HOME / foreigners: Opinions about events beyond our borders.

Power ShortageNo one wants America to be the sole global superpower, but no one wants to share the load.

By Anne ApplebaumPosted Monday, Nov. 23, 2009, at 10:39 PM ET

Like comets hurtling at one another from opposite ends of outer space, two different phenomena in different parts of the world soared into public awareness last week. Separately, they might not have had cosmic importance. Put together, however, they could prove to be an interesting sign of things to come.

RSS

In China, President Barack Obama met his counterpart, Chinese President Hu Jintao. He also met the Chinese premier, Wen Jibao. The former got more attention, but the latter was more interesting: According to Xinhua, the Chinese press agency, Wen told Obama that "China disagrees to the suggestion of a 'Group of Two.' " China is "still a developing country," he said, and "we must always keep sober-minded about it." China is delighted to continue its economic relationship with the United States, but China "pursues the independent foreign policy of peace and will not align with any country or country [blocs]."

Translation: China will not cooperate in placing sanctions on Iran, China will not hinder North Korea's nuclear missile program, and China will not help solve the problems of Afghanistan, the Middle East, or anywhere else. In short, China has decided that it will not become America's full partner in foreign policy.

At approximately the same time, the leaders of Europe were locked into proverbial smoke-filled rooms (nowadays empty of smoke) arguing over who should be granted the new job of "president" of the European Union and who should become Europe's new "high representative," or foreign minister. These talks represented the culmination of a decade's worth of diplomacy, debate, and national referendums, all designed to produce a more united European foreign policy and to give Europe a single phone number that Obama can call when he wants to chat. The result: The president of Europe will be Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, a politician unknown outside his own country. The foreign minister of Europe will be British official Catherine Ashton, a bureaucrat unknown even inside her own country. Candidates of far greater experience and influence—including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt—were rejected, apparently for fear they would have more experience and influence than the powers that be. Germany's Der Spiegel heralded this news with the headline "Europe Chooses Nobodies."

Translation: Europe might have a new phone number, but when Obama calls, the person on the other end of the line will still be unable to act. "Europe" will not be a unified entity capable of coordinating a unified policy in Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, the Middle East, or anywhere else anytime soon. Europe cannot, in short, become America's full partner in foreign policy.

And thus we are left with a curious situation: America no longer wants to be the sole superpower. The American president no longer wants to be the leader of a sole superpower. Nobody else wants America to be the sole superpower, and, in fact, America cannot even afford to be the sole superpower. Yet America has no obvious partner with which to share its superpowerdom, and if America were to cease being a superpower, nothing and no one would take its place.

This might not be the end of the world—there are quite a few trouble spots that could do with a long period of benign neglect—and it might not last forever. Europe, when counted as a single entity, is still the world's largest economy. China, whatever else it might be, is still the world's fastest-growing economy. Sooner or later, the simple need to defend their economic interests might persuade one or both to start taking the outside world more seriously.

This does mean that the Obama administration has a problem, however: Having come to office promising to work with allies, it may soon discover that there are no allies with which to work. Europe is still our best hope, because Europeans share most of our values. But organizing sanctions with a divided Europe—never mind a military operation—will continue to be a major chore. China, meanwhile, is acquiring vast foreign interests, trading in Africa and South America as well as Asia, and maintaining a vast army. But China appears uninterested in joining an international campaign against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or anything else.

Global military and security thus look set to remain in the hands of the United States, whether the United States wants it or not. Halfway through his presidency, George W. Bush found he had to drop unilateralism in favor of diplomacy. Now one wonders: At some point in his presidency, will Obama find he has to drop diplomacy in favor of unilateralism?

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Anne Applebaum is a Washington Post and Slate columnist. Her most recent book is Gulag: A History.

COMMENTS

Says who? I think it should read "America can no longer afford to be the sole superpower. While a lot of people in the country may not want America to be the world's cop, I think a lot of people would still like us to have unquestioned superiority, especially when it comes to th economy and the military. The only reason the Soviet Union broke up was because they couldn't afford being the other superpower, if the ruble was the world's reserve currency in 1989, they would still be in business.

So if we had the economy we had in 2000, would this column have been written? If we hadn't squandered trillions of dollars covering irresponsible loans (and ill-gotten profits), waging conventional wars against unconventional (stateless) enemies, burning hundreds of billions of barrels of imported oil, and generally consuming way more than we produce, would the U.S. be asking China, a nation where 80% of the population is dirt poor, to be "our full partner in foreign policy"? I think not.

-- kgsbca
(To reply, click here)

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens as Europe is forced to underwrite their own defense against, for example, a resurgent, imperialist Russia.

The generous welfare states of the past 30-40 years in Europe have been made possible by the US taxpayers' willingness to, in effect, subsidize European defense via our military umbrella.

Whether by choice or necessity, America's role as global protector is changing. Once America has accepted her diminished role, again either by choice or necessity, what will happen the next time Putin threatens to cut off natural gas to a European country? What real power will Europe be able to leverage?

Ultimately, even diplomatic solutions such as economic sanctions must be supported by military power.

Will Europe be forced to cut its lavish social welfare programs to once more build up its own militaries? Or will such cuts be politically impossible, forcing Europe to submit to the whims of more powerful neighbors?

The diminishment of American power abroad, although directly more damaging to Europe, may indirectly be just as damaging to the United States. To use the same example, a Europe over which Russia wields so much power will be reluctant to vote against Russian interests in transnational bodies like the UN.

Russia may well become the "new" America if the balance of power shifts too far. It may take decades for this to pass, but it's clear that this is the end result of diminished American power abroad.

People complain about America the hyperpower, but isn't the alternative - a world run by people like Putin - significantly worse?

-- Wall Street
(To reply, click here)

Maybe it's time we take a fresh look elsewhere for someone to share in global superpower duties, as well as a counter-balance to China's growing military and economy.

I believe the United States need only look to India as a strategic and economic partner. If the U.S. were to view India in an international strategic light as opposed to just a fallback country in an unstable region, it's my (and others) contention that India and America would make a great superpower team – and hey, both our militaries speak a common language.

-- Tyrtaios-rising
(To reply, click here)

It is a classic free rider problem. The Europeans (excepting Britain) and Japanese have been doing it for years. Relying on Pax Americana to keep the peace as they reap a peace dividend. Why waste valuable blood and treasure on a problem when you know Big Brother will step in eventually?

Why shouldn't the Chinese do the same? Their interests really are not that different from ours apart from Taiwan, but even there neither side is willing to risk upsetting the status quo. So let America and Britain tangle with Muslim extremists, international terror, Russia, and Somali pirates. The Chinese seem more than happy enough to make tons of money while we bleed ourselves dry.

-- A Dude
(To reply, click here)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES