Skip to main content

USA HAS IMPORTANT CHOICES TO MAKE : THREE OPTIONS FOR FUTURE OF SUPER POWER













Superpower
By Ian Bremmer






President Obama hosts a Gulf security summit, and most Arab leaders decide not to attend. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu comes to Washington to address Congress on Iran over protests from the president. Britain ignores pleas from the United States and becomes a founding member of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a potential competitor for the World Bank. The Obama administration gripes that the Brits are pandering to the Chinese. Russia’s Putin, like Syria’s Assad, strides across American red lines with little consequence. Beijing and Moscow announce joint military exercises… in the Mediterranean. NATO ally Turkey turns to China for new defense equipment. The Dutch go to Huawei for internet security.





These are not random events. What’s going on?





America is not in decline. Look to the strength of the dollar, US equity markets, employment levels and the economic rebound, the energy and food revolutions, and generation after generation of technological innovation.





 But America’s foreign policy and its international influence most certainly is in decline. 








Superpower or not, too many countries now have the power and self-confidence to say no to US plans.




Globalization and an Americanization of the world once moved in lockstep. No longer. Globalization is accelerating; ideas, information, people, money, goods, and services cross borders at an unprecedented pace, but the Americanization of values, standards, political and economic systems, and international architecture is eroding.


Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank aiib


I take this as the starting point for my new book (out tomorrow!). 



It’s called “Superpower: Three choices for America’s role in the world.” 



For this week’s update, I’d like to outline my key arguments for you.




Superpower

I called the book “Superpower” because, despite all the challenges facing American foreign policy—geopolitical creative destruction and the g-zero world—the United States remains the world’s only superpower and will for the foreseeable future. 



That means that America is the only country with the political, economic, and military muscle to persuade governments in every region of the world to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. That’s a working definition for the global projection of power. 



Over the next decade, the absolute size of China’s economy will probably surpass America’s, but militarily, technologically, diplomatically, and culturally, China cannot compete with the Americans. No other country comes close.




But most Americans don’t want their government to project power as it has in past decades. 


A $3 trillion price tag for ill-conceived wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn’t helped. 



Revolutions in energy and food production ease both US dependence on imports and Washington’s need to partner with potentially unstable countries in unstable parts of the world. 



A hollowing-out of the American middle class has helped persuade a growing contingent of Americans that their country doesn’t benefit from globalization.



 New tools of coercive diplomacy—cyber-surveillance and attack, drones, and the weaponization of finance—relieve US dependence on partnerships and alliances.



 US allies are losing leverage in their respective regions, and their governments are preoccupied on domestic challenges. 



America needs Europe less, most of Europe feels the same about America, and the transatlantic relationship, the bedrock of the post-war order, is weaker than at any time in decades.




And so America faces an identity crisis. 


Americans—voters and leaders alike—know what they don’t want: they don’t want America to play global policeman; they don’t want to try to rebuild the Middle East; they don’t want to sacrifice troops and taxpayer dollars to make the world safe for democracy. 



But what do they want? What does America stand for? What’s all that superpower for? Americans don’t know. US allies and enemies don’t either. This has become the world’s biggest geopolitical question mark.


* * *




Enter the candidates. As the 2016 presidential election takes shape, foreign policy has re-entered the national conversation. The US economy is growing, sidelining a central political issue. 


Most Americans are tired of partisan hand-to-hand combat over healthcare. President Obama’s approval ratings are weakest on foreign policy. 


Hillary Clinton, the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination, is Obama’s former secretary of state. 


For both these reasons, republicans see Obama foreign policy as a promising political target. GOP candidates, from Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio and Chris Christie to Rand Paul—have lined up for a turn at bat.




But the lack of a coherent US foreign policy strategy didn’t begin with Barack Obama—though his second term struggles have made the problem more painfully obvious. 



From the fall of the Wall and Soviet collapse, US presidents of both parties have defined America’s mission in terms of tactics. US foreign policy has been reactive and improvisational for 25 years. And we can no longer identify a Democratic or Republican approach to foreign policy. There are now hawks, doves, and civil libertarians within both parties. 


Those hoping to understand their own policy preferences by falling back on party loyalty have some thinking to do.



In short, it’s high time to reconsider America’s role in the world. 





In “superpower,”  I offer three dramatically different alternatives. And though I have a preference, which I argue for in the conclusion, I believe each is a conceivable option. 



What’s not workable is continuing to blunder forward reactively without a strategy. 



That’s the fourth option, and it’s by far the worst.




It’s foolish to think that the world’s only superpower has only one viable path forward.



 I’ve made as forceful a case as I can for each of the three choices to challenge the reader to decide, and I hope this book will help set the stage for a serious-minded, constructive debate among the candidates in 2016.





Here are the three choices. Each gets its own book chapter:



** Indispensable America

This one will be the most familiar to readers. We live in a profoundly interconnected world. No, America shouldn’t play the global cop, but if America doesn’t lead, nobody else will either. 


International wildfires will burn out of control. 



More Middle East states will fail, and terrorism will metastasize. 


Russian revisionism will threaten Europe and beyond. 


China will use its growing economic influence to expand its political leverage, undermining structures and standards created by advanced industrial democracies to strengthen individual liberty and free market capitalism.



These values, which have benefitted both developed and developing nations, are increasingly under threat. The United States must actively defend and promote those values. 



That means using every available tool of American power to bolster alliances with capable and like-minded partners. 


It means buttressing weakened international institutions. 


It means that in our interconnected world, America must develop and maintain a coherent and comprehensive global foreign policy strategy.

We can have no illusions that indispensable America will deliver quick and easy wins, that enemies will cower before American determination, or that longstanding allies will always follow America’s lead. Washington can’t topple every tyrant. But that’s all the more reason to take a stand. 



It’s not enough to undermine Syria’s Assad; America must help empower Syria’s citizens to build a stable and prosperous country. Answer Russian aggression and support Ukraine’s sovereignty to ensure that the Kremlin has no illusions that it can move onto NATO allies. Stand by traditional allies in the Middle East—Israel and the Gulf states—and don’t make any deal with Iran that depends on the honesty and good will of its leaders. 


Engage China, but contain its expansionist ambitions, including in the South China Sea. And do everything possible to empower China’s people to build irresistible momentum for political change inside their country.



If Americans learned nothing else from 9/11, it’s that Washington can’t afford to ignore emerging threats in faraway places. 



The world has become an increasingly dangerous place. There is important work to be done, and no one, not even the sole superpower can do it alone. But a volatile world needs leadership.





 For all its faults, who but America can lead?








** Moneyball America



I take the idea of Moneyball America from Michael Lewis’s groundbreaking book on Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane, who revolutionized the way in which winning baseball franchises are built. 


Without sentiment, he swept away old rules and conventional wisdom to focus on relentlessly rational results-oriented management. 



The A’s didn’t have the money of those damn Yankees, but by spending scarce capital only where it offered the most promising return, they found they didn’t need it. 





A champion of Moneyball America is less interested in promoting America’s values than in enhancing America’s value. Don’t waste money and lives to sell ideas that leaders in China, Russia, and the Middle East are easily able to ignore.




The pivot to Asia—a true pivot, where turning to Asia means turning away from something else—offers a prime example of shrewd moneyball thinking. 




Build commercial and security ties in the heart of the world’s most economically dynamic region. 



Spend no time or political capital on selling a peace plan that Israelis and Palestinians don’t want, and balance traditional ties with Gulf Arabs with a more pragmatic relationship with Iran, a country and market that offer America future opportunities that others in the region can’t match. 


Share technology and information with allies, but let them assume greater responsibility for their own security. Never fight a war to defend a principle. Where terrorism directly threatens American lives, fight to win.



The world is becoming a more challenging and competitive place. All the more reason to invest our human and material capital wisely. 




With a clear head and a sharp pencil, moneyball offers a path forward that all Americans can profit from.






Independent America



American values matter only if Americans live up to them at home. 



Washington can’t bribe, bully, or blackmail China (or other authoritarian states) into an embrace of liberal free-market democracy.



 Americans don’t have that kind of power. US allies and enemies know this, and both are banking on a more multipolar world—and a more balanced global economy. Many Americans now accept that a stronger will, deeper insight, and deeper pockets will not help Washington reshape the world as it would like. 



No nation, not even the sole superpower, can consistently get what it wants in a world where so many other governments can shrug off US pressure.





Those who advocate independent America recognize that all those global challenges are far more dangerous and damaging for other countries than they are at home. 



Terrorism is a much greater threat for the Middle East, Europe , and Russia than for the United States . 



The conflict in Ukraine has little bearing onUS security or prosperity. Instability in energy-producing countries is less relevant for increasingly energy-rich America than at any time since the 1960s. 




China’s expansion matters far more for China’s neighbors than for the United States . In fact, a more volatile world highlights the strength, stability, and resilience of US markets.



America must lead, but mainly by example. 




Its tremendous resource, demographic, and technological advantages—and the advantage of its position between Mexico, Canada, and two vast oceans—will be enhanced by committed investment in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure: bridges, railways (clearly), highways, ports, and schools. 



Leading by example also means open borders, welcoming more of the world’s growing number of refugees, and more trade.




An America that declares its independence from the responsibility to solve other people’s problems must ask allies to do more in exchange for continued US investment in global public goods. 



NATO can survive only if other members bear more of its costs and risks. Let Europe manage relations with Russia as it chooses. Cut a deal with Iran that reduces US involvement in the region’s conflicts. 



Recognize that decisions made in Beijing, not in Washington, will determine whether China sinks or swims. Most importantly, invest the savings to build a secure, dynamic, and prosperous America that others want to emulate.








2016



The 2016 presidential season offers a crucial opportunity to force this debate. Candidates are beginning to test these issues. 



Far from the 2012 Obama-Romney foreign policy debate, which spent way too much time on the Benghazi scandal and not nearly enough on anything else, we can hope for a more serious exchange this time around. 



No more bromides about how America must lead without explaining why, how, and to where—with attention to the all-important details.




As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton seemed to embrace the moneyball approach. 


Think of the Asia pivot, “economic statecraft,” support for the transpacific partnership, an end to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a reset with Russia—all while avoiding intractable issues like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 


These choices demonstrated a willingness to prioritize low-risk, high-reward projects over those that came with high costs, high risks, or the near-certainty of wasted time and political capital. But as a presidential candidate, her rhetoric has veered toward the more familiar campaign terrain of indispensable America. She has downplayed the Russia reset and distanced herself from the Iran deal and President Obama’s non-intervention in Syria. 


She’s also incorporated an element of populism that leads to foreign policy incoherence, by refusing to take sides on TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership].





On the other side of the spectrum, Senator Rand Paul has been the most overt advocate for independent America. 




His adamant opposition to the use of drones and cyber-surveillance, and his consistent rejection of costly military engagement in most places sets him apart in a crowded Republican field. But, hedging his bets, even Paul has, in recent speeches, been drifting toward moneyball.




Jeb Bush has been opaque, and he’s never held a national office that would give him a foreign policy voting record. He’s hit a few moneyball notes, but his determination to defend his brother’s foreign policy—and the decision to engage many of his brother’s advisors—clouds the issue. 



Marco Rubio has been the most thoughtful and articulate advocate for indispensable America. 


Chris Christie is also working to align with that position. 


Scott Walker doesn’t yet have a foreign policy, he acknowledges his lack of experience on these issues and the need to do some homework.



 That’s surely the case for others as well.



America needs this debate. 



Without a coherent foreign policy strategy, the next botched response to a bolt-from-the-blue crisis—a next generation 9/11, a cyber fight with Russia, or an economic flareup with the Chinese—will prove much more costly, for Americans and for others. 



The terrorist attacks on 9/11 came when American foreign policy influence was at its height; the next geopolitical convulsion will come in a dramatically different context.

***

That’s the argument in a nutshell. 



Which choice comes closest to my own view? I won’t tip my hand here, but I hope you’ll do some serious thinking about which one you would choose. 



After all, I wrote the book to challenge readers to reach their own conclusions. 



My goal is not to persuade you that my opinion is right but to provoke a debate that can benefit all of us—Americans and everyone else.


 I honestly didn’t know which option I would favor until I’d finished writing all three. 





It’s a tough decision, and one that I think everyone should consider with an open mind.






http://www.mauldineconomics.com/outsidethebox

Popular posts from this blog

MEET MELANIA TRUMP: The 5'11" supermodel married to Donald Trump

Aly Weisman, INSIDER

Sep. 2, 2015, 3:28 PM 











Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images







While Donald Trump loves to be the center of media attention, his third and current wife, Melania Trump, is a bit more camera shy.










The Slovenian-born model keeps a lower profile than her husband, doing philanthropy work, raising their son, working on a jewelry collection with QVC, and creating a $150-an-ounce caviar moisturizer.




With Trump on the campaign trail, Melania has stoically stood by his side.




But who exactly is Melania and where did she come from? Learn about Trump's other half here ...





Melania Knauss was born April 26, 1970, in Slovenia.




Wikimedia/Getty







The 5'11" brunette began her modeling career at 16, and signed with a modeling agency in Milan at 18.



Chris Hondros/Newsmakers via Getty









She took a break from modeling to get her degree in design and architecture at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.








Wikimedia/Getty

Source: MelaniaTrump.com









But after graduating, her modeling career took off and Me…

THE MOST SOUGHT AFTER MANGOES IN THE WORLD ....

While "Flavor" is very subjective, and each country that grows mangoes is very nationalistic, these are the mango varieties that are the most sought after around the world because of sweetnesss (Brix) and demand.

The Chaunsa has a Brix rating in the 22 degree level which is unheard of!
Carabao claims to be the sweetest mango in the world and was able to register this in the Guiness book of world records.
Perhaps it is time for a GLOBAL taste test ???





In alphabetical order by Country....










India




Alphonso





Alphonso (mango)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








Alphonso (हापुस Haapoos in Marathi, હાફુસ in Gujarati, ಆಪೂಸ್ Aapoos in Kannada) is a mango cultivar that is considered by many[who?] to be one of the best in terms of sweetness, richness and flavor. 


It has considerable shelf life of a week after it is ripe making it exportable. 

It is also one of the most expensive kinds of mango and is grown mainly in Kokan region of western India.

 It is in season April through May and the fruit wei…

INDIA 2016 : Mango production in state likely to take a hit this year

TNN | May 22, 2016, 12.32 PM IST






Mangaluru: Vagaries of nature is expected to take a toll on the production of King of Fruits - Mango - in Karnataka this year. A combination of failure of pre-monsoon showers at the flowering and growth stage and spike in temperature in mango growing belt of the state is expected to limit the total production of mango to an estimated 12 lakh tonnes in the current season as against 14 lakh tonnes in the last calendar year.



However, the good news for fruit lovers is that this could see price of mangoes across varieties decrease marginally by 2-3%. This is mainly on account of 'import' of the fruit from other mango-growing states in India, said M Kamalakshi Rajanna, chairperson, Karnataka State Mango Development and Marketing Corporation Ltd.




Karnataka is the third largest mango-growing state in India after Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra.



Inaugurating a two-day Vasanthotsava organized by Shivarama Karantha Pilikula Nisargadhama and the Corporation at P…