The World Will Soon Appreciate the US


Recommended Posts

The Global Shift

The world will soon better appreciate the United States

by Victor Davis Hanson

National Review Online

Radical global power shifts have been common throughout history. For almost a millennium (800-100 BC) the Greek East, with its proximity to wealthy Asia and African markets and a dynamic Hellenism, was the nexus of Western civilization ? before giving way to Rome and the western Mediterranean.

Yet by A.D. 300 the Greek-speaking half of the empire, more distant from northern European tribal attacks, proved the more resolute. It would endure for over 1,000 years while the fragmented West fell into chaos.

And then yet again the pendulum shifted back. The Renaissance was the product of Florence, Venice, and Rome as the Byzantine East was worn out by its elemental struggles with Islam and straitjacketed by an increasingly rigid Orthodoxy and top-heavy imperial regime.

But by 1600 the galley states of the Western Mediterranean were to lose their restored primacy for good, as to the north the ocean-going galleons of the Atlantic port nations ? England, France, Holland, Portugal, and Spain ? usurped commerce and monopolized the new trans-oceanic trade routes to Asia and the New World.

By the time of the industrial revolution, another radical shift had occurred in influence and power. The northern European states of England, France, and Germany, products of the Enlightenment, with sizable Protestant populations, outpaced both the old classical powers of the Mediterranean and the Spanish empire. And in early 20th century, the United States, benefiting from the Anglo tradition of transparency and the rule of law ? combined with a unique constitution, exploding population, and vast resources ? displaced the old European colonial empires and stood down the supposed new future of Soviet totalitarianism.

Globalization and technology, of course, can speed up these shifts and accomplish in a few years what used to transpire over centuries. We are told that a third of the planet, the two billion in China and India, is now moving at a breakneck pace with market reforms to remake the world. The old idea of a ?population bomb? of too many people and too few resources has been turned upside down: The key is not how many people reside in a country but rather what those people do. A billion under a Marxist regime leads to terrible human waste and starvation; a billion in a market economy is actually advantageous ? as seemingly endlessly active minds and arms flood the world with cheap consumer goods and rebuild a decaying infrastructure from the ground up.

Europe ? high unemployment, layers of bureaucracy slow growth, unsustainable entitlements, ethnic and religious tensions, shrinking populations, unresponsive central governments ? is often juxtaposed with Asia, as if its sun is setting just as the East?s is once again rising.

So far the European Union?s decision not to spend on defense; its inherited infrastructure and protocols; and its commitment to the rule of law keep the continent seemingly prosperous. It has some breathing space to decide whether it will reemerge as a rising power or be relegated to a curious museum for cash-laden tourists from Asia and America.

Somewhere between these poles is the United States. Pessimists point out that we increasingly don?t create the cars we drive, the phones we used, or mirabile dictu, soon the food we eat. High budget deficits, trade imbalances, enormous national debt, and growing military expenditures will supposedly take their toll at last, as pampered Americans consume what by the new global rules they don?t quite earn.

Optimists counter with their own set of statistics and point out that immigration and religion have ensured a steady if not rising population. Unemployment, interest rates, and inflation are low, and alone in the world America has an amazing resiliency and flexibility to fashion citizens and a single culture out of diverse races and religions. It also, of course, enjoys a unique constitution and laws that provide freedom without license.

We seem to enjoy the best of both worlds, symbolized by our two coasts that look on both east and west. Our European traditions ensure the rule of law and the vibrancy of Western civilization. Yet decades ago, unlike the EU, we understood the Asian challenge and kept our markets open and our economy free, often requiring great dislocation and painful adjustment. The result is that for all our bickering, we continue to remain competitive and flexible in a way Europe does not.

If we have avoided the state socialism of Europe that stymies growth, we have also already passed through all the contradictions of a breakneck capitalist transition ? the dislocation of rural people, industrial pollution, unionization, suburban blues, ubiquitous graft, and petty bribery ? that will increasingly plague both India and China as they leave the 18th century and enter the 21st.

But the real question is how both China and India, nuclear and arming, will translate their newfound economic clout and cash into a geopolitical role. If internal politics and protocols are any barometer of foreign policy, it should be an interesting show. We mostly welcome the new India ? nuclear, law-abiding, and English-speaking ? onto the world stage. It deserves a permanent seat on the Security Council and a close alliance with the United States.

China, however, is a very different story ? a soon-to-be grasping Soviet Union-like superpower without any pretense of Marxist egalitarianism. Despite massive cash reserves and ongoing trade surpluses, it violates almost every international commercial protocol from copyright law to patents. It won?t discuss Tibet, and it uses staged domestic unrest to send warnings to Taiwan and Japan that their regional options will increasingly be limited by Beijing.

China could rein in Kim Jong Il tomorrow. But it derives psychological satisfaction from watching Pyongyang?s nuclear roguery stymie Japan and the United States. China?s foreign policy in the Middle East, Central and South America, and Southeast Asia is governed by realpolitik of the 19th-century American stripe, without much concern for the type of government or the very means necessary to supply its insatiable hunger for resources. The government that killed 50 million of its own has not really been repudiated and its present successor follows the same old practice of jailing dissidents and stamping out freedom. When and how its hyper-capitalist economy will mandate the end of a Communist directorate is not known.

The world has been recently flooded with media accounts that U.S. soldiers may have dropped or at least gotten wet a few Korans. Guantanamo, we are told, is like the Soviet gulag ? the death camp of millions. Americans are routinely pilloried abroad because they liberated Iraq, poured billions into the reconstruction, and jumpstarted democracy there ? but were unable to do so without force and the loss of civilian life.

This hysteria that the world?s hyper-power must be perfect or it is no good is in dire contrast to the treatment given to China. Yet Pavlovian anti-Americanism may soon begin to die down as the Chinese increasingly flex their muscles on the global stage and the world learns better their methods of operation.

So far they have been given a pass on three grounds: the old Third World romance accorded to Mao?s Marxist legacy; the Chinese role as a counterweight to the envied power of the United States; and the silent admission that the Chinese, unlike the Americans, are a little crazy and thus unpredictable in their response to moral lecturing. Americans apologize and scurry about when an EU or U.N. official remonstrates; in contrast, a Chinese functionary is apt to talk about sending off a missile or two if they don?t shut up.

The Patriot Act to a European is proof of American illiberality in a way that China?s swallowing Tibet or jailing and executing dissidents is not. America?s support for Saudi Arabia is proof of our hypocrisy in not severing ties with an undemocratic government, while few care that a country with leaders who traverse the globe in Mao suits cuts any deal possible with fascists and autocrats for oil, iron ore, and food.

Yes, we are witnessing one of the great transfers of power and influence that have traditionally changed civilization itself, as money, influence, and military power are gradually inching away from Europe. And this time the shake-up is not regional but global. While scholars and economists concentrate on its economic and political dimensions, few have noticed how a new China and an increasingly vulnerable Europe will markedly change the image of the United States.

As nations come to know the Chinese, and as a ripe Europe increasingly cannot or will not defend itself, the old maligned United States will begin to look pretty good again. More important, America will not be the world?s easily caricatured sole power, but more likely the sole democratic superpower that factors in morality in addition to national interest in its treatment of others.

China is strong without morality; Europe is impotent in its ethical smugness. The buffer United States, in contrast, believes morality is not mere good intentions but the willingness and ability to translate easy idealism into hard and messy practice.

Most critics will find such sentiments laughable or na?ve; but just watch China in the years to come. Those who now malign the imperfections of the United States may well in shock whimper back, asking for our friendship. Then the boutique practice of anti-Americanism among the global elite will come to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i stopped reading on "National Review"

btw he forgets to mention that the egyption, greek, roman, persian and british empires all fell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would appreciate the states if they would stop ****ing my country when it suits them. If I can't swim at the beach anymore past Canada day I will probably hold a lifelong grudge against the states. I can't see how George Bush's white house can not be doing anything about this. We have sent many official letters from our gov't trying to negotiate a better way to clean their waters than by dumping it all into a river that comes into Canada.... Also the softwood lumber thing, and the fact that 50% of the pollution in the air in either toronto or ottawa? is from the united states.

If their government would take steps and apologize for those things that would be a great start. But not only that, this war has gone on long enough. Give control over to the UN. Is it that important to you guys to have only your soldiers dying? Why not lessen the load on yourselves? All that is happening is your soldiers are dying and you are mad no one supports the war.... Well DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

So in short stop raping the land and start making peace with the world and everyone will appreciate it, and in turn learn to appreciate the States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically right now the world's economy is already dependant on China. If China was to suddenly pull out of all deals it would cause quite a stir internationally. Thus one may already say that China is "holding the world by the balls". In fact after talking to an economist he told me that in 20 years the Chinese market will be the most important worldwide (taking over the US I believe?)

So yes, China will be a superpower. However I believe that it will rely on its economy too much to be able to "pull out" and cause trouble, I mean, no merchant ever attacks their customers now do they?

The main problem is that China as a fast developing country will suck up a large portion of the world's oil reserves in the future. Thus making it even more valuable.

586085546[/snapback]

This is a very important fact that most people ignore. As long as the US is outsourcing its jobs and manufacturing of goods to china/india, they will be dependant on them. Sure it saves money now, but later on down the road it will hurt because the people who would have had those jobs won't be abled to support the economy by buying the goods.

I think we should be focusing more on chinas human rights records, it is terrible that both canada and the us are ignoring their human rights abuses to save money and in canada's case to make money. We are ignoring the fact that we want to be a bastion of human rights while one of our biggest trading partners is also one of the bigger human rights violators. The sad thing is if we keep on ignoring it, one of the biggest if not the biggest super powers will also be very corrupt and rape the land more than anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically right now the world's economy is already dependant on China. If China was to suddenly pull out of all deals it would cause quite a stir internationally. Thus one may already say that China is "holding the world by the balls". In fact after talking to an economist he told me that in 20 years the Chinese market will be the most important worldwide (taking over the US I believe?)

So yes, China will be a superpower. However I believe that it will rely on its economy too much to be able to "pull out" and cause trouble, I mean, no merchant ever attacks their customers now do they?

The main problem is that China as a fast developing country will suck up a large portion of the world's oil reserves in the future. Thus making it even more valuable.

586085546[/snapback]

this does indeed draw back into the article because the article provides a statement that the US has these morals and such which will make us the future saviors of the world. my question is, with all of this going on in the international arena (dont get me started on the civil issues), where are those world saving morals?

Boffa Jones you are exactly right in this matter. my father owns a machine shop and is constantly complaining because the steel prices for US steel are outragous. since 2001, steel prices have risen by almost 200%. of course he could buy from china where the prices are much lower but the quality of steel is so poor he is forced to buy usa with the inflated prices. this is because of the exportation of jobs from this country to china.

China has America's "balls in a vice grip" (thanks south park for the quote). all china has to do is simply manipulate steel prices, making them lower, causing american steel industries more hastle to compete which in the end forces them to go over shores to be able to compete.

what happens then is the quality of steel decreases, and larger companies which can afford better steel win over small business, such as my fathers shop. these larger companies have already gone over seas in some of their sectors. this all equates to, china kneeing america in the balls, economically speaking.

Edited by fred666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

China has America's "balls in a vice grip" (thanks south park for the quote).  all china has to do is simply manipulate steel prices, making them lower, causing american steel industries more hastle to compete which in the end forces them to go over shores to be able to compete. 

what happens then is the quality of steel decreases, and larger companies which can afford better steel win over small business, such as my fathers shop.  these larger companies have already gone over seas in some of their sectors.  this all equates to, china kneeing america in the balls, economically speaking.

586085933[/snapback]

U.S. steel is already in a shambles thanks to China. Bush tried to pass protectionist tariffs for U.S. steel industry because China is already running amuck and it got trashed. So many U.S. steel companies have already been put out of business. I'm willing to bet the reason why U.S. steel is more expensive is because of the more extensive refinement technology, and labor. As they say, you get what you pay for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly. the chinese steel doesnt take advantage of those technologies which makes the us steel stronger and better. the chinese steel my father used was filled with impurites which caused the steel to loose much of its integrity when heat treated. its bad stuff, lol

Edited by MonkeyClaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically right now the world's economy is already dependant on China. If China was to suddenly pull out of all deals it would cause quite a stir internationally. Thus one may already say that China is "holding the world by the balls". In fact after talking to an economist he told me that in 20 years the Chinese market will be the most important worldwide (taking over the US I believe?)

So yes, China will be a superpower. However I believe that it will rely on its economy too much to be able to "pull out" and cause trouble, I mean, no merchant ever attacks their customers now do they?

The main problem is that China as a fast developing country will suck up a large portion of the world's oil reserves in the future. Thus making it even more valuable.

This is a very important fact that most people ignore. As long as the US is outsourcing its jobs and manufacturing of goods to china/india, they will be dependant on them. Sure it saves money now, but later on down the road it will hurt because the people who would have had those jobs won't be abled to support the economy by buying the goods.

I think we should be focusing more on chinas human rights records, it is terrible that both canada and the us are ignoring their human rights abuses to save money and in canada's case to make money. We are ignoring the fact that we want to be a bastion of human rights while one of our biggest trading partners is also one of the bigger human rights violators. The sad thing is if we keep on ignoring it, one of the biggest if not the biggest super powers will also be very corrupt and rape the land more than anyone.

586085896[/snapback]

However, this lock in trade means the US/West also has China's balls between its fingers, we are slowly "corrupting" the Chinese. They are becoming more and more Westernized as they go more and more dependant on advanced goods and their technology keeps improving - they have lost quite a bit of the idealism that they started off with. This means in a way that the more China opens itself up to trading and develops as a country, the more it will go towards Westernization of principles, to the point that it will eventually bring more "freedoms" (I hate that word it's used so much in the wrong contexts) to the Chinese. It may even bring down communism :D

Thus it is in a way a humanitarian thing to invest in China. Sure it might screw up the US economy, but it's "liberating" the Chinese as Bush would say (do they actually want to be liberated?).

Although I'm sure that's not why the companies invest there. China is full of untouched natural ressources just waiting to be exploited.

Edited by fred666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate most things the US does.

- Great software

- Some good TV Programs

- Fast food that I can't stop eating

But at the same time I do not appreciate some of the US foreign policy, even though I do understand why they do what they do. For instance where would the world be if the US didn't enter WW2? Or strongly influence the end of communism?

Of course there's Iraq and Yugoslavia which were a bit of a mess, but hey, we all make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original article.

Yes, the world will appeciate the US once it replaced by China as the dominant force in the world (economically first and eventually militarily, if they so choose).

That is not a future that I particularly relish. The United States is Canada's top trading partner and a strong political ally. I rather like that relationship.

That is why I get annoyed when the US seems to do everything possible to live high for another four years and let the future be damned. George W. Bush is the greatest gift that China ever received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US could do a 180 in my views, if they:

Just admitted their mistakes about Iraq, and apologize for the deception

Make stronger efforts to comply with world trade regulations

Stop the water diversion that will destroy our waterways

I would be surprised if any one of these feats were accomplished.

I would like to add, we (Canada) did not have these kinds of problems with the US when Clinton was in power.

-Ax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US could do a 180 in my views, if they:

Just admitted their mistakes about Iraq, and apologize for the deception

Make stronger efforts to comply with world trade regulations

Stop the water diversion that will destroy our waterways

I would be surprised if any one of these feats were accomplished.

I would like to add, we (Canada) did not have these kinds of problems with the US when Clinton was in power.

-Ax

586092506[/snapback]

I think you missed the point of the article then. Regardless of what the US does, it will all seem rosy compared to a world dominated by China (at least the China we know now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed the point of the article then.  Regardless of what the US does, it will all seem rosy compared to a world dominated by China (at least the China we know now).

586092522[/snapback]

It would appear I did.

Does the US have bilateral communications with China right now?

And does anyone know what efforts China is making to improve its global image?

-Ax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i stopped reading on "National Review"

btw he forgets to mention that the egyption, greek, roman, persian and british empires all fell

586084234[/snapback]

Just a LITTLE off topic here, but the British Empire hasn't actually fallen. It's declined sure, mostly because we realised that taking control of another nation against the peoples will is wrong, but we still have the commonwealth, which is technically the remnants of our old empire. We still have colonies as well, such as the Falkland Islands...

For example, the American war for independance... They'd have gained independance eventually anyway. When we lost the war (hardly surprising considering how far away from home it was), we didn't exactly try to get them back, and now the UK/US couldn't be better friends...

As for how countries currently perceive the US. That's something the US people need to discuss with their leaders, and their current foreign policies don't seem to be having the desired effect (unless international hatred IS the desired effect!)

But I don't think China is going to be the next world leader... Not in my lifetime anyway... Not until they sort out their dreadfull human rights record at least. Of such things revolutions are made of...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I would be interested in reading a similar article written from the perspective of a European and a Chinese. ;) Rather than just one sided views, back when communication was limited many of us only got news from nearby countries...but the world is much smaller now, news and views are more accessible than ever from all corners of the globe.

Always interesting to see how other countries report the same news or commentry from their angle. ;)

Edit:

I found the link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200506100747.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.