Managing the Unintended Empire

Managing the Unintended Empire

On the night that Barack Obama was elected President of the most recent U.S. Presidential election, I tried to contact phone one of my staff in Brussels. She couldn’t speak on her cell phone she said. She and reached her was at a bar filled within Brussels where the Belgians were celebrating the election of a new PresidentBarack Obama’s victory. I later found that odd and discovered that such “Obama” parties had taken place were underway around the world.

LaterWithin the year, five Norwegian politicians awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, to the . This caused consternation of many who thought that he asObama had not yet obviously done anything to earn itthe prize. According to tThe Committee’s chair, however,explained the reasoning. Obama had already, in the short time he had been President, had dramaticallalready changed the world’s perception of the United States dramatically, and this change deservedalone merited the Nobel Prize. Bush had been hated because he was seen as an imperialist bully. Obama was being celebrated because he signaled that he would not be an imperialist bully. This was not e Norwegians were not expressing a peculiarly Norwegian point of view, but a view held throughout . This was a very European view, and indeed a view common in much of the world.

Even though they were not U.S. citizens, people everywhere felt that the outcome of the American election

The logic is less important than the fact. The election of Obama caused a great many people to rejoice. Bush had been hated by many, and Obama promised a different America. The political judgment is not important. What is important is that the rest of the world regarded the election of a new President of such enormous importance. From their point of view, who the American President was mattered a greatlydeal to them, and many . They were personally and emotionally moved by Obama’shisrise to powerelection. In this they were

Here is the paradox. Bush was hated because he was seen as an imperialist bully. Obama was praised because he wouldn’t be an imperialist bully. But in seeing the American President as of such vital importance to them, those who celebrated Obama’s election were, unintentionally, acknowledging the enormous unique power of the American Presidency itselft.over their lives. Who the American President was mattered profoundly to them. That meant that while they didn’t want someone they regarded as a bully, implicitly they knew that whoever was elected had tremendous sway over their own lives. In other words, he might not be an imperialist in the sense of seeking international power, but he had tremendous international power anyway. It was as if tThey were celebrating a new emperor—, more acceptable, less aggressive, more conciliatory perhaps—, but they still someone whose knew this: the President of the United States—his views and character would have tremendous sway over their own lives. —matter to them enormously.

Obama was no emperor of course and the United States is no empire. So we have to ask why so much of the world was riveted by the American presidential election of 2008? Why is no other election in the world treated with such excitement? Why should anyone but an American care who the American President was?

But how is it that an elected official in one country, especially an official constrained by an often uncooperative Congress on one side and an independent Supreme Court on the other, could have such an impact on the citizens of other nations, and frequently more practical power over the lives of foreigners than he does over the lives of Americans?

The answer to that question takes us to an unpleasant factplace that Obama and all subsequent Presidents will have to deal with. We need to consider the American Presidency with some care to understand this.

The American President, Machiavelli and Empire

Article Two, Section Two of the Constitution states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” This is the only power that the President is given that he does not share with Congress. Treaties, appointments, the budget and the actual Declaration of War require Congressional approval but the command of the military is the President’s alone.

But Theover the years, the Constitutional limitations that reined in earlier have limited Presidents have fallen by the wayside as well. Treaties require the approval of the Senate, but today,treaties are rare, and foreign policy is conducted with agreements and understandings—many arrived at secretly. Thus —so that Treaties are rare and the conduct of foreign policy is now, too,effectively in the hands of the President. In addition, while the Constitution says that Congress shall declare war, Presidents have conducted wars from the beginning without such consent, both against the Indian nations, and against other countries. Similarly, while Congress has declared war only five times, Presidents have sent U.S. forces into conflicts around the world dozens of times. while dozens of conflicts were fought. The reality of the American regime is that the American President’s power on the world stage ver foreign policy is beyond checks and balances, limited only by his skill in excercising that power. extraordinary. When President Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, or when President Reagan decided to invade Grenada, Congress could stop them. Presidents impose sanctions on nations and shape economic relations throughout the world, meaning that an American President can devastate a country that displeases him, or reward a country that he favors.

This wouldn’t matter to the world very much if the United States weren’t so powerful. But given that power, and given the power of the President over foreign policy, the American President frequently has more practical power over the lives of foreigners than he does over the lives of Americans. When President Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, or when President Reagan decided to invade Grenada, he did so. To the extent Congress could stop them, it didn’t. Presidents impose sanctions on nations and shape economic relations throughout the world. The Presidents power is not absolute by any means, but it is enormous-far beyond the letter of the law. That means that an American President can bring war to a country that displeases him, or reward a country that he favors. He can transform lives in these countries, for better or worse.

It is in the exercise of foreign policy that the American President most resembles the Prince in Machiavelli’s Prince—and most behaves like the Prince. That , which isn’t that surprising. The Founders were students of modern political philosophy, and its founder was Machiavelli was that discipline’s founder. Machiavelli wrote that:The crisis at any moment may be “the economy, stupid,” but as per Machiavelli’s teaching, the President’s main concern is foreign policy and the exercise of power:

A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he adopt anything as his art but war, its institutions and its discipline; because that is the only art befitting one who commands. This discipline is of such efficacy that not only does it maintain those who were born princes but it enables men of private station on many occasions to rise to that position. On the other hand, it is evident that when princes have given more thought to delicate refinements than to military concerns, they have lost their state. The most important reason why you lose it is by neglecting[i] this art, while the way to acquire it is to be well versed in this art.

The Founders’ gave the President command of the military. Constitutional and political practice since the founding has expanded his power greatly. These all reflect Machiavelli’s teaching. It may be “about the economy, stupid,” but the President’s power is about foreign policy and the exercise of power.

In the first decade, the singular fact about international power continues to be American power. To understand the enormity of this power, it is necessary to understand three facts. First, The United States is the only global military power in the world. The U.S. economy is more than three times the size of the next largest sovereign economy, and[ii] at least 25 percent of the world’s wealth is produced each year in the United States. It is more than three times the size of the next largest sovereign economy.[iii] Second, the United States is the only global military power in the world. B Third, because of these realities, two facts the United States has political power that is disproportionate to its population, size or, for that matter, to what many might consider just or prudent.

The United States spent the 20th Century inching toward this preeminencereaching this point, but it did not fully attain it until 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. It was only at that point that the United States had both tremendous economic power and global military power. In the first half of the 20th century it was an important but marginal power. In the second half it was locked in a not particularly Cold War with the Soviet Union. It has been only 20 years since it became a global power. The most important question for the next decade is , will be how the American President will handles this enormous power.

There is a great temptation in the United States—and a great wish in much of the rest of the world—that the United States intrude less, far less, on the world. It was once possible. When Washington made his farewell address to the nation, urging his countrymen to avoid warning about not becoming involved in entangling alliances, it could be donethe U.S. could afford to stand apart. But today, no matter how much the rest of the world might wish us to be less intrusive, or how tempting the propect might seem to some observers, iIt is simply impossible for a nation whose economy produces one out of every four dollars to stay out of the way.

The American economy is like a whirlpool, . It drawings everything into its vortexorbit. When it is doing well it is the engine of the world; w. When it is doing badly the entire system suffers. Small shifts, imperceptible eddies in the whirlpool, can devastate small countries, or enrich them. There is no single economy that effects the world as deeply, or ties it together as effectively. Every new innovation in the American economy becomes global as does every dysfunction. It touches everything.

Small shifts, imperceptible eddies in the American whirlpool, can devastate small countries, or enrich them, which accounts for When we talk about the growing interdependence of the world, it is shaped by this whirlpool. Certainly there are bilateral economic relations, not including the United States and even multilateral ones, that do not include the United States, but there are none unthat isn’t aeffected by the the United States. That means that eEveryone watches and waits for what the United States will do.andEeveryone tries to shape American behavior, at least a little bit, in order to gain some advantage, or to avoid some disadvantage and gain some advantage.

Historically, this degree of iInterdependence breeds friction and even war. In the 19th and early 20th century, France and Germany went to war with each other three times in 80 years because they were so interdependent . Eeach feared that the other would do , something to hurt it so each tried to shape the others behavior. The result was that the two countries went to war with each other three times in 80 yearsconstant tension and conflict. The global interdependence that has been shaped by the power of the American economy is equally tense and abrasive, but contained by American military power.

France and Germany were of similar size and configuration. It was possible for one or the other to gain a temporary advantage. Those temporary advantages led to explosions, as one side—the Germans primarily—tried to rectify the frictions in their relationship by redefining it, through war.

No one can hope to use force to fundamentally redefine their relationship with do that with the United States— in any profound sense of redefinition. tThe American military is simply too powerful. To the contrary, it is the United States that tends to initiate conflict. But overturning the global economic system through use of force is simply impossible.

Over time, American power might degrade, b. But power of this magnitude does notn’t collapse quickly, except through war. German, Japanese, French or British power didn’t decline because of debt,, but because of wars that devastateding their economies. The great depression that swept the world in the 1920s and 1930s had its roots in World War I. The great prosperity of the American alliance after World War II had to do with the economic power that the United States built up—undamaged—during World War II.

Without war, realigning the international economic order will be is a process of generations, if it happens at all. China is said to be the coming power. Perhaps so. But the United States is 3.3 times larger than China. If the United States grows at 2.5 percent a year—its postwar average—then China must grow at 8.25 simply to keep the gap from widening. It is only growth above this level, permanently sustained—with American growth not increasing—that would allow China to close the gap, over a very long time.

The United States the largest investor in the world. In 2008, about 17% of all foreign investment came from the United States making the United States the largest investor in the world. China, by comparison, constituted less than 3 percent. [Add U.S. FDI percentage data and debt data] The United States may well be the largest borrower in the world, but that does not reduce its ability to affect the international system. Whether If it stops borrowing, increases borrowing, or decreases it, the American economy constantly shapes the global markets.

There are many countries that have impacts on other countries. The difference for the United States is the number of countries, the intensity of the impact, and the number of people in these countries affected by these economic processes and decisions. Think of it this way. The United States, for instance, has had a rising appetite for shrimp in recent years. As a result, fish farmers in the Mekong Delta have shifted to producing shrimp. When the American economy declined in 2008, luxury foods, like shrimp, were the first to be cut back, a. The burden that was borne by farmers in the Mekong Delta. Dell Computer built had a large facility in Ireland, but w. When labor costs rose there, Dell they shifted operatonsit to Poland, even at a time when Ireland was under several economic pressure. There are many countries that have impacts on other countries. The difference for the United States is the number of countries, the intensity of the impact and the number of people in these countries that these economic processes and decisions effect.

When we consider this, two things become obvious. First, the United States can’t possibly withdraw from the world because its economy is so vast it is intertwined with everything else. Second, this situation can’t change quickly if at all, because war that might overthrow this system is not an option. Certainly a fundamental shift can’t take place in a decade.

If the United States remains intertwined with the world, The United States’ disproportionate economic influenceit will continualstantly place some power at a n economic disadvantage. The purpose of the American military is to prevent that aggrieved nationpower, or coalition of nationpowers, from using military force to redefine the economic system. Abandoning military power is not an option. And given that the purpose is to prevent threats from the United States from materializing, tThe most efficient way to use this power is to constantly disrupt emerging threats before they can become even marginally threatening. It is for this reason that

Not incidentally, American troops are deployed around the world: