Recently I met a retired British diplomat who claimed with some pride that he was the man who had invented the phrase, the management of decline, to describe the central task of British foreign policy after 1945. I got criticised, he said, but I think it was an accurate description of our task and I think we did it pretty well.
No modern American diplomat let alone politician could ever risk making a similar statement. That is a shame. If America were able openly to acknowledge that its global power is in decline, it would be much easier to have a rational debate about what to do about it. Denial is not a strategy.
President Barack Obama has said that his goal is to ensure that America remains number one. Even so, he has been excoriated by his opponents for declinism. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist, has accused the president of embracing American weakness: Decline is not a condition, he declared. Decline is a choice. The stern rejection of declinism is not confined to the rabid right. Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor and doyen of US foreign policy analysts, regards talk of American decline as an intellectual fad comparable to earlier paranoia about the US being overtaken by Japan. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, has just published a book that is subtitled, What went wrong with America and how it can come back.
What is not permissible, in mainstream debate, is to suggest that there may be no coming back and that the decline of American power is neither a fad nor a choice but a fact.
Admittedly, Americas relative decline is likely to be much less abrupt than the falling-off experienced by Britain after 1945. The US is still the worlds largest economy and is easily its pre-eminent military and diplomatic power. However, the moment at which China becomes the worlds largest economy is coming into view the end of the decade seems a likely passing point. Of course, it is true that China has its own grave political and economic problems. Yet the fact that there are roughly four times as many Chinese as Americans means that even allowing for a sharp slowdown in Chinese growth at some point, China will become number one.
Even after the US has ceded its economic dominance, Americas military, diplomatic, cultural and technological prowess will ensure that the US remains the worlds dominant political power for a while. But although economic and political power are not the same thing, they are surely closely related. As China and other powers rise economically, they will inevitably constrain Americas ability to get its way in the world.
That is why America needs to have a rational debate about what relative decline means and why the British experience, although very different, may still hold some valuable lessons.
What the UK discovered after 1945 is that a decline in national power is perfectly compatible with an improvement in living standards for ordinary people, and with the maintenance of national security. Decline need not mean the end of peace and prosperity. But it does mean making choices and forging alliances. In an era of massive budget deficits, and rising Chinese power, the US will have to think harder about its priorities. Last week, Hillary Clinton insisted that America will remain a major power in Asia with all the military expenditure that this implies. Very well. But what does that mean for spending at home? Few politicians are prepared to have that discussion. Instead, particularly among Republicans, they fall back on feel-good slogans about American greatness.
Those who refuse to entertain any discussion of decline actually risk accelerating the process. A realistic acknowledgement that Americas position in the world is under threat should be a spur to determined action on everything from educational reform to the budget deficit. The endless politicking in Washington reflects a certain complacency a belief that Americas position as number one is so impregnable that it can afford self-indulgent episodes such as the summers near-debt default.
The failure to have a proper discussion of relative decline also risks leaving American public opinion unprepared for a new era. As a result, the public reaction to setbacks at home and abroad is less likely to be calm and determined and more likely to be angry and irrational feeding what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the paranoid style in American politics.
For the fact is that management of decline is as much to do with psychology, as to do with politics and economics. In 1945, the British task was made much easier by the afterglow of victory in the second world war. Britains adjustment was also helped by the fact that the new global hegemon was the US a country tied to Britain by language, blood and shared political ideas. It will be tougher for America to cede power to China although the transition will also be much less stark than the one faced by Britain.
These days the British have learnt almost to revel in failure. They buy volumes with titles like the Book of Heroic Failures in large numbers. It is quite common for the supporters of a losing English soccer team to chant, Were **** and we know we are. This is not a habit I can see catching on in the US. When it comes to managing decline, self-abasement is optional.
If things worked out the I'd like to see, I'd like to see the United States go back to the political isolationism of the 19th century; however, this is probably not possible.
From the "macro" aspect, one can pretty must extrapolate from current events the future of the U.S.A.; but, what no one can see are the "micro" aspects of this progression.
Milkman
This message has been edited by American_Patriot on Oct 20, 2011 6:55 PM
America is a dying power, when I say that I dont mean it as an insult but what is simply a fact.
Americans became a power post WW2, means as late as 1945 onwards. Prior to them the British were the big power in the planet and to an extent the French and other European countries.
Like I keep saying all empires ancient and modern- have an expiry date. No matter how powerful you become you have to fall one day, this is the law of nature. The British power started declining after WW2 when their influence on the world stage was dwarfed by both USA and USSR.
Unfortunately in this day and age of modern economy, industrial development, globalization, information revolution, liberal ideas, national consciousness etc etc etc the iron grip that old colonial powers like France and UK had is simply not possible. You push too hard you get rebellion, you go too lenient and the other powers overtake you.
USA was a power and had its glory under the sun, but even they know that Asia is again rising. US will be challenged by China and in the course of years/ decades by countries like south korea, japan and even India. Of course, Russia with its recent jackpot in mineral resources will always be there.
The EU which were earlier staunch allies of US now have their own independent policies which may or may not run contrary to US beliefs. In fact France, Germany etc have growing trade and diplomatic and even military contacts with Russia who would have thought these possible 15-20 years ago?
I like America as a country though I have never been there. I have read about there culture, history etc and I respect them for who they are. But like the British did they need to acknowledge the truth and bow out with grace and dignity. Both France and England are no longer superpowers but they still are major world players and strong countries. The US should try and make the transition from superpower to regular power as smooth as possible.
=================================================================
Quotations by global leaders on phuckistan
British PM David Cameron: There will be lots of questions about what support system bin Laden had in Pakistan, and we need those questions answered
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan: Certainly his location there outside of the capital raises questions. We are talking to the Pakistanis about this. It's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time
Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many, said US senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein
German chancellor Angela Merkel: The al-Qaida leader's death has exposed some gaps in antiterrorism campaign
French foreign minister Alain Juppe: I find it a little difficult to imagine that the presence of someone like bin Laden ... in a relatively small town could go completely unnoticed. Pakistans position lacks clarity in our view
"USA was a power and had its glory under the sun, but even they know that Asia is again rising. US will be challenged by China and in the course of years/ decades by countries like south korea, japan and even India. Of course, Russia with its recent jackpot in mineral resources will always be there."
I agree mostly with what you are saying, although I would add the following...
Britain's dominance of the world order was already in decline by 1918...WWII was simply the final shattering of the illusion
Japan, Russia and South Korea simply do not have the population to challenge the likes of the USA in terms of political and economic importance. Population drives the maximum size an economy can reach.
Economic blocks, like the EU, are already superseding the nation state in terms of economic importance...economic ties drive social integration, therefore these economic blocks will become far more important as time goes on
The toughest challenge facing the USA will be that it will have to learn to compromise, something it has never been traditionally good at.
"All your lives a cosmic joke, fill your days with piss and smoke The wolf waits at your door"
Motorhead, March or Die
In 1800s and early 1900s, UK (the pre eminent superpower of the time) and US (the emerging power) relationship had their own twists and turns. The US for the most part of 1800s was relatively aloof from the European affairs. I said 'relative' because even in its 'aloof phase', the US did played a less recognized but important role in bring the Russo-Japanese war to an end.But overall the US accepted UK's dominant position and did not do anything which pose a direct threat to UK and received massive economic benefits from the superpower of that time.For many decades, US essentially relied on UK's navy to keep the sea lanes open for international business.
From the UK's side, majority of their threats came from east of the British isles from continental europe so they was not that cognizant initially about the rise of the behemoth to their west. It would be an interesting to speculate what would have happened had UK did not seen any threats coming from the east in the form of france and germany.Most probably, it would have devoted its energies in protecting its pre eminent position from the emerging power to its west.US is the primary benificiary of UK's rivalry with France and Germany since it was the crucial "swing state" of that era. France/Germany essentially created a buffer for the US to grow by diverting the UK's concentration away from US.
Now, keep that US-UK-France/Germany anology in mind and look at US (the pre eminant power today), China (the fore most emerging power) and India potentially trailing some time in the future at a third place (as per Goldman sachs and Price water coopers predictions). The US, unlike the UK in the past do not have any significant challenges to its leadership coming from its own region and hence is free to concentrate on challenges coming from elsewhere and is also not distracted from any real threats (it faces terrorist threat from Muslim countries but terrorism itself wont defeat or slow down US overall power) and unlike the UK, it is very much cognizant of the fact that new powers like China are rising and hence developing strategies to cope with them.
Hence US will remain the pre eminant power for much longer time than UK had been.
China had the buffer space to grow from 70s to 90s when US concentrated its energies on Soviet union.That buffer space is gone now for china and the concentration of everyone including US is on it.
On the other hand, being the 'swing state' of the coming decades, the buffer space for India is opening up and it should lie down and concentrate on improving its economy and internal stability.As long as China's and America's attention is on each other and away from India, India has the buffer space to grow. That space will close the moment the Chinese or the Americans take India seriously and develop strategies to cope with its 'rise'. Ironically, it is China which acts as a buffer for India to grow vis a vis US and US will act as a buffer for India to grow vis a vis China.
I agree mostly with what you are saying, although I would add the following...
Britain's dominance of the world order was already in decline by 1918...WWII was simply the final shattering of the illusion
In a sense yes, the second world war was the proverbial final nail in the coffin. But I would like to elaborate on a few points here. Like I said England was a colonial power and though its power was on a rapid decline they still had their colonies in the 30s and 40s. The WW2 saw the emergence of new power blocs like USA and USSR.
The British had a saying that the sun never sets in the British Empire but the Suez Crisis, where US acted as the peace broker, drove home the bitter truth that the sun had finally set on the British empire.
If WW2 had not happened than the British would have lingered on till say 1960 or so.
Economic blocks, like the EU, are already superseding the nation state in terms of economic importance...economic ties drive social integration, therefore these economic blocks will become far more important as time goes on
You yourself have answered your question.
Population maters, yes. EU is a novel idea but they are not the only bloc. In Asia such blocks are dime a dozen. True they lack the unity of policy and identity the EU has but in the next decade things may (or may not) change.
Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan were already mentioned as the Tiger economies. With growing economic boom Asia or more precisely South East Asia will be a formidable economic bloc. Like EU theycan have their own union, in fact ASEAN Summit, Shanghai Meet etc are fine examples of such blocs already in play.
The toughest challenge facing the USA will be that it will have to learn to compromise, something it has never been traditionally good at.
Exactly my point.
Lets come to the topic of BPOs, a growing english speaking population and avilability of cheap labour meant outsourcing was a lucrative option for US companies. On the flip side it meant that Indians were eating into US labour market.
The subtle message is that as development reaches growing economies like India and China, the threat to US economic and thus political hegemony will only increase over the years.
The US can take all measures they like but they are already at their peak and India and China are just getting started. The best way for US would be take a leaf out of England and bow down with grace and dignity, though that would be extremely offensive to American egos.
=================================================================
Quotations by global leaders on phuckistan
British PM David Cameron: There will be lots of questions about what support system bin Laden had in Pakistan, and we need those questions answered
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan: Certainly his location there outside of the capital raises questions. We are talking to the Pakistanis about this. It's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time
Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many, said US senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein
German chancellor Angela Merkel: The al-Qaida leader's death has exposed some gaps in antiterrorism campaign
French foreign minister Alain Juppe: I find it a little difficult to imagine that the presence of someone like bin Laden ... in a relatively small town could go completely unnoticed. Pakistans position lacks clarity in our view
As long as China's and America's attention is on each other and away from India, India has the buffer space to grow.
India doesnt have any buffer space. India is already in the radar of US think tanks when it comes to matters on econmic growth and market potential.
As for china, the only thing missing is an open declaration of war from Beijing on India. From arming phuckistan, to financing India's enemies, to making intrusions in Indian border, to building military bases in a chain around India the chinese have done everything to derail India's growth trajectory.
The chinese have all their attention on India, dont make any mistake on that. They claim Indian territory as their own and have open diplomatic hostility against us.
But the chinese are showing their cards too early and threatening other countries like Vietnam, Taiwan and even Singapore, Japan and Malaysia not to mention US interests in Pacific.
If not India then these SEA countries with US backing will be taking on China.
Interesting to see how the US-China tug of war over influence in the pacific shapes up in the coming years.
=================================================================
Quotations by global leaders on phuckistan
British PM David Cameron: There will be lots of questions about what support system bin Laden had in Pakistan, and we need those questions answered
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan: Certainly his location there outside of the capital raises questions. We are talking to the Pakistanis about this. It's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time
Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many, said US senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein
German chancellor Angela Merkel: The al-Qaida leader's death has exposed some gaps in antiterrorism campaign
French foreign minister Alain Juppe: I find it a little difficult to imagine that the presence of someone like bin Laden ... in a relatively small town could go completely unnoticed. Pakistans position lacks clarity in our view
it just showed in them channels that china is claiming arunachal pradesh, sikkim and issuing staple visas, it also showed in the comedy channels how china is building gwadar port, supplying military hardware to phuckistan and also sending troops to kashmir, it also showed chinese naval bases in coco islands, burma and similar plans for navy bases in sri lanka.
either you are a pathological liar or you are a silly dumb phuck, which one is you?
=================================================================
Quotations by global leaders on phuckistan
British PM David Cameron: There will be lots of questions about what support system bin Laden had in Pakistan, and we need those questions answered
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan: Certainly his location there outside of the capital raises questions. We are talking to the Pakistanis about this. It's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time
Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many, said US senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein
German chancellor Angela Merkel: The al-Qaida leader's death has exposed some gaps in antiterrorism campaign
French foreign minister Alain Juppe: I find it a little difficult to imagine that the presence of someone like bin Laden ... in a relatively small town could go completely unnoticed. Pakistans position lacks clarity in our view
yeah, you are both a liar and an ignorant fool as i suspected.
Geez man, why do you think china is sleeping with phuckistan, supplying nukes and stuff? Wait a minute, you know nothing about chinese military activity around Indian borders.
Damn!!!!
=================================================================
Quotations by global leaders on phuckistan
British PM David Cameron: There will be lots of questions about what support system bin Laden had in Pakistan, and we need those questions answered
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan: Certainly his location there outside of the capital raises questions. We are talking to the Pakistanis about this. It's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time
Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many, said US senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein
German chancellor Angela Merkel: The al-Qaida leader's death has exposed some gaps in antiterrorism campaign
French foreign minister Alain Juppe: I find it a little difficult to imagine that the presence of someone like bin Laden ... in a relatively small town could go completely unnoticed. Pakistans position lacks clarity in our view
>>yeah, you are both a liar and an ignorant fool as i suspected.
//
loool. in psychology it's called: Projection.
look it up in wikipedia.
eg. a man cheats hence he suspected his wife is doing the same thing,
and one day he Accused his wife of cheating out of thin air!
yeah like u lied about nehru giving up unsc perm seat for china loool,
and ur ignorance about world trades, saying if usa stops importing from
china it will collapse,, yet when i showed u that the figure is only 20%,
u refused to accept and went on denial and went on all sorts of tangent.
oh eyah.
actually 1 billion Indians are living without food and shelter.
@delta: is china arming phuckistan with nukes and missiles and building military bass around India or not?
a simple yes/ no answer would suffice.
=================================================================
Quotations by global leaders on phuckistan
British PM David Cameron: There will be lots of questions about what support system bin Laden had in Pakistan, and we need those questions answered
White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan: Certainly his location there outside of the capital raises questions. We are talking to the Pakistanis about this. It's inconceivable that bin Laden did not have a support system in the country that allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time
Our government is in fiscal distress. To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many, said US senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein
German chancellor Angela Merkel: The al-Qaida leader's death has exposed some gaps in antiterrorism campaign
French foreign minister Alain Juppe: I find it a little difficult to imagine that the presence of someone like bin Laden ... in a relatively small town could go completely unnoticed. Pakistans position lacks clarity in our view
![[Definitive Lapse of Reason]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/Commons/Partners/dlorlogo2.png)
![[Click here to Join WAFF!]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/Commons/Titles/hpev2.21.png "JOIN WAFF NOW!!!")
![[linked image]](http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p109/coalde/steelershelm.png)
![[linked image]](http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p109/coalde/steelershelmrev.png)
![[linked image]](http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/4771/indiaflagemblem.gif)
![[linked image]](http://i438.photobucket.com/albums/qq103/silverstone_album/tanya3.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/3139/91f20110622145635292963.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y166/dy10221982/unscpm.jpg)
[/IMG]