America's Inadvertent Empire
How durable is U.S. power? The authors of this thoughtful, well-researched study offer mostly optimistic answers. Looking at sources of power ranging from military strength to academic institutions and scientific accomplishments, Odom and Dujarric conclude that the current position of the United States could last for decades -- if not longer. Their basic argument is that the United States is strong because it has a depth and breadth of liberal practices and institutions that other societies cannot match -- and that because liberal institutions generally reflect long-term cultural habits and trends, they will not soon catch up. This case is a sort of synthesis between Francis Fukuyama's end of history and Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations: liberal values lead to success, but not everyone can get there.
The most important warning the authors offer is that, because of poor leadership (they point to examples in both the Clinton and Bush administrations), the United States could adopt bad policies that cause others to band together against its power. This claim seems a little inconsistent; surely a society as well ordered as the liberal one they describe would do a reasonably decent job of choosing national leaders. In any case, the authors leave themselves a realistic if inelegant escape hatch: Bush's unilateral, confrontational policies are dangerous and poorly conceived -- unless they turn out well.
Related
Policymakers need a guide to the complexities and challenges of the struggle against terrorism. Unfortunately, two authors who could have written one have chosen instead to rehash the Bush administration's mistakes.
Pacific powers would like Korea to reunify slowly, but the North is soon likely to implode, its economy deteriorating as its weapons of mass destruction accumulate. Rapid reunification would spur economic growth, as in Germany, and reduce regional tensions. South Korea's liberalization of its own economy and strengthening of its civic institutions will prepare it to assist the North. China and Russia may not go along, but Western governments should stop coddling Pyongyang. America should underwrite a united Korea's security, and Japan its finances.
There is no "China threat," not because China is a benign giant but because it is too weak to challenge the balance of power. China can damage U.S. interests, but it does not require containment. The most striking aspect of Chinese foreign policy is its effort to promote stability. Indeed, China is easier to deal with today than ever before. The United States needs a policy to contend with China's ability to destabilize Asia, not a policy to deal with a future hegemon. China is a revisionist power, but for the foreseeable future it will seek to maintain the status quo-and so should the United States.
