I have been
a bit tough on the USA since coming to spend some of my time here last year.
Whether it is the constant bullshit about being the greatest country on earth
or the execrable quality of news programmes, I’ve volunteered some frustration.
Add in drones, Guantanamo, and the lazy way the US ignores the rest of the
world (an example of this is in Time’s annual review of the world’s one hundred
most influential people, no fewer than half were born in the USA, presented
without apology) you might conclude I have only bad things to say about the
place. Much as most liberal European media, in fact.
Well, it is
worth redressing the balance.
First, this
is a great place to live. So long as you have enough cash, there are so many
comforts and wonderful things to do. If you don’t have the cash at least you
have some chance of getting some. The place is full of life. The people always
want to converse and to help. And the diversity of human spirit is simply
wonderful. Perhaps New York embodies all of these things more than the rest of
the country, but I have been blown away by all of them. The cultural
experiences we have enjoyed just in the last month could only have been
possible here.
Next, as
Hegemon’s go, the USA has not got a bad track record. For every Palestine,
there is a Burma or Kosovo. If you look around the world, some historic
catastrophes are being painstakingly sorted out, from Northern Ireland, Turkey,
the Philippines many parts of Africa, even the EU. The Marshall plan after the
last war has played the major role in creating the longest period of relative
peace in the history of mankind. Behind a lot of them stand a patient,
generous, effective USA. True, there are often some vested interests involved.
But we can applaud the results anyway.
Next, we
have not just relative peace but also relative prosperity, often with the USA
to thank. By accepting immigrants and competition and regulating appropriately,
much of the innovation in the world has its source in the USA.
Next, in
case you are not already convinced, look at Hegemons past. It can’t be easy of
others would have done a better job. Us British have to live with the stain of
colonialism. The Romans had their moments but did not really maintain their
advances. Dominant Churches have led to unpleasant regimes. Power certainly
does seem to have a tendency to corrupt. For me the true heroes are often those
who are ready to cede power in the interests of a wider development. Sadly
their achievements are rarely recognised, at least not initially. George
Washington was one. In the last century, consider Gorbachev and even FW de
Klerk as candidates. For me, Angela Merkel is well on the way as well.
In this
respect, Obama still has potential. I prefer to see his speech last week on
drones as an attempt to regulate something morally unacceptable rather an
attempt to defend it. He did not need to make that speech, and it only carried
risks domestically, but he made it anyway.
This leads
to another truth about power, which is that there is little correlation between
power and autonomy. I noticed in my work life that the higher I got the more
constraints were placed on me. True, I gained the potential to influence things
of greater weight, but that potential was balanced by all sorts of risks and
blockers. In Obama’s case, public opinion and congress inhibit him enormously.
We may not see it, but we would be foolish to consider that Putin or Xi or Kim
Jong Un do not have many internal constraints on their actions.
Lastly,
quite often it is hard to know what to do for the best. Intervention is not for
free, it has consequences. It is a valid dictum that where possible, letting
people sort out their own problems is usually for the best. At least the
current administration does not feel a crusading need to impose its values on
others, at least not usually. So, you end up with Syria. What a mess. And
everything our Hegemon might consider doing might turn out to be
counter-productive.
So, despite
its manifest failings, we should probably be grateful for the Hegemon we have
just now. Like democracy, it might just be the worst hegemon except for all the
alternatives.
I recently
read a book called “Why Nations fail”. It was not an easy read, and not
entirely convincing either, but it did offer some clues. The main thesis is
that progress comes as a consequence of inclusive rather than extractive
institutions. So the rule of law, a working constitution, an effective state,
and powers to break up monopolies and support new ideas are the pillars of
development. It is something of a historical accident which places secure this
happy combination, but it is useful to know what works (and would make a great
module in education).
The main
reason extractive institutions persist tends to be that this suits those in
power (who are doing the extracting). Even though they can see that overall
development would improve with more inclusivity, and may even see that in the
very long term their extraction would not be sustainable, they carry on with it
anyway because the long term is likely to occur after their death.
Even when
institutions are inclusive, some of the powerful will seek to consolidate their
position by making things more extractive. An example is the blatant power of
money in the US political system, and its divisive effects. But by historical
standards, the US still does quite well, and that goes some way to explain its
generally benign hegemony.
But it also
shows a way forward, at least to an idealist. The same logic used about
individual nations can readily be applied to the world as a whole, and, as the
world shrinks with the aid of globalisation and technology, such a logic has
increasing relevance.
So, in order
to be more than a benign hegemon and to become a historically great one, the
USA could use as its guiding light a set of inclusive institutions for the
world. Top of the list would be a working global governance model. So it is
especially sad that the US does so little to support the UN, for all its flaws.
So long as the USA behaves as though it is outside the remit of the UN, it
cannot really demand anything different from others.
Once we had
working governance and the rule of international law, next would come inclusive
economic institutions. The WTO does its best, and the globe has a good recent
record of challenging monopolies and subsidies. Often, the US takes on a
unilateral role here, for example with banking standards and its expectations
of US businesses and citizens with regards to corruption anywhere.
The world is
tantalisingly close to another leap forward in progress. Hegemons have a large
influence on world development. Historically this influence has been negative:
just as rulers in nations maintain extractive institutions to protect their own
power, hegemonic nations have the same selfish interest to maintain national
advantages.
On balance,
we have much to thank our current hegemon for, and more under the current
administration than its predecessor. But the payback to the world of the USA
taking a few more steps towards global inclusivity would be truly huge. It is
no wonder that the foreign policy aims of regimes as diverse as Russia, Iran or
China should be to act against the interests of the USA, while the USA
continues to treat international law as optional and to defend unreasonable
interests as “strategic” – just count how many US military bases there are
around the world.
If only the
proud cries of the land of freedom could extend to the world of freedom, the
payoff would be huge. As the USA becomes more diverse, perhaps it is possible.
A few steps could make all the difference: recognising the international court
in full; accepting change in permanent members to the security council; closing
some bases (starting with Guantanamo); taming the CIA. Small steps, but no
hegemon has managed them before. Maybe this time it can be different.
No comments:
Post a Comment