130
Having examined the composition of the American power, both in terms of its soft and hard currencies, an investigation of the debate around the United States decline will follow.
131
the United States dominance in all major components of power and by implication the US wielded enormous influence across the globe.
The immediate period after September 11 2001 terrorist attacks in America highlighted the huge disparity between the status of the United States and the other great powers. Krauthammer (2003) argued that the disparity manifested in three significant ways. Firstly, it ignited the display of the United States military capacity as the United States toppled the Taliban regime in a couple of weeks in Afghanistan. The author further argued that even though the world has always known America for its military prowess, the September 11 2001 attacks and its aftermath war on terrorism, showed the globe the degree of American military capacity. Secondly, the event showed American resilience. The symbols of its economic and military capabilities as the largest in both spheres were attacked. The entire nation trembled following this incident, aviation ceased to operate and Congress was recessed. However, in a matter of days, the economy and the congress came back to life and the executive arm mobilised the nation towards a war on terrorism. Thirdly, the event provided a platform for the United States to garner the support of other great powers and middle powers in the international system. States that had hitherto been skeptical in their relations with America put their weight behind Washington. Countries like Pakistan, India and Russia offered enormous support to the United States which ranged from diplomatic support to offering of bases and re-direction of foreign policy towards the United States.
It is, however, worthy to note that 9/11 provided an ideological cover for the United States to unleash what had always been on its agenda which is the maintenance of American hegemony in all strategic areas of the world. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had always been seen as a threat to the United States dominance in that region and it was clearly a part of the American agenda to topple the regime even prior to September 11, 2001. This explains why, for instance, there was a debate by the Bush administration over the first country to invade between Iraq and Afghanistan after the horrific incident of 9/11 (Chomsky & Achcar, 2007, p. 73). However, the post 9/11 American strategy turned out to be a miscalculation and policy failure as it became evident that
“America is not as feared or as loved as it was” (Jentleson, 2007). The wars on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq not only ignited anti-Americanism in the Islamic world but in the globe, in general, particularly owing to the illegal war in Iraq and the torture and human right violations of
132
terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison. This runs contrary to the American creed and gave the impression that America adopts double standards and promotes its values only when its economic and strategic interests are not in jeopardy.
To summarise, the American war on terrorism turned out to have a massive impact on its image across the globe, and consequently diminished its soft power efficacy. But as rightly pointed out by Nye (2004) and Kurlantzick (2005) there had been gradual erosion of American soft power before September 11 and its attendant war on terrorism. The war on terrorism expedited the loss of soft power. The end of the cold war and the emergence of Washington as the sole super power convinced US policy makers that there was no viable rival to the United States’ dominance of the globe. This resulted in a huge reduction in the investment on soft power. For instance, the budget of the United States Information agency had a ten percent cut between 1989 and 1999 and the USIA resources channeled to Indonesia, a country with the largest population of Muslims, was significantly reduced. The cultural and academic exchange programmes were also hugely affected decreasing from 45,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 2001 (Nye, 2004, p. 17). The funding of these programmes plummeted every year from 1993 to 2002 (Kurlantzick, 2005). After 9/11 anti-Americanism became more apparent and also metamorphosed into new dimensions.
Accordingly Kurlantzick (2005) asserted that:
The past four years have transformed this resentment into outright anger. The Iraq War in particular has sharply reduced global acceptance of the legitimacy of America’s role in the world – and a number of US actions have aggravated this decline. For example, poorly conceived security measures launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have made it much harder for many foreigners to obtain American student, work, and tourist visas, or to apply for political asylum in the United States. These changes have prompted questions about the idea of America as a land of opportunity and refuge. (p. 421)
Aside from the image decline of the United States that primarily arose as a result of the war on terrorism, an American triggered financial and economic crisis started in 2007. Layne (2012) argued that the crisis was largely responsible for the contemporary debate on American decline and the disappearance of the United States’ unipolar status. He further argues that the crisis revealed two fundamental issues: firstly, the shift of economic power houses of the world from West to East and secondly, the weakness of United States economic liberalism.
Layne further argues that although the United States still enjoys dominance in the military sphere, within the next two decades, it will also be challenged here by the rising powers. He
133
predicted that the United States will no longer be able to finance its military commitments and by extension its hegemonic posture in the international system as a result of the continuing economic crisis which will provide an opportunity for the rising powers to catch up.
While America is trying to maintain its hegemony but it is doing it in a wrong way. It is being criticised heavily because of the fact that it does not want to abide by the rules and it wants other countries to abide by such international legal rules. The saga of spying on its allies such as Germany is being frowned upon and questioned by its own erstwhile allies. I don’t even know whether its policies on combating terrorism are working anymore. It has huge economic problems and the fact that it owes so much debt to China is another factor. Also America infringes on human rights in its activities in Guantanamo Bay and does not want to adhere to the rules of ICC. All these create a negative impression about the United States among other countries. US is still a very powerful state. It wants to be seen as a benevolent hegemon but it is becoming a despised hegemon and that has consequence.38
The United States decline is largely the result of two significant events in the 21st century: firstly, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre and its consequent war on terrorism and the United States’ unilateral posture; and secondly, the 2007 financial and economic crisis which started in the United States and subsequently had global impacts. Needless to say the United States hegemony has rested largely on its economic and military prowess. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted the inadequacy of American military strength and the financial crisis has shown the weakness in the United States economy (Xinbo, 2010). Between 1999 and 2001, the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stood at 28 percent of the global GDP. It has however been in relative decline since 2002 vis-avis the rise of the emerging markets most especially China and India. As the crisis revealed, the United States relied on China for its survival during the crisis and the emerging markets were adjusted and survived the crisis more efficiently than the United States (Xinbo, 2010). The American budget deficit has skyrocketed to record levels and in 2011 and the United States witnessed unprecedented downgrading of its government debt triple-A rating by Standard and Poor (Starrs, 2013). The United States percentage of global imports has declined and its share of world’s GDP also plummetted given the growth rates of the emerging markets which double or triple the United States’ growth rate (Haass, 2008).
It is common knowledge among experts of economies that if a country constantly enjoys a high growth rate, this will have a positive impact on its GDP. On the other hand, a never-ending low growth rate negatively affects a country’s GDP. However, it is important that the debate on
38 An interview with South African scholar
134
American decline is not exaggerated. According to a Nigerian scholar, the American economy has shown resilience over the last four decades. The recent shutdown of the US federal government, the prospect of a default on the country’s debt, and the political dysfunction that made the United States seem to lack direction on Syria and forced the cancellation of President Obama’s trip to Asia, of American difficulties at home and abroad, and the rapid rise of new powers such as Brazil, India and China, seem to be an indication of the end of American preeminence and the need to prepare for a global order no longer dominated by the United States. However, predicting the decline of the United States is a risky business. In the 1970s and late 1980s, expectations of waning power were followed by periods of geopolitical resurgence.
There is good reason to believe that the cycle is recurring today. Despite a gridlock in Washington, America is recovering from the financial crisis and combining enduring strengths with new sources of influence. In addition, emerging and contending powers are running into difficulties of their own. Taken together, these developments are ushering in a new era of American strategic advantage.39
We have seen erroneous predictions of American decline before. In the 1970s, the combination of high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, the Vietnam War, political and military challenges from China and the Soviet Union, and the economic rise of Japan led to eerily similar forecasts. Pessimists then, as today, underestimated the longevity of American power. (Norrlof, 2010, p.3)
Similarly Nye (2012, p. 215) claimed that Americans have always estimated their power inappropriately: “After Sputnik, the Soviets were 10 feet tall; in the 1980s, it was the Japanese.
Now it is the Chinese”. The United States’ failure in its war in Afghanistan and Iraq should not be totally considered as a sign of total decline. In the immediate period after the cold war, the United States’ dominance was unrivalled, both in terms of economic resources and military capability – it was the sole state with a nuclear arsenal. Yet it was unable to prevent China from embracing communism, completely lost the Vietnam War and could not overthrow the Castro regime after several attempts to dislodge the former President of Cuba (Nye, 2012). Against this background, Nye (2012) distinguished between relative decline and absolute decline. Absolute decline refers to complete decay of a great power and relative decline refers to the relative rise of other great powers in comparison to the dominant power. In this light, the Roman empire
39 An interview with Nigerian scholar 1
135
experienced absolute decline, while Britain witnessed relative decline in relation to the rise of other great powers like the United States and Germany.
Thus the debate on American decline must be contextualised against the relative rise of other great powers like China, India and Brazil and should not be seen as simply the decay or collapse of the United States. Similarly Serfaty (2011) asserted that the emergence of the United States as the dominant power in the international system in the 20th century was not a function of the rise of America but a result of the collapse of the other great powers. This position appears to be valid in the sense that while the other great powers were fighting in the world wars with all their resources, the United States joined both wars towards the end and largely benefitted from the wars. The effect was that Europe and the great powers suffered devastation from the war while America essentially profited. In the 21st century, the loss of American preeminence may not necessarily be the result of American decline but rather due to the rise of the rest (Serfaty, 2011).
To sum up, Jentleson (2007) was of the opinion that the challenges to America’s global dominance have manifested in three ways. Firstly, in the economic realm where the challenge emanates from the Asian powers, notably China and India. In the cultural realms, the competition comes from Islam. While anti-Americanism is evident across the globe, the deepest expression of this attitude manifests in the Islamic world and the United States has been struggling to exercise its soft power in this region. In the security realm, the challenge emanates from nuclear proliferation. especially from terrorist organisations like al-Qaeda.
Although the United States has eroded its powers as a result of its unilateralism and economic mismanagement, it still enjoys a measure of dominance in the global arena. Its power is declining somewhat, but much less than many people believe. Indeed, its relative power position could remain roughly where it is today for many years.40