy Carter’s former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. In his view – and that of many IR specialists or diplomats like Henry Kissinger – the US and China should cooperate in order to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and to address together global problems such as trade surpluses, world hunger or climate change. The idea of a G-2 world order, however, has left both Washington and Beijing unimpressed. Its echoes were found only within some EU policy-making circles.

Thus in 2009, during a Sino-EU summit in Prague, the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has stated that

“it is totally ungrounded and wrong to talk about the dominance of two countries in international affairs”. Indeed, as professor Jian Junbo from Shanghai comments in an article on this issue, “the responsibility of a G-2 member to jointly shape the world’s economy and international affairs is too far beyond China’s ability and ambitions”.

As he rightly points out, China is still a developing country with huge under-development problems, low per capita income and inferior military strength if compared to that of the United States.

China’s refusal to endorse a G-2 formula does not mean, according to ECFR specialists, that it would be adverse to the emergence of a G-3 order which would include the EU as well. As Mark Leonard and Parag Khanna argue in an article originally published in the New York Times, we are already living in a G-3 world,

“one that combines US military power and consumption, Chinese capital and labour and European rules and technology. The United States, the European Union and China are the three largest actors in the world, together representing approximately 60 percent of the world economy – with the EU being the largest of the three”.

Unfortunately, the EU’s strengths – the largest trade bloc, foreign investor and aid donor in the world – are constantly being undermined by an irresolute common foreign policy, or as former UK foreign secretary David Miliband put it, “confused messages, patchy coordination and relationships with global powers that lacked clarity, strategy or purpose”. (sources: Asia Times, Financial Times, Foreign Affairs, NYT)

The ASEAN Summit Prepares for Economic Downturn

 The 20th ASEAN summit took place last week in Cambodia. It ended after two days with a Phnom Penh Declaration, which basically reiterates the members’ commitment to establishing the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. The summiteers were greeted in the capital’s Peace Palace by huge billboards depicting the smiling faces of the Chinese president Hu Jintao and that of the king of Cambodia. The official Chinese visit took place only two days before the opening of the ASEAN summit, leaving participants in no doubt as to the political allegiance of premier Hun Sen.

Thus during the summit Hun Sen insisted that China should be involved in the drafting of the Declaration of Conduct, a code of conduct meant to settle territorial disputes peacefully in the South China Sea. Given the reluctance of some of the participants, the drafting was not finalised on this occasion.

One of the most important decisions reached was that of increasing the emergency funding available to member countries in case of an economic downturn, from 120 billion to 240 billion US dollars, mirroring similar efforts undertaken by the EU’s political leaders with regard to the ESP. The so-called Chang Mai Initiative (CMIM) sets the rules for bilateral swap arrangements established in 2009 between the ten ASEAN members plus China, Japan and South Korea. The biggest contributors to the pool of money are obviously China and Japan, followed by Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and so on. The initiative’s authors were careful to point out that this was not meant to replace the IMF’s role in Asia – as much as they’d probably like it to – but rather to supplement it. (sources: Singapore Institute of International Affairs, Jakarta Post, Xinhua News, Huffington Post)