 |
Can the United States Be Balanced? If So, How?
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
3
will be interested in finding ways to counter US power, if only to get a better bargain form themselves.
Third, states may also choose to resist the United States because they are worried
about the broader implications of American primacy. This motivation may reflect the concern that the United States will use its power seek favorable terms for itself, but also reflects the broader fear that US power might be used in ways that might harm others’ interests in the future. It is, in short, the general fear of unchecked power in a world where there is no overarching authority that can prevent strong states from acting as they please. As Russian President Vladmir Putin put it in February 2003: “We believe here in Russia, just as French President Jacques Chirac believes, that the future international security architecture must be based on a multipolar world. That is the main thing that unites us. I am absolutely confident that the world will be predictable and stable only if it is multipolar.”
2
EU Commission President Romano Prodi explained increased
cooperation between the EU and China in similar terms, saying that “we are building new relationships, and it’s clear it’s a commitment for us and for China. Both of us want a multipolar world in which we have many active protagonists. This is a Chinese priority and it is a European interest.” Or as South African leader Nelson Mandela put it, South Africa cannot accept one state “having the arrogance to tell us where we should go or which countries should be our friends, . . .We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world’s policeman.”
3
But how do you stop an 800-pound gorilla? What can other states do to restrain a
country as powerful as the United States? Trying to resist the United States is fraught with peril, as Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein have all learned to their sorrow. The combination of economic, technological, and military resources at America’s disposal does not enable it to do everything, but American power does make it dangerous for other states to defy its wishes. Even states that have little reason to fear an American invasion have to worry that the United States might punish opposition in less vivid but still painful ways.
Yet states do defy the United States—and sometimes violently—and the record of
the past decade shows that even far weaker states do have options. Just as children routinely disobey their parents, just as slaves establish zones of autonomy in defiance of their owners and just as inmates find small ways to evade the rules imposed by their jailers, so too will weaker states in today’s international system employ various methods either to evade U.S. control or in order to limit the ability of the United States to have its way. These strategies may not undermine America’s dominant position—at least, not in the short term--but they complicate its diplomacy and form much of the context within which U.S. foreign policy must now be conducted. Let us first consider when states are
2
Vladimir Putin, Moscow ITAR-TASS , in FBIS (February 9, 2003). See also Craig R. Whitney, “NATO
at 50: Is It a Misalliance?” New York Times, February 15, 1999, A7. More recently, Jean-Marie Colombani noted that differences between the U.S. and Europe reflected a fundamental concern over basic principles of international legitimacy. “At stake,” he wrote, “is the way in which the new ‘United States of America’ intends to lead the world.” See “America’s Challenge: Moving Beyond Opposition,” Le Monde,February 6, 2003.
3
See David Murphy, “Best Friends,” Far Eastern Economic Review, May 6, 2004, p. 30; and Samuel P.
Huntington, “The Lonely Superpower,” Foreign Affairs 78, no.2 (March/April 1999), p. 43.
|
| |
| |
|
|
3
will be interested in finding ways to counter US power, if only to get a better bargain
form themselves.
Third, states may also choose to resist the United States because they are worried
about the broader implications of American primacy. This motivation may reflect the
concern that the United States will use its power seek favorable terms for itself, but also
reflects the broader fear that US power might be used in ways that might harm others’
interests in the future. It is, in short, the general fear of unchecked power in a world
where there is no overarching authority that can prevent strong states from acting as they
please. As Russian President Vladmir Putin put it in February 2003: “We believe here in
Russia, just as French President Jacques Chirac believes, that the future international
security architecture must be based on a multipolar world. That is the main thing that
unites us. I am absolutely confident that the world will be predictable and stable only if it
is multipolar.”
2
EU Commission President Romano Prodi explained increased
cooperation between the EU and China in similar terms, saying that “we are building new
relationships, and it’s clear it’s a commitment for us and for China. Both of us want a
multipolar world in which we have many active protagonists. This is a Chinese priority
and it is a European interest.” Or as South African leader Nelson Mandela put it, South
Africa cannot accept one state “having the arrogance to tell us where we should go or
which countries should be our friends, . . .We cannot accept that a state assumes the role
of the world’s policeman.”
3
But how do you stop an 800-pound gorilla? What can other states do to restrain a
country as powerful as the United States? Trying to resist the United States is fraught
with peril, as Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein have all learned to
their sorrow. The combination of economic, technological, and military resources at
America’s disposal does not enable it to do everything, but American power does make it
dangerous for other states to defy its wishes. Even states that have little reason to fear an
American invasion have to worry that the United States might punish opposition in less
vivid but still painful ways.
Yet states do defy the United States—and sometimes violently—and the record of
the past decade shows that even far weaker states do have options. Just as children
routinely disobey their parents, just as slaves establish zones of autonomy in defiance of
their owners and just as inmates find small ways to evade the rules imposed by their
jailers, so too will weaker states in today’s international system employ various methods
either to evade U.S. control or in order to limit the ability of the United States to have its
way. These strategies may not undermine America’s dominant position—at least, not in
the short term--but they complicate its diplomacy and form much of the context within
which U.S. foreign policy must now be conducted. Let us first consider when states are
2
Vladimir Putin, Moscow ITAR-TASS , in FBIS (February 9, 2003). See also Craig R. Whitney, “NATO
at 50: Is It a Misalliance?” New York Times, February 15, 1999, A7. More recently, Jean-Marie
Colombani noted that differences between the U.S. and Europe reflected a fundamental concern over basic
principles of international legitimacy. “At stake,” he wrote, “is the way in which the new ‘United States of
America’ intends to lead the world.” See “America’s Challenge: Moving Beyond Opposition,” Le Monde,
February 6, 2003.
3
See David Murphy, “Best Friends,” Far Eastern Economic Review, May 6, 2004, p. 30; and Samuel P.
Huntington, “The Lonely Superpower,” Foreign Affairs 78, no.2 (March/April 1999), p. 43.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
