China Law Blog

I agree. It would be extremely odd for Americans to be so cynical and pessimistic about themselves that they're interpreting this election as "who will best manage America's decline." Americans, as a whole, are far too self-confident and have far too much self-respect to be such cynical self-loathers.

Those who are decrying America's decline are either sensationalists or are projecting more about themselves than about any accurate perspective of America's current situation. Yes, there are problems and very valid concerns, even those that are unique to the times, but Americans (like most citizens innately proud of their country) are not going to go down so easily, and barring cataclysmic doomsday scenarios, not within one presidential term, or even two.

If there is one thing I feel is warranted about Americans is their need to compete. You fight your way to the top and then you fight to stay there. If there was a vaccuum after the USSR, then maybe it was the Japanese, but maybe now it is China. Whatever it is, and however America bumbles, I have great faith that Americans will fight for whatever it is they stand for, even if it is only fighting to remain #1.

You are always No. 1, until you are No. 2

Dan, I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this. True, the majority of people who talk about US decline do so more out of hope than expectation, but the US quite clearly will not be the most politically or militarily dominant power on earth 30 years from now. This is not because of a US 'decline' but because of the rise of other states, China, India and a united Europe foremost among them. Even talk about being 'no. 1' begs the question - no.1 at what? The population and land area of the US is such that it may always expect to be a major power, and, barring some catastrophe, the level of economic development found in the US will always be among the top 10 nations on earth, but neither of these guarantees a top placing in anything.

Robert Kagan does not actually give good supporting evidence for what he says - the figures he gives do show an American which is in decline relative to the rest of the world, the US's military spending is now going mainly on covering the costs of two wars which do nothing to increase its long-term strength. He talks a lot about allies, contrasting those gained through recent conflicts (Iraq and Afghanistan) to those lost to Soviet influence during the seventies, but misses the point that these hapless allies do nothing to increase American strength, and in fact are as much a drag on US strength as the USSR's 'fraternal allies' were in the seventies and eighties.

At the end of the 1890s people in Britain were very much worried about their main competitors. Whilst Britain was at this stage still the world's most pre-eminent power they were confronted by two great challenges. On the European mainland they were faced by the Central Powers, and across the Atlantic the growing power of the United States. Their answer to this was to engage in wars which, whilst important at the time, are little remembered anywhere except in the countries in which they were fought ( such as South Africa and the Sudan), to create alliances of dubious virtue (such as the one with Japan), and to get mixed up in a dispute with the US over the Venezuelan borders. Twenty years later Britain found itself in a titanic war against the Central Powers in defence of its French allies with only minimal help from the Japanese and with the oft-snubbed Americans keeping a respectful distance until the Central Powers forced them into the fight. The United States seems to be equally frittering away its 'unipolar moment', whilst the loss of China to communism sparked a witch-hunt for the traitors that "lost China", the loss of Russia to dictatorship (as ephemeral as democracy was in Yeltsin's Russia) has happened without any great introspection as to whether policy-makers in the US could have done anything to prevent it. Saying that the last eight years have been disastrous for US-European relations would hardly be an exaggeration, put simply, a good half of Europe is convinced that there is a significant portion of the US establishment that sees them as quasi-enemies - and all of this damage done in the building of a coalition 'of the willing' which essentially gave the US nothing it did not already have. In short, the US has been offending those allies from which it had the most to gain through building strong relations, and this was done so that the US could gain a paltry handful of third-world dictatorial client-states. This is not a winning formula.

I think Kagan missed the mark and overgeneralizes on this one.

I have read Zakaria's book. In my view, it is actually, if anything, an upbeat and positive book and outlook on America and her future. At least that was my take away.

Zakaria argues, among other things, that we remain top dog but will have to learn to operate in a very different world than in the past. As I remember, he and Samuel Huntington call it, "unipolarity (USA) in the midst of a much more multi-polar world (China and India)".

That's far from doom and gloom and/or falling from No. 1, as Kagan seems to be saying Zakaria and crew are arguing.

I'm with FOARP, Kagan does very little to support his argument and instead its full of hopeful rhetoric about America's place.

I also think a lot of this isn't even worth discussion. Yes, despite the abject failure in Iraq, America still has the world's strongest military, even if it holds back or isn't capable of fighting a lot of the wars it gets involved in. What does that get you, though? Isn't the new world with its global economy no longer governed by military power? Does might still matter that much?

As for the stuff about the US economy, this is where I feel he's really offer. China has done a good job weathering the storm and while things could go either way over the next 6 months, there is plenty to be optimistic about.

I think this is part of the problem, America is too focused on wanting to be "number 1" and on its spot in the world while everyone else (China, the EU) ignores these meaningless arguments and pushes forward, develops, and grows. This idea of "number 1" pushes the Cold War mentality further, its exactly what I hope the next president doesn't act on. It's why you hear so many people who want to make China the next USSR, the next enemy, because for many its just too difficult to look at the world as multipolar where military power no longer dictates everything.

I do agree with FOARP, although I'm also looking at this from a different perspective, America's science and technology leadership.

The American high school education system by and large is a joke. There are many problems, ranging from top heavy administrative structures to students who mostly just don't care. It does have a few bright points, like the electives system, but the core curriculum in math and science is just too simplified and dumbed down. The point is, we've been able to get away with it for the last 60 years by importing engineers and scientists from other countries; first from western europe, then japan and south korea, then the former soviet union and it's "friends", and now india and china. Sooner or later this will end, as china and india continue to develop more and more of that talent will either come back, or simply never leave home. With our education system the way it is, how can we expect to maintain our technological and scientific leadership in the next 30 years?

I guess my main problem with Kagan's piece is this: His central premise seems to be that the US is going to remain 'no. 1' for the foreseeable future and because of this the next president should not act as though the US is a country in gradual decline relative to other parts of the world, or even that there are any limits either foreign or domestic on the the powers of the office of the president. The US cannot afford to behave as though there will never be a reckoning on its actions, it cannot afford to snub allies on the assumption that it can win them back if it has to. It cannot afford to behave in a morally bankrupt fashion towards terrorist suspects on the assumption that its pre-torture reputation of respect for human rights can be won back in good time. It cannot afford to exempt itself from the Geneva convention on the assumption that no-one will ever treat US soldiers in the fashion that US forces have treated 'enemy combatants'. It cannot afford to borrow vast sums on the presumption that it will always find willing lenders. Because one day that reckoning may arrive and without strong allies, moral capital, adherence to international treaties or fiscal common-sense it will be a lost, deserted and friendless nation surrounded by enemies, just as the UK was in 1940, and for similar reasons.

Let me say one more thing, the PRC is a country in which the government has no great respect for human rights, it has few real allies, and it is still a poor country with deep social and economic problems. I have said all of this before and I will continue to say it, but the PRC is at least moving slowly in the right direction. The US has a long, long way to fall before it becomes as worthy of criticism as the PRC, but it is falling, and not only in my estimation.

I've posed this question before here on this site, but I'll pose it again, since I think it is relevant to this discussion: What matters more - high per capita living standards, or super power status? Who cares whether the nation one resides in is ranked as the world's No.1 economic and military super power? It's simply not important. I'd rather live in a country that ranks high on the UN Human Development Index than to have citizenship in the world's No.1 super power.

Iceland, which is now unfortunately bankrupt, is currently ranked No.1 as the world's best country to live in in terms of per capita living standards. I'm not sure how far it will slide down the Index as a result of its economic collapse though.

Norway ranks No.2, Australia No.3 and Canada No.4. All of these countries have very small military budgets, and relatively small economies. The United States, with the world's biggest economy and largest military budget, has been gradually moving down the Index, and is now ranked No.12.

Most Americans would be far better off worrying more about their collective living standards rather than the need to protect their status as No.1 world super power. More spending on public welfare, health and education, along with the better regulation of their corrupt banking system would help for starters. A good reduction in their military budget could pay for all of this!

I totally agree. Has anyone lived in China for the past 20 years on this blog? My relatives immigrated from China(Canton,Guangzhou)and boy has things changed there. What we see on the American front is face-value of how the country is like. No one sees the corruption, the bribery, etc., just to make a buck. Out of over 20 relatives (8 families b/c my father had 10 brothers and sisters), all said that life was much better in US. The reasoning is that in China, only an elite group are allowed to enjoy the good life. A majority of people are still living in poverty.

There is much to develop in China and China only recently (in the past I say 10 years) begun to sway from its own ideologies of strict tradition (respecting your elders and their methods without question) and opening to new ideology of the West--> America!!

Bottom line - China still has years of development and I am proud to say it is headed in the right direction. In the time being..US is still #1, regardless of this recession/depression we currently are weathering.