It's the end of the world as we know it
Apr 10th 2012, 14:04 by W.W. | IOWA CITY
WRITING in the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead is the latest in a long line of cheerleaders for American global leadership to maintain that, no matter how it might look, America is not in decline. "The United States isn't in decline", Mr Mead writes, "but it is in the midst of a major rebalancing. The alliances and coalitions America built in the Cold War no longer suffice for the tasks ahead." It turns out that what Mr Mead means by "major rebalancing" is that America is in decline. Actually, Mr Mead says that the "trilateral system" is in decline. According to Mr Mead, from the 1970s to the early oughts, an alliance of America, Western Europe, and Japan dominated global affairs. Japanese and European stagnation mean that the "trilateral era" is now over:
[T]he trilateral partnership can no longer serve as the only or perhaps even the chief set of relationships through which the U.S. can foster a liberal world system. Turkey, increasingly turning away from Europe, is on the road to becoming a more effective force in the Middle East than is the EU. China and India are competing to replace the Europeans as the most important non-U.S. economic actor in Africa. In Latin America, Europe's place as the second most important economic and political partner (after the U.S.) is also increasingly taken by China.
The U.S. will still be a leading player, but in a septagonal, not a trilateral, world. In addition to Europe and Japan, China, India, Brazil and Turkey are now on Washington's speed dial. (Russia isn't sure whether it wants to join or sulk; negotiations continue.)
Mr Mead doesn't mention American stagnation as a contributing cause of the end of the trilateral era, but
come on! When influence is the currency in global affairs, to decline is simply to lose relative influence. If America was once
the dominant player in a three-way alliance, and has now become
a leading player in a septagonal world, then America is in decline.
Mr Mead's silver lining is that America can achieve its main aims in foreign affairs without dominance because rising powers have ample independent reason to pursue those aims.
[E]ven in the emerging world order, the U.S. is likely to have much more success in advancing its global agenda than many think. Washington is hardly unique in wanting a liberal world system of open trade, freedom of the seas, enforceable rules of contract and protection for foreign investment.
Terrific! Nevertheless, Mr Mead can't quite square up to the reality of America's weakening influence. "Washington will remain the chairman of a larger board", he says, hopefully. Tell me: why is it so damn hard to admit that this straightforwardly implies that America's relative power has slipped and is slipping—that its place at the head of the table has become less secure? Perhaps my problem is that I cannot quite grasp what's so bad about being one power among many, as long as the interests of the many are broadly compatible with the interests of America, which they seem to be. Is it a matter of ego? National self-esteem? Will our influence wane even further if our most prominent foreign-policy wonks are seen to have lost the will to posture? I don't get it. Sure, it's the end of world affairs as we know it. Why not feel fine?