The US- no longer a Superpower?

[sabang]

Following is a thought provoking article. It basically is saying that the US is no longer a superpower.

I typically would not start a thread like this in Issues, on the basis it would be easily dismissed as 'yet another' anti-US rant. This one is a bit different though- the Author is a gentleman called Paul Craig Roberts. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

The World is Uniting Against the Bush Imperium
Is the United States a superpower? I think not. Consider these facts:
The financial position of the US has declined dramatically. The US is heavily indebted, both government and consumers. The US trade deficit both in absolute size and as a percentage of GDP is unprecedented, reaching more than $800 billion in 2005 and accumulating to $4.5 trillion since 1990. With US job growth falling behind population growth and with no growth in consumer real incomes, the US economy is driven by expanding consumer debt. Saving rates are low or negative.

The federal budget is deep in the red, adding to America's dependency on debt. The US cannot even go to war unless foreigners are willing to finance it.
Our biggest bankers are China and Japan, both of whom could cause the US serious financial problems if they wished. A country whose financial affairs are in the hands of foreigners is not a superpower.

The US is heavily dependent on imports for manufactured goods, including advanced technology products. In 2005 US dependency (in dollar amounts) on imported manufactured goods was twice as large as US dependency on imported oil. In the 21st century the US has experienced a rapid increase in dependency on imports of advanced technology products. A country dependent on foreigners for manufactures and advanced technology products is not a superpower.

Because of jobs offshoring and illegal immigration, US consumers create jobs for foreigners, not for Americans. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs reports document the loss of manufacturing jobs and the inability of the US economy to create jobs in categories other than domestic "hands on" services. According to a March 2006 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, most of these jobs are going to immigrants: "Between March 2000 and March 2005 only 9 percent of the net increase in jobs for adults (18 to 64) went to natives. This is striking because natives accounted for 61 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the 18 to 64 year old population."

A country that cannot create jobs for its native born population is not a superpower.

In an interview in the April 17 Manufacturing & Technology News, former TCI and Global Crossing CEO Leo Hindery said that the incentives of globalization have disconnected US corporations from US interests. "No economy," Hindery said, "can survive the offshoring of both manufacturing and services concurrently. In fact, no society can even take excessive offshoring of manufacturing alone." According to Hindery, offshoring serves the short-term interests of shareholders and executive pay at the long-term expense of US economic strength.

Hindery notes that in 1981 the Business Roundtable defined its constituency as employees, shareholders, community, customers, and the nation." Today the constituency is quarterly earnings. A country whose business class has no sense of the nation is not a superpower.

By launching a war of aggression on the basis of lies and fabricated "intelligence," the Bush regime violated the Nuremberg standard established by the US and international law. Extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in Iraq, along with the torture of detainees in concentration camps and an ever-changing excuse for the war have destroyed the soft power and moral leadership that provided the diplomatic foundation for America's superpower status. A country that is no longer respected or trusted and which promises yet more war isolates itself from cooperation from the rest of the world. An isolated country is not a superpower.

A country that fears small, distant countries to such an extent that it utilizes military in place of diplomatic means is not a superpower. The entire world knows that the US is not a superpower when its entire available military force is tied down by a small lightly armed insurgency drawn from a Sunni population of a mere 5 million people.

Neoconservatives think the US is a superpower because of its military weapons and nuclear missiles. However, as the Iraqi resistance has demonstrated, America's superior military firepower is not enough to prevail in fourth generation warfare. The Bush regime has reached this conclusion itself, which is why it increasing speaks of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.

The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against an opponent. If six decades after nuking Japan the US again resorts to the use of nuclear weapons, it will establish itself as a pariah, war criminal state under the control of insane people. Any sympathy that might still exist for the US would immediately disappear, and the world would unite against America.

A country against which the world is united is not a superpower.

Paul Craig Roberts: the World is Uniting Against the Bush Imperium

He certainly does not pull his Punches there.

There is no question that the US remains the worlds dominant miltary power, and hence the only nation that even has a claim on 'Superpower' status. I do however accept the salient points of the article and therefore that, at minimum, that claim is dwindling.

Perhaps the most important question is- is that a good, or a bad thing?

Fire away.

[Jet Gorgon]

Same same Rome, la.

[barbaro]

Following is a thought provoking article. It basically is saying that the US is no longer a superpower.

I believe, like others, that the US is in decline on a couple of fronts. And declining enough to be sliding as a superpower: economy, international diplomacy, and the way the US is perceived.

[britmaveric]

Still a super power and dare say it will be so for many hundred years to come.

[DrB0b]

Same same Rome, la.

Nope, not even remotely. Rome was a colonising empire that fell apart due to over-reliance on slaves and pressure from northern tribes. There are few if any similarities to the decline of Rome and the decline of the US.

[britmaveric]

One has to be in decline, and we havent seen it yet.

[DrB0b]

Still a super power and dare say it will be so for many hundred years to come.

An enormous, sweeping statement there BM, care to back up your one-liners for once?

[DrB0b]

One has to be in decline, and we havent seen it yet.

Sorry brit, that statement makes no sense.

[britmaveric]

Military, economically, and politically still dominate the world - this hasnt changed.

[DrB0b]

^militarily? Seems like any 14 year with a 40 year old Kalashnikov can keep the US army bogged down in a third world shithole.

Economically? Did you read any of the OP?

Politically? Don't understand what you mean, seems that in international politics Russia and China now carry more weight than the US.

[britmaveric]

Doubtful Bob Russia is useless shell of a country. China's population will be its downfall.

Yanks can go anywhere and do anything - this is plain/simple. They sneeze and the rest of the world feels it.

Military far from bogged down, doing quite well if you care to examine what is happening on the ground. They can leave anytime they like, however they feel a certain responsibility to correcting the vacuum of power they created.

Economically on the way up, however only downside I can see is the oil crisis - but since everyone in the world is in the same boat I hardly see it as yank exclusive.

[Butterfly]

This is all an academic exercise, we all know that Iraq will be the beginning of the downfall of the US,

[sabang]

The Diplomatic vacuum the US has dug itself can be corrected by more enlightened political leadership.
The Military power of the US will not be challenged for some time yet, and the heir incumbent, China, has little interest in a military presence outside of it's own back yard- as long as it gets the resources and commodities it needs.

The biggest threat, imo, is economic. The US needs to get it's economic house back in order. I doubt this will be easy however.

[DrB0b]

The Diplomatic vacuum the US has dug itself can be corrected by more enlightened political leadership.
The Military power of the US will not be challenged for some time yet, and the heir incumbent, China, has little interest in a military presence outside of it's own back yard- as long as it gets the resources and commodities it needs.

The biggest threat, imo, is economic. The US needs to get it's economic house back in order. I doubt this will be easy however.

Diplomats are pragmatists, once the USA has a leadership which once again values diplomacy I've got no doubt most relations will get back to normal.

The US military is indeed the most powerful in the world and would no doubt win in the unlikely event of a large scale theatre war. However all the aircraft carriers in the world can't stop a suicide bomber or an IED. You're right that China has currently got little interest in military adventurism but the resources we and they rely on, water in particular, are disappearing fast - things could get quite bad quite quickly in that area.

[Butterfly]

The US military is indeed the most powerful in the world

is it really ? it would seem that everything they engage into just blow up in their face, not really a power if you can't control your strength,

It's like letting a 14yr old with an automatic weapon, it's dangerous, but not effective in an operative theater,

MAO said it perfectly, America is a paper tiger, a paper tiger with Iron teeth,

The paper got wet with 911 and Iraq, so not much left

[DrB0b]

The US military is indeed the most powerful in the world

is it really ? it would seem that everything they engage into just blow up in their face, not really a power if you can't control your strength,

It's like letting a 14yr old with an automatic weapon, it's dangerous, but not effective in an operative theater,

MAO said it perfectly, America is a paper tiger, a paper tiger with Iron teeth,

The paper got wet with 911 and Iraq, so not much left

I should have been clearer. I meant in terms of weaponry and ability to project power, not in terms of tactics or overall effectiveness. They seem to be incapable of winning ground wars but do have enough weaponry to vitrify pretty much any opposing country if they were dumb enough to want to.

[barbaro]

Same same Rome, la.

Nope, not even remotely. Rome was a colonising empire that fell apart due to over-reliance on slaves and pressure from northern tribes. There are few if any similarities to the decline of Rome and the decline of the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong, DrB0b,

but I believe the Roman Empire declined over a period of 300 years. In today's world, and the domestic and international economic conditions the US has created for itself, and is facing from others, may cause a faster decline.

All empire originate, grow, peak, and decline, throughout history.

So, I agree that the USA and Roman empire are not in similar circumstances.

[good2bhappy]

Same same Rome, la.

Nope, not even remotely. Rome was a colonising empire that fell apart due to over-reliance on slaves and pressure from northern tribes. There are few if any similarities to the decline of Rome and the decline of the US.

According to Gibbons it was the rise of Christianity

[good2bhappy]

The US has the equivalent military might of 50% of the planet!

[sabang]

^ H'mmm, not sure about that- but it has around 55% of global defence expenditure.

[DrB0b]

Same same Rome, la.

Nope, not even remotely. Rome was a colonising empire that fell apart due to over-reliance on slaves and pressure from northern tribes. There are few if any similarities to the decline of Rome and the decline of the US.

According to Gibbons it was the rise of Christianity

A dead white male? have you learned nothing from the 1980's

[Accidental Ajarn]

The US is currently on the downside of an economic cycle, but it is way too early to start to see a decline from an economic standpoint.

Second, all this talk of “the world” against the USA is an exaggeration. There has been an extreme upsurge in anti-Americanism in Europe, but Europe ain’t the world. Most reports show people in China and most of Asia have pretty positive views of the USA.

Again, this feeling in Europe is more likely part of a natural cycle, and may not be a long-term trend. European anti-Americanism can be better explained by looking at what has been happening in Europe rather than America’s policies.

The US has its share of problems and its share of strengths. The US is still the world’s leader in science, economic and military power. However, its relative position to the rest of the world has been shrinking for a long-time. At the end of World War II, the US produced almost 50% of the world’s GDP, today that number is closer to 20%. But because the rest of the world is growing economically does it make the US weaker?

America bashers have been on the lookout for signs of America’s decline for over 200 years. I suspect they will keep seeing the signs of decline for hundreds of years in the future.

America’s future strength relies primarily on whether the American voters vote to continues the principles that have made it so strong (much immigration and free market economics) or if we follow the path of protectionism and welfare state-ism we can expect to lose ground.

2 or 3 years of economic slowdown is hardly the sign of the end of America as a superpower, but it does indicate that our current path (Huge government deficits and a growing public sector) is not the path we should continue.

[sabang]

European anti-Americanism can be better explained by looking at what has been happening in Europe rather than America’s policies.

I thought it was a very good post too Tex- I do not agree with the above comment however. I think the recent rise in Euro anti-Americanism can be squarely put at the foot of the Bush administration, specifically it's foreign policy.

Thats my opinion, but what other factors internal to Europe could you attribute it to?

[Butterfly]

Accidental Ajarn, quite agree also except that part below, a bit too much of the "victimization" syndrome

America bashers have been on the lookout for signs of America’s decline for over 200 years. I suspect they will keep seeing the signs of decline for hundreds of years in the future.

[Texpat]

^^ Bush. Interesting you bring him up ... again.

Here's my take on Bush. When he's gone, little will change. Attitudes will not swing back to neutral. European hatred of many things American will not disappear. The influence of the US in Europe reached its the threshhold of many citizens -- and they're pushing back. Fair enough. But when McCain or Obama take over, all the factors that contribute to this infringement will still exist. And America isn't going away. Attitudes will change little.

I get the impression from reading TD posts and talking to Europeans that they want the problem to be with Bush. Or maybe it's a nicer way of saying they're fed up with America -- but it's easier to blame one individual. The reality, however, doesn't disappear on January 20.

America doesn't subscribe to many policies or ideas that Europeans hold as gospel. Why should it? It sees the world through very different lenses than Europe does. Aside from its influential European lineage, that's being weakened every generation, why would the US have anything more in common with Germany or Spain than with, say, Japan or Korea?

When I was studying at uni in Japan in the 80s, all the talk was of how the US will begin looking toward the West instead of toward Europe in the coming decades. The idea of a European neighborhood might sound cozy to some, but the US values its independence as much as its alliances. It simply doesn't have to seek assurances and approval and buy-ins with the frequency and necessity as most other nations -- many resent that and wish it wasn't so.

But for the forseeable future, there's not another nation on the planet that can match the US as a superpower. The reality is that countries around the planet are getting smaller and weaker, not larger and more powerful. My opinion is that China will make great strides in the near future but will not likely eclipse the US as a major power in my lifetime.