Chapter 7 - American Purpose

We begin this chapter by once again emphasizing the United States' power and its influence in a unipolar world. Fareed uses the example, when in the summer of 2002 a few Moroccan soldiers sailed to the tiny island of Leila and planted a Moroccan flag there. Spain reacted quickly and sent their soldiers and forced out the Moroccan soldiers. They planted an Spanish flag and stationed their warships in the area. It is worth mentioning that the island of Leila is uninhabited and does not possess any political or logistical significance. At this point Moroccans called this an act of war and in demonstrations, they expressed their desire to die for their land. This situation may seem absurd to an outsider, but other nations realized if something is not done quickly, the situation can escalate out of control. Finally the United States had to step in and resolve the situation. The United States has no interests in the straight of Gibraltar. Unlike the E.U. it has no special leverage over either countries. Unlike the UN, it can not speak for the international community, however it proved again that in a unipolar world, it is the single superpower.
America remains a superpower in spite of recent declines in their economy. Its economy is troubled and it faces long term problems, partially caused by low savings and soaring entitlements.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3521457019_2936bb09c4.jpg



This is a very smart cartoon by Tom Tomorrow about American policies during the Bush administration.
http://www.boulderrelocalization.org/weblog/Tom%20Tomorrow%20Peak%20Oil%20Cartoon.jpg

The most notable shift between the 1990s and now, has mostly to do with the rest of the world rather than America. In 1990s, Russia was completely dependent on American loans and grants, and now they pump out surplus every year in their annual budget. Then, East Asian countries were also heavily dependent on IMF funds to help them out of their crisis, and now they have massive foreign-exchange reserves. This growth led to China contributing more to the global growth than the United States in 2007. The first time any nation has done so since at least the 1930s. This power shift can be beneficial. It is a product of economic growth and stability in the world, and it can even be good for America. Fareed argues that as long as we keep the forces of modernization, global interaction, democracy, and human rights we can all move forward. This global growth provides the United States an opportunity to remain the pivotal player in a richer, more dynamic, and more exciting world.
Some Americans believe that we should not learn from the past and only copy what we have done before and everything will work out. America's influence in the world is slipping and it does not have the influence it had after World War 2 or even a decade ago, however it still has the strongest and most influential hands than any other nation. Fareed believes that the international order that was established by the United States after World War 2 is in urgent need of expansion and repair, but not re-conception. The rise of the rest is a long and slow process, which ensures America a vital role in this change. As other countries grow, new points of tension will emerge between them. Many of these rising countries have historical conflicts and border disputes with one another, and usually nationalism grows along with economic and geopolitical stature. America, being a distant power, has historically been a convenient partner for many growing nations, and American influence is strengthen by the growth of dominant regional powers. So when one neighbor grows economically, it will unbalance the dynamics of the regions, so the neighboring countries have to seek alliances with powerful nations (the United States.) This can be in terms of consultation, cooperation, and compromises. It shifts powers and form coalitions, rather than the traditional way of the super power making decisions for the weaker ally.
The American multinationals are the ones that figured out how to best thrive in a post American world. They conquer new markets by changing their old ways. General Electric is a great example that used to believe in closed markets and owning a 100% of the company itself. Over the past decade, however, it has watched the growing skills in the developing countries and realized they need to change their approach. They now partner with many companies rather than buying smaller companies and turn then into big GE companies. There is still a strong market for the American ideology everywhere in the world. The role, as the country that can define universal ideals, remains one that only the United States can play.
Fareed describes what operating in this new world looks like through six simple guidelines:

Choose:

American believe they have to have it all. It is very crucial that the Americans be disciplined about their priorities. An example is in the case of Iran. The Bush administration could not make up their mind whether the want a policy change or a regime change. The two objectives are opposite, because if you try to remove a ruler, you can not encourage him to stop his military programs at the same time. Iran is surrounded by countries who all have nuclear weapons, and the two countries that do not have it, are occupied by hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. Bush has repeatedly said that he does not recognize the regime in Tehran, and threatened to overthrow it and funds the anti Iranian organizations. So the question to the readers is, even if such programs exists in Iran, why would the Iranian leader on their right mind, abandon the program?

An Indian cartoonist's Perspective
http://peoplesgeography.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/bendib-iran-and-israel-nukes-cartoon.jpg

American policies in the Middle East
http://peoplesgeography.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/davidpopecartoon-iraq-exit-into-iran.jpg

Build broad rules, not narrow interested:

In an age of rising powers, the United States needs to create a structure of rules and values for the world to follow. Then even as the countries grow, they remain within the framework of the proper international system. This ensures that the rise of the rest does not become a downward competitive spiral, with powers freelancing for their advantage in such a way as to destabilize the whole system. For this system to work, we should all follow and adhere to the rule. If we do not follow the rules, then why should the Chinese or the Indians follow them?
An example of that is the instability in Burma or Tibet. They are both small countries and seem like remote problems for the United States. But they share borders with India and China, and their instability translates into millions of refugees. Washington should recognize that if it has its own exceptions, so do other countries. Or else the United States should drop its own exceptions. But to do neither, and preach one thing and do another is hypocrisy, which will undermine American credibility.
On that concept I found this video on YouTube that I think neatly ties in with the above argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0Y6DNfBgiY

When it comes to terrorism, America has been very narrow-minded. Rather than having a global set of regulations for customs an immigrations by using the same standards and sharing databases, Americans have invented their own. This causes inefficiency and negative consequences for the American economy and image in the world. That is why, in the midst of a worldwide terrorism boom, travel only to the United States has been sluggish and choked up at border crossings.
Another example is again, the nuclear issue. The United States expect Iran, along with every other country, with exception of Israel, to adhere to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The treaty basically explains that countries that developed nuclear weapons by 1968 are permitted to keep them, and those who didn't are not. The United States and other power have taken no steps in reducing their nuclear arsenal, yet they are interfering in Iran's peaceful nuclear program. America holds 85 percent of all nuclear weapons, and they need to start moving them off alert status and reduce the numbers of weapons. The United States would gain much credibility in talks with Iran, if they work towards reducing their nuclear arsenal and pressured Israel also to follow the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

No title
http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/1/7/0/5/i/1/2/3/o/Copy_0_israel.jpg


mordechai vanunu, Blew the whistle on Israel's Nuclear program
http://www.imemc.org/attachments/apr2008/vanunu.jpg


Americans protest the existence of nuclear weapons
http://www.thespoof.com/sitepics/pdi/NuclearWeapons.jpg

Be Bismarck not Britain:

Fareed argues that the United States should not keep a low profile against the rising powers. The United States should get involved and establish great relations with them. They have played a big role in the past against the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, but today such strategies are unwise. The world is more connected and the traditional "balancing" against rising powers can be destabilizing and dangerous. America should over play its power and supremacy, because then other rising powers much do the same and the consequences will be very costly. Washington is ideally suited to play a Bismarckian role in the current global system, because they have better relation with almost all major powers than they do with each other. The have strengthened their relationships with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and India and are trying to do the same with China and Russia too. Fareed concludes this point by saying that: " the virtue of the Bismarckian approach is that it gives the United States the greatest leverage with all parties, maximizing its ability to shape a peaceful and stable world. And if things do not work out, it also gives the United States legitimacy and leeway to move into a balancing role."

President Bush on an official trip to India with the Indian PM
http://www.indiadaily.org/images/india-us-bill_26.jpg

Order à la carte:

Within the international relation there has always been one theory on how international peace can endure. That theory explains that the most stable system is one with a single dominant power. For several century the Great Britain and the United States have played that role and kept everything in order for the most part. Now, the American hegemony is waning. So the readers now wonder, what will that lead to?
The dollar is weakening and it is very unlikely that it will retain its totemic position forever as the reserve currency, moving towards a basket composed of euros, and other currencies as well. In some Asian territories, the U.S. military is less influential than the Chinese and the American now have to compromise in their negotiations (compared to decades ago when everything they asked was done.) Fareed's readers might wonder if this decline in the U.S. influence will lead to instability and disorder!
He does not think that it would. A couple of centuries of Anglo-American control has created this system that is quite stable. Most countries are familiar with it and are cooperating with each other in an open market. Fareed expresses that " the search for a superpower solution to every problem may be futile and unnecessary. Smaller work-arounds might be just as effective."
America needs to realize that no institution is always right and no framework is always ideal. The UN might work for one problem and NATO for another, and NAFTA for the third. When approaching new issues such as global warming or climate change, then a new coalition may need to be formed. Such international issues will only become more complicated and to get the best results we have to be flexible and accommodating rather than insisting on the old methods.
Establishing order in the world is not only an American problem. The rise of the rest causes a rise in nationalism which can bring disorders and instability with it, and solving these problem needs a global system of organizors and moderators.

Removing Saddam Hussein was a great example of the UN's inability is such matters
http://www.adrich.com/OPNNEW/Mar03.1.gif

Think asymmetrically:

America has the strongest military in the world, yet they are struggling in Iraq. The Israelis have a much better than Hezbollah in Lebanon but not able to win. Fareed explains that is "because the current era is one in which asymmetrical responses have become easier to execute and difficult to defeat." This is also true in case of the drug cartels, money laundering operations, illegal immigration, and terrorist cells. The most important lesson here is not to get sucked into the trap and stay focused. In perspective, the Americans and NATO countries suffered many more lives and loss of capital that any terrorist attack in the history of mankind. Al-Qaida's trap was to get Americans in the Middle East and fight them in their own territories, rather than having to plan attacks in America or Europe. This is a scary scenario where thousands of lives were lost and left many permanently injured. This situation also takes the focus off terrorism and places it on American imperialism.
The U.S. needs to start thinking creatively and asymmetrically. Thinking that way allows them to capitalize on their key advantages, which are more than just military. Helping countries modernize and building diplomatic corps are much more effective in the long run than any possible military technique. Still the military received over one hundred times in funding to fight terrorism, than funding for diplomatic and civilian activities. Rather than harassing Muslim Americans, they should enlist them in the effort to understand Islam and the appeal of fundamentalism. I think America's core advantage is its diverse civil society, which has been ignored for the most part by the U.S. administration.

America's secret weapon
http://www.sinceretributes.com/sinceretributes/images/WEsch/SCH007_-_Diversity_acceptance_is_the_key_that_opens_the_door_to_variety.jpg

Legitimacy in power:

Today America has every kind of power except for legitimacy, which in today's world is a critical deficiency. Legitimacy allows one to set agenda, mobilize support, and even change policies. Fareed used the singer Bono, as an example, who was able to change government policies on critical issues. Former president is a great example of legitimacy as well. His used his influence in Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, and recently in North Korea to diffuse tense situations, without having to resort to military actions or UN security Council. On that same note, former president George W. Bush is an opposite example where leaders of many nations simply shrug off his opinion. On his last formal visit to Asia and also South America, absolutely nothing was achieved and no one seemed interested in what he had to offer.

Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat during the Oslo Accords on 13 September 1993.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Rabin_at_peace_talks.jpg

The author, Fareed, expresses that the United States still has a lot of power and thereby confer legitimacy with regards to what constitutes a problem. The ideas still domminatedebates over Darfur, and Iran's nuclear program. However, Washington needs realize that generating public support for its view of the world is an element of power, not just an exercise in public relations. Nations are not going to sit quietly and accept what Version of events America hands down to them. As mentioned above, the Bush administration never understood the importance of legitimacy, especially in the run-up to the Iraq war. Bush kept insisting that his allies in Europe and Asia support his war efforts and approve of the Iraq invasion. The point worth mentioning here is that in many of those countries, the governments do not fully represent the people's opinion. Countries like Poland or Romania only supported the war, hoping America will approve financial help for their crippled economies. When the Turkish government approves Bush's plans to invade Iraq, is because they are hoping that the U.S. will support them in joining the European Union. The United States misunderstood that as support. The government of Turkey wanted to back the U.S., but more than 90 percent of the Turkish population opposed it.

Iraq Invasion check list
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~msa/issues/Iraq/IraqInvasionCheckList2.jpg

America has transformed the world with its ideals. When the Chinese pro-democracy protestors gathered in Tinanmen Square, they made a makeshift figure of the statue of liberty. United States's image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is still much better than the alternatives and that is what has made its power tolerable to the rest of the world for so long.

In the war on terror American politician are making the same mistake they made during the cold war by putting together all their adversaries. The call all muslim's terrorist and bunch them all together, calling them Al-Daida or muslim brotherhood where in fact they are all very different. Iranian Shiite government actually helped the U.S., topple Sunni Al-Qaida regime in Afganistan. In Iraq, the Sunni radicals slaughhter Shitte and the list goes on. Shittes and Sunnis are historical enemies, mostly because Shittes are mostly Persian and Sunnis are mostly Arabs. 9/11 gave Bush an excuse to take out Al-Qaida, but he did not wipe out terrorism. Terrorist attacks still happen in places like Turkey, Iran, Israel, Spain, and Great Britain - most of which are also very tough on terrorism. Unlike European Muslims, American Muslims are mostly middle class, highly educated, and very assimilated. If American leaders start insuating that Muslim population should be viwed with suspecion, then that will change the community's relationship with the United States. Democrats are much more sensible with such issues and hopefully the Obama administration will be able to repair the damage done during 8 years of Bush's presidency.
We can never stop a small group of misfit from causing trouble and planning terrorist attacks, no matter how good the intelligence network is. What we can do is to understand each other better, and try to understand why certain acts are done by the terrorist. By understanding each other we may be able to bridge that gap and prevent such senseless plans.

In 1972 my family arrived in the United States, from a land far away. My parents attended school in this magnificent country and thrived. They witnessed the Watergate scandal, end of Vietnam war, gas crisis of 1976, the Iranian hostage Crisis, and many more similar event. Yet America was always able to pull itself up, continue, and expand. Everywhere they visited, people were welcoming and warm, and this seemed like a land of unlimited opportunities and growth. I certainly hope, as does Fareed, that this land stays the amazing and inviting place that is for years to come for new comers entering the United States of America.

Chapter 6 - American Power

The British Grand Fleet sails for Scapa Flow in 1914

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Grand_Fleet_sails.jpg

Fareed begins this chapter by looking back at Great Britain. Near the end of the 19th century, the British Empire controlled approximately a quarter of all the land and associated population. They created the first truly global market and thanks to their massive navy, they were able to hold that control for centuries. The English language became the dominant language spoken in the world, as well as the English values. At the same time, the Spanish also tried to export there ideas and values, however Britain's ideas proved more universal. To the rest of the world Great Britain seemed invincible and unassailable until history repeated itself and their peak finally declined.

Fareed raised the question, will the same story happen to America? He explains that no analogy is exact, but Great Britain in its heyday is the closest any nation in the modern age has come to the American position today. America shows many echoes and symptoms of Britain's dilemmas. The one slight difference may be that as Britain tried to maintain its superpower status, the largest challenge was economics rather than politics. In the United States, it is the other way around.

Boers in action (1881).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Boers_1881.gif

Some believe that the British war against the Boers in South Africa was the start of their decline. To gain better access to the South African gold, under the excuse of protection the English speaking people, the British started a war in 1899. The Boers however launched a preemptive strike to protect their land and then had the support of most white people in South Africa. The British had a disadvantage, because the Boers knew the land well and adopted successful guerilla tactics. The British in return resorted to brutal tactics, such as burning down villages and moving the people into concentration camps. The British military was ten times larger in terms of men, and they eventually won the war but at the high cost. They suffered heavy casualties and spent nearly half a million pounds and lost many of their supporters. Many friendly nations opposed their actions and left Britain "friendless."

Fast forward to today, where we see another superpower with a strong military, and losing its influence slowly. The American war has become unpopular even at home, and many countries, once U.S. allies, are now turning their back and condemning the U.S. actions. Just like the British war against the Boers, American expected the war in Iraq would be a quick military victory. The war has lasted for over seven years, thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, cost the American tax payers billions of dollars, nothing significant has been achieved and Iraq is more chaotic that before the war started. America's outcome in Iraq looks bleak and it's been met with heavy international opposition.

March opposing the Iraq occupation, 15 Sep 2007, Washington, DC.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/1393440869_96e38b6291.jpg

Britain has been a rich country for centuries, but it only became an economic superpower a few decades ago. London has become the most influential city during the Great War, and the British acquired an empire before the onset of nationalism. Its sea power was unrivaled for over a century. As a result of the empire, the British remained dominant in banking, insurance, shipping, and investments. In reality though the British economy was sliding. Many scholars have debated the causes of Britain's decline. Some focused on geopolitics, and some others on economic factors like low investments in new plants, poor labor relations, and loss of marketing skills.

Fareed argues that perhaps none of these failings were crucial. Paul Kennedy points out that Britain's dominance in the 19th century could have been a product of a series of highly unusual circumstances. Fareed tells the story about when the British statesman Leo Amery saw this clearly in 1905. "How can these little islands hold their own in the long run against such great and rich empires as the United States and Germany are rapidly becoming?" he asked. "How can we with forty million people compete with states nearly double our size?" It is a question that many Americans are now asking about the United States in the face of China's ascent."
After World War I, Britain gained a lot of new land. However, unlike before this was not profitable anymore and had become a drain on the Royal treasury. World War I had left Britain tens of billions of dollars in debt and the interest was growing. World War II was the last nail on the British economy's coffin. They still remained remarkably influential, but their economy was suffering and they were near bankruptcy. The United States loaned money to Britain, but in return they took many of the British bases around the world.

Sir Winston Churchill inspecting air raid damage in Battersea in September 1940
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1397/955841778_5635cb136d.jpg

London east end 1943 American WACs (Women's Army Corps)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3600439148_15e7b72608.jpg

When talking about the British decline relative to the American decline, Fareed point out one major difference. The key concept he is pointing out is that the central feature of Britain's decline,"irreversible economic deterioration", does not really apply to the United States today. Britain's economic status lasted only a few decades, whereas America's has lasted for over a century. It has been the world's largest economy since the late 1800 and still remains to this day. The difference can also be seen in their military. The British rules the seas but never the land, and the Americans, in contrast, dominate at every level. Their military power is not the cause of their strength, but a consequence of it.

Back to the original argument, America's advantages are rapidly eroding. Americans are losing interest in sciences and China and India are graduating far more engineers than the United States (however another argument is that a large fraction of those graduates move to North America for work anyways, and this also does not address the issue of the quality of the foreign education). Higher education has become America's best industry. Eight of the top ten universities are in the United States. Even if we looked at the top fifty universities, most of them are in the United States, and America has a competitive advantage in that field. They spend much more than any country in R&D and hence produce a much better environment as well as opportunities for the university students in America. I mention "university student" above, so the readers will not confuse that with the American school system. American school system is a mess and ironically the students do very poorly in math and science. The do things differently in American schools and do not force the students to memorize and do vigorous exams. On another hand one might even argue that while in other countries they teach you to memorize and take exams, the American way teaches you to think.

Harvard University, a very prestigious American University
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/398103862_3e0263dabe.jpg

Fareed adds one that another advantage America has to Europe is its population. America is vibrant with a growing population, where Europe stays "virtually stagnant." In the U.S. children are outnumbering the elders, but in Europe it is the opposite, which means more workers for the United States. The Europeans have almost stopped replacing themselves and their population is on the decline and the only way is to take in more immigrants. However, unlike North America, European do not seem as welcoming to strangers. There are far more opportunities available to an immigrant to North America that there are for immigrants to Europe, especially Muslim immigrants. The same story also applies to many Asian countries, where they simply do not produce enough children to replace their work force. Fareed estimates that they will face a major problem in the next half century due to their aging work force. The effects of an aging population are quite considerable. There is the pension problem - fewer workers paying into the program- , fewer workers also mean fewer scientific breakthroughs. The last issue is as workers age they seem to spend and not save, which can really lower the investment rate in a country. Immigration has mostly offset this problem in the U.S., foreign students account for half of the scientific researcher in the United States, and are enrolled in more PHD programs than American students. Immigration has given America an advantage to constantly revitalize itself by people who can work long hours and are looking for a better life. America has been able to tap this energy and diversity, and assimilate the newcomers, people who are hungry for success and are willing to work hard to achieve that for themselves and their children, I believe that is America's secret weapon.

Ellis Island, NY - My mum's uncle walked through those gates in 1904
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/ellis-island/ellis-island-entry.jpg

The author, once again, mentions that the United States as well as it has done in the past, but could be worse. It works as it always has, except that other nations are doing better than they did before. Americans rarely ever refer to global standards, mostly because the global standard has been the American standard for at least a few generations now. Even in business they never bother find out how other nations do business mainly because they were the ones teaching the world how to conduct business and be capitalistic. Now, however, everyone is playing America's game, and they are in it to win. America used to have the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, but now they have the second highest. They did not increase the rates; others watched American example and lowered theirs. Even in regulating the markets, America used to be more flexible than any other country, and it is no longer the case. Regulators in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East are working hard to make their system more attractive and simpler to investors and manufacturers all over the world. One advantage the foreign nations gain is that they are familiar with the American system. That allows them to penetrate their own local markets, as well as the North American (English speaking markets), and America by contrast lacks that competitive advantage and ability to move into other people's world.

One example of the American disadvantage is their auto industry. For decades most American cars were made in Michigan, however it is being replaced by Ontario. The single reason for that transfer is health care costs. In the U.S. a car manufacturer has to pay over $6000 in health care cost, whereas in Canada because of the government system, the cost is just over $800 per worker. This situation brings with it a significant disadvantage to hiring American workers.
To solve this problem they used to go abroad and bring with them the much needed capital for a country, and used their abundant labor. But when they go abroad now, they discover that natives already have money and know-how and there is not really a third world anymore. So one might ask, what can they bring to those countries now? Fareed's answer is that the United States has been and can be the world's most important, continuing source of new ideas, big and small, economic and political. But to do that, they need to make some significant changes. The American economy and society, are capable of responding to the economic pressures and competition they face by others. They can adjust and preserve, as they have had before. The real test is their politics. Can Washington adapt to a world in which others have moved up? Can Washington truly embrace a world with diversity of voices and viewpoints? and most importantly, can it thrive in a world in cannot dominate?

The following link is a CNN video on you tube that shows a brief history of mass production of vehicle in America by Henry Ford, and how is has change to the shape it is in right now;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZIyGZ7N7bk&feature=PlayList&p=33A7EDC480A88464&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=91

Picture was taken at the plant in Brampton, Ontario Canada
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2588620993_bb1917e027.jpg