Diplomatic and defense editor for BBC News Mark Urban asks
in an article from this past week whether the United States is a declining
empire or rather a country geared to counteract its rising competition. In
Thomas Friedman’s dramatized viewpoint, globalization is increasingly leaving
the United States behind, trailing in the wake of its more determined STEM
students, China and India. Urban offers no opinion of his own, rather
cataloguing the reactions to the US’s recent downturn. Most significantly, is the
US the Great Britain of the 21st century?
The most alarming statistic that Urban cites is the enormous
(and growing) national debt that now exceeds $16 trillion dollars. As a result Obama,
as Urban mentions, argues that “it is time to focus on nation building here at
home.” This protectionist attitude catapulted the United States into world
dominance during the early 1900’s as war dominated the globe, but it also
crippled Germany following World War I by ignoring the economic plight of
struggling nations. What will be the international effect then of the US’s
nationalistic viewpoint? Will it limit the growth of the US’s new competition
in China?
The US could turn inward and focus on its domestic trade as
a means of promoting its own internal growth. China’s limitations on
globalization to promote its domestic economy have preceded its development as
a country that, through its absorption of US debt, now controls the world’s
superpower. Yet China is not yet comparable to the US—it only recently became a
dominant interest in the world economy. It does not, in other words, represent the
21st century US to America’s 19th-century Great Britain.
If the US closes its borders to trade with developing nations, however, it may
very well condemn itself to the title of former superpower. In order to
counteract Chinese (and global) competition, America must stop spending and
start to eliminate losses through an increase in economic efficiency.
If you’re interested, here’s the link to the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19667754
I could not agree more, Amanda, especially in light of the upcoming presidential election. While voters may prioritize our domestic economy as the primary concern for this election, we should broaden that concern to the international economic realm if we care about our long-term economic well-being. To quote Dr. Drezner's column in last Thursday's NYT, "It’s precisely because presidents have so much more leeway to do what they want in the global realm that I now vote based on foreign policy. Mistakes in international affairs can lead to incalculable losses in blood and treasure. Paradoxically, if Americans suddenly started to vote based on national security issues, presidents would have to start to care about the domestic political consequences of their overseas actions." Protectionist attitudes may sound reassuring for the short term, but, as you said Amanda, we cannot afford to set ourselves back in this manner.
ReplyDeleteLink to column: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/why-presidents-love-foreign-affairs/