Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

The US paper tiger revisited

In 1956 Mao Zedong characterised the United States as a paper tiger. He could not have been more wrong, but how does it look now, more than half a century later?

In 1956 Mao Zedong characterised the United States as a paper tiger. He could not have been more wrong, but how does it look now, more than half a century later?

China may overtake the US in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) sometime before 2030, but the gap in GDP per capita will still be colossal.

The US debt problem may entail debt restructuring (virtually a default on sovereign debt), but its creditors do not have any interest in turning that into a major economic debacle. They may ask for and get political concessions, though.

American technology, innovation, multinational companies an other assets are waning, but still strong enough to keep the US going albeit at a slower pace.

As for military power, well, it is not only about hardware. Experience, allies and know-how count as well. Even if China gets close to matching the US in fighting capabilities – which is unlikely over the next 25 years – it will hardly be able to take on the US in a major conflict. So, the US is still the strongest power.

WILL IT REMAIN THE ALPHA MALE?

Will the US continue to be leader of the pack – the alpha male? Over the last four years, in fact during President Barack Obama’s first term in office, the US has managed high-profile diplomacy while at the same time abandoning any attempt to truly lead.

There has been no further liberalization of global trade through a successful Doha round. The US has kept protectionism at bay, which by the way may not have been easy, but apart from that has not done much.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to boost a free trade agreement among a number of Asia-Pacific nations, looks good but what is the role of Japan and Korea and will China be included? This seeds the suspicion that it is a vehicle for a US strategic design to contain China and/or put spanners in the works for China’s economic rise – hardly a very forward looking policy taking into account China’s weight in the global economy.

The global recession has been allowed to ‘blossom’ without any firm hand on the tiller. The international monetary system suffers from uncertainties. Climate change and global warming have stalled – no genuine progress has been made despite a lot of talk. Attention is much more directed at domestic policies to boost supply of shale gas, a major benefit being diminished US dependence on imports of oil.

LOSING THE MORAL HIGH GROUND

President Obama has changed the US outlook on Islam and the Middle East through speeches in Istanbul and Cairo, but the speeches were the main part and action was put on the backburner. The US did cast its lot in with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, but that was adjusting to changes, not enforcing them.

Soft power depends on other nations and other people’s acknowledgment of the leader’s superior moral values. A worldview, a way of life is shared and felt worthwhile to defend in common while supporting each other.

For decades US leadership was anchored in moral and ethics felt to be above compare. The war against terror has not fundamentally eroded that position – yet – but reluctance or outright refusal to close

Guantanamo, and the drone strikes killing people even if it may be militarily justified, has seriously denigrated the US’ image.

So, leadership is gradually slipping away. The US is losing the moral high ground, no longer seen as the undisputed role model.

AFGHANISTAN: ATTRITION OF WILLPOWER

Will the US be willing and able to exercise power over the next couple of decades? Power is an intricate, complex, and curious notion. The superpower must be willing and able to exercise power in two respects.

First, to defend the position against challengers – fight a major armed conflict if necessary.

Second, more intricate, to demonstrate ‘who is in charge here’ to disruptive forces inter alia terrorists. Over the last four years the US has scored badly in this respect.

The war against terror seems to be going well. Terrorism has been put on the defensive and major terrorist attacks not seen since 911. The problem is that it is waged by means undercutting the moral high ground, therefore contradictory to the end goal of the war and potentially dangerous for US self-esteem and respect shown to the US by other countries.

The war in Afghanistan pulled in a number of US allies exactly because it fulfils the condition of a war fought in common to defend moral values. It has not been won, it may not even be on its way to be won, but it is not lost or being lost either. The fact is that the coalition has done quite well.

To withdraw now after withdrawing from Iraq is a strategic defeat. An admission that the US is not willing or capable of fighting a longer war – a battle of attrition of wills; and that the US political spectrum and public do not find that defending American values, which is attacked by global terrorism, warrants a prolonged war.

Afghanistan will probably descend into instability and small scale civil wars or even worse, chaos. It willdestabilize the whole of Central Asia with unpredictable but certainly unwelcome outcomes, and have disastrous consequences for Pakistan, one of the most vulnerable regimes in the world, dragging in India thus fuelling the India-Pakistan confrontation.

To stay in Afghanistan is a very small price to pay compared to potential disasters following a withdrawal. Disruptive forces around the globe will learn that the core of US foreign and security policy is ‘do not mess in our affairs’. To withdraw is to say that you are free to do exactly that.

IRAN: THE CATCH-22 CHOICE

Not surprisingly, Iran is the flywheel. After dithering over many years US diplomacy has finally manoeuvred itself into a choice between either accepting Iran as a nuclear power or undertaking a military action to prevent that from happening.

Historical evidence tells that Iran’s conditions for stopping its alleged nuclear weapons program is first that the US abandons its policy of seeking regime change (recognise Iran as it is) and then acknowledge its status as the strongest power in the region.

The US might be willing to strike a deal if it was not for the fact that other powers – Saudi-Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Turkey – would regard that as betrayal.

What will happen if Iran gets the bomb? Turkey, a NATO member, has given the answer. President Gul stated in December 2012 that Turkey will not accept a neighbouring country possessing weapons not possessed by Turkey itself.

Next: Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and maybe one or two more countries. The whole Non-Proliferation Treaty would be killed with one stone.

So, waning willingness to exercise power leads toward an unenviable position for the US which, increasingly, risks being caught between the devil and the deep sea – having to choose between armed conflicts in unfavourable circumstances under conditions dictated by others, or allowing the still-mainly US dominated world order to crack and risking a collapse with no promising alternative in sight.

Joergen Oerstroem Moeller is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow with the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Adjunct Professor with the Singapore Management University and Copenhagen Business School.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.