The major players composing the multipolar world today are America, China, Russia, the European Union, and India. China and India, in particular, have challenged the global dominance of the United States through what is known as soft power - which is "the ability to influence and shape the preferences of others" in a myriad of ways - and this definition was expanded by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in 2006 (Hiro, 237). In addition to soft power challenges to the United States, there are four main flash points (volatile circumstances) that the country could face in the future. These points all concern fundamental differences in the governance of the United States, China, and Russia. The "take it or leave it" attitude of America toward nearly all foreign cultures has greatly led to the decline of the global opinion of America.
Washington would be wise to realize that democracy as a political model, while largely successful in the States, may not be the most effective style of government for all countries in the world. With the rise of outwardly peaceful countries like China - who would rather not resort to military power in order to achieve results - soft power influence is a major player. America will face future flash points with both China and Russia as ideologies continue to clash in the coming years. The decline that America has experienced the past few decades could be alleviated if Washington would take a step back and examine the way foreign policy is conducted. In learning from past mistakes, the country will fare better in succeeding in the adversities of tomorrow.
American Foreign Policy - Why Doesn't it Work Everywhere?
Over 200 years after George Washington delivered his Farewell Address, American foreign policy is far removed from what our founding father would have preferred. In fact, during the presidency of Vladimir Putin in 2006, the prestigious Yuri-Levada Institute set out to gauge the attitudes of Russian citizens concerning their highest priorities. Much to the chagrin of the West, this "wide-scale survey showed that 35 percent [of Russian citizens] wanted to return to the Soviet system, 26 percent" favored the control of Putin, and a mere 16 percent fancied Western style democracy (Hiro, 220). Russians, in stark contrast to Americans, were more concerned with secure housing and safety from harm than they were with freedom of expression or association. This idea of collective success over individualistic success is also found largely in the Chinese culture and society. China, however, also realized that there are attractive traits of democracy and so set out to create a "democracy with Chinese characteristics" (Hiro, 228). Between 1990 and 1999, China made leaps and strides toward fighting human rights violations within their borders by granting three vital laws to citizens.
One year after the Tiananmen Square protest, China enacted the Administrative Litigation Act. This gave citizens the right to legal retaliation in the event that the government abused their power. Four years later, in 1994, China passed the State Indemnity Law which also gave citizens the extended power to sue for compensation against the government when their rights or property were infringed upon. The third law was passed in 1999 and allowed for the prosecution of prominent people such as the "state's administration, economic, and judicial agencies" as well as "the CPC's [Communist Party of China's] leadership organs" (Hiro, 231). The passing of these laws were monumental because they were China's first attempts at increasing the well being of their citizens as a whole. For many countries in the East and Asia, finding the middle ground between a free democracy and authoritarian rule is a top political priority, as most countries wish to exercise limited freedom while retaining a strict rule.
Soft Power Influence and Implications for the Future
When it comes to the most influential country in the world, the United States still ranks number 1, but that doesn't mean other countries aren't catching up. In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye penned the term "soft power" and described it as "the ability to influence and shape the preferences of others" through "a nation's culture, values, and achievements" (Hiro, 237). In 2006, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) extended this soft power definition to include 64 criteria including "defense capability, economic strength, scientific and technological capabilities, human development, the media, and arts and culture" (Hiro, 238). The hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing gave the People's Republic of China (PRC) their first prime opportunity to flex their soft power muscle - and that they certainly did. The opening ceremony lasted for four hours and was televised to an "estimated 4 billion [people], nearly two-thirds of the human race" and cost $100 million (Hiro, 239). This utilization of the media effectively portrayed China in a positive light and increased their level of global acceptance. China hasn't been the only country to promote soft power through the media, however, countries like Qatar and India have joined in as well.
Prior to 1996, the only international news sources available to the public were the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Cable News Network (CNN). This changed completely when the broadcasting company Al Jazeera was founded in Qatar in an effort to "offer a global perspective from an Arab and Muslim angle" and remains so today (Hiro, 244). In addition to Al Jazeera in Qatar, India has taken the limelight in popular feature films. Although Bollywood certainly isn't Hollywood, these films continue to gain international popularity largely due to the fact that Eastern countries relate more easily to these than Westernized films. Although soft power may not carry as much force and domination as hard power, the seeds of soft power are sewn over time. These are norms, customs, and notions that build gradually - such as the increased popular opinion of China over the declining opinion of the United States.
Flash Points - Is There a Troubling Future Ahead?
As America continues to conduct foreign policy, there will be four main points which may be the source of fighting or strife with other countries (particularly China and Russia). These four categories are "perceived threats to national security, gaining control of disputed territories, competition for vital resources such as oil and natural gas, and currency and trade" (Hiro, 251). Throughout the past decade, Washington has often cited threats to national security as a main reason for military involvement in matters. Possibly the best example of this threat rests in the relations between the Kremlin and the Pentagon. Vladimir Putin, understandably worried about America's possession of nuclear war heads and the strained Russia-America history, proposed the set up of an anti-missile defense system in Turkey or Azerbaijan, but George W. Bush declined the offer. Although Putin attempted once again to negotiate in 2008, Bush refused to compromise and when the next Russian president was elected in November he wasn't shy to say that if America attacked, Russia would point all their weapons at Poland. In addition to the matters with Russia which are likely to escalate in the future, relations with China are also expected to heat up over disputes regarding the country Taiwan.
Taiwan, a country which the PRC claim as their own, has become a hot spot of controversy in both the United States and China. The United States want to prevent China from extending into other countries and as a result supply Taiwan with ample resources to use against China should they be needed. Should the PRC enact an air force raid against Taiwan, the country is expected to perform relatively well until United States reinforcements can be dispatched to aid them. In addition to these disputes over territories, America's relations with the international community will drastically be strained under competition for the world's dwindling natural resources.
The fight to find the most oil and other natural resources will only escalate in the coming years as the world's populations strain reserves. What this means for America is that there will be a growing need to import land-intensive oil and natural resources from countries which it hasn't always been very cordial to. This may prove a difficult and daunting task for the White House if they are unable to find a way to compromise with those they ardently disagree with.
Conclusion
Former American Congressman Ron Paul once said that, "setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms," and his words are undeniably true in the case of America. Should the United States wish to conduct peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with the global community, the government must learn to compromise and make adjustments as all other countries have been forced to do since World War II for Washington. With the likelihood of soft power challenges from other major powers in the world, and future flash points, it is imperative for the country to rethink the conduction of foreign policy in the near future.
Sources
Hiro, Dilip. After Empire the Birth of a Multipolar World. New York: Nation Books, 2010.
Washington, George. United States. Yale Law School. "Washington's Farewell Address 1796". New Haven: Lilian Goldman Law Library.
No comments:
Post a Comment