15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
future, plural, January 12, 2008
This review is from: The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise (Hardcover)
In 'The Next American Century,' Nina Hachigian and Mona Sutphen build a compelling case for embracing, rather than fearing, the rise of what they term 'Pivotal' powers: China, Russia, the EU, Japan and India. As they point out, the major threats to US lives - terrorism, pandemics, loose nukes, global warming - cannot be contained without the coordination, rather than subordination, of these major powers.
Though broadly, and at the moment, unusually, optimistic about these states and our potential in future dealings with them, the Next American Century devotes early chapters to the distinct trajectories, roles and weaknesses of each pivotal power, including the US - a thorough, compelling survey for anyone trying to handicap the prospects of major world players today. Hachigian and Sutphen conclude with recommendations for US politicians and citizens - for the former, much more global engagement and a diplomacy that capitalizes more on the distinct and diverse characteristics, as well as the rapid ascent, of these ancient and Leviathan cultures; for the rest of us, travel more and don't let another generation of American school children enter the world speaking only English.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bringing pivotal powers aboard without rocking the American lifeboat, July 8, 2009
This review is from: The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise (Hardcover)
A sensible and thought-provoking foreign policy strategy which is, for the most part, balanced and smart, with a few controversial suggestions.
The authors envision a world with a declining (in relative terms) but still dominant United States, joined by so-called pivotal powers -- China, India, Europe, Russia, Japan. It's noteworthy their list didn't include Brazil (which lacks an international focus despite having a strong economy). Iran is an aspiring regional power. They would prefer to see the United Nations security council seating to reflect this emerging reality, with Britain and France merged into one seat for Europe, and India and Japan given seats.
America and the rising pivotal powers share common interests. Everybody wants a secure economic order. There isn't much to gain by conquering land, they argue, although I think this assumes conquerors will treat victims kindly (history has numerous counter-examples, unfortunately). The six powers can help each other battle common menaces like terrorism. Their economies are so tightly interwoven that war would be expensive and detrimental. "We literally own pieces of each other's economies" they write. "All the big powers are in the same economic boat, and no one wants to rock it too hard". Moreover, America can not hinder the growth of rising powers. So the authors counsel against over-preparing for one scenario when the world changes so fast. Pivotal powers are economic rivals, not enemies.
Everybody can thrive if cool heads prevail. While pivotal powers sees themselves as vulnerable, they seek prestige and influence and freedom to maneuver within their own regions. Their priorities (economic growth, terrorism prevention) are in line with America's. They benefit from a militarily strong America. They see the U.S. as being in the driver's seat in setting the tone and direction of bilateral relationships. While they can express bitter frustration with American disregard for established rules of the system, they're more likely to distrust each other than the U.S. They're not seeking to dethrone America, but want a more multi-polar world.
Both authors criticize American foreign policy for being clumsy, hypocritical, dysfunctional. "American efforts to promote liberal democracy continue to be undermined by its own hypocrisy and inconsistency", they write. The U.S. seems to care about its principles only when its own economic interests are helped. America often prefers to work with dictators rather than friendly democracies. I think American foreign policy is beset by serious structural problems since only one overburdened and partisan official (the president) has the most influence; an incompetent, distracted and partisan president can wreak havoc on intelligent diplomacy, and that only Constitutional fixes can correct these deficiencies. They write: "...foreign policy is too often the wall flower at the Washington policy dance." Exactly.
Unlike America, pivotal powers have long memories. "Europeans talk about the standoff over control of the Suez Canal as though it happened yesterday." They add: "America's view of itself as well-meaning, reluctant to use force, and vulnerable contrasts sharply with the view among billions of citizens in pivotal power countries of America as self-centered, stingy, trigger-happy, and invincible."
The authors criticize Congressional meddling in foreign policy ("535 cooks in the kitchen"). Congresspersons are tempted to make extreme statements as a ploy for coverage. A coalition of defense contractors, hawks, and critics of human rights record can unfairly criticize a nation like China. Time-pressed lawmakers can't understand issues deeply and may find it easier to scapegoat a country rather than solve a problem. Congress is susceptible to lobbying by a Defense Department with 2500 worldwide military installations which showers the Hill with cash.
The media is likely to demonize big powers, in their view. Competition for eyeballs can lead to sensationalist, fear-based and personalized reporting. The media focus on newsertainment and sound bites and can inflame popular panic and hostility. Blogs like DailyKos can undermine the power of foreign correspondents to relay impartial stories. And the American public ignores foreign policy until it becomes a crisis. The media formula seems to be: violence + heroism + scandal + readily identifiable victims + conflict. Generally, they see the media as irresponsible.
The authors recommend America stick to its strengths: innovation, toleration of failure, political stability, embrace of foreigners. That the fear of terrorism often prevents entrepreneurial-minded foreigners from moving here is a mistake, in their view. Deficits are dangerous; productivity growth is the linchpin. America must get its own fiscal house in order. "America's fiscal mess, under-performing education system, oil dependency, broken health care system, inadequate worker protection, and crumbling infrastructure are all things America needs to fix." They suggest America build strong ties with each pivotal power without scaring them -- a tricky task -- and avoid self-perpetuating rivalries if possible. America shouldn't create foreign demons but rather slay those at home. By working with pivotal powers, America can box in Iran, end genocide in Sudan, and work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Military procurement policy? Invest wisely; don't overspend on weapons which offer a small incremental value. They recommend pivotal powers establish an international court (not in Brussels -- too European) to prosecute terrorists.
And America's biggest threat? It's a large-scale terrorist incident with a weapon of mass destruction or a major pandemic. "These threats could directly kill hundreds of thousands of Americans or more on U.S. soil, and could occur soon", and I agree (for interested readers, see my tough non-partisan terrorism prevention strategy below). America needs to work with foreign intelligence services, and work with the United Nations and the World Health Organization to help failing states.
Overall, a smart, sensible, cool-headed and realistic foreign policy strategy which emphasizes cooperation.
Thomas W. Sulcer
Author of "The Second Constitution of the United States"
(free on web; google title + Sulcer)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
