ERPZ Stop Mugging. Start Learning.

US – The Frugal Superpower?

By Wei Seng

Time to be frugal about America's foreign affairs?

In a commentary published by the Project Syndicate, Michael Mandelbaum, an American foreign policy professor at Johns Hopkins University, writes about the "belt-tightening" days ahead for America the superpower as a result of its exploding national debt and budget deficit. The superpower will now have less resources to pour into its hegemonic initiatives, some that "for all its shortcomings (have) underpinned political stability around the world". He states the three rules that the "frugal superpower" should adopt in this new world as it strives to continue to exert foreign policy influence.

Rule 1: No more nation building
The writer highlights attempts by the US, post-Cold War, to intervene in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq to "establish working governments". Ultimately these attempts "proved protracted and frustrating" and a lesson learnt here is that proper governance "cannot be built quickly..., imported, ready-made from abroad". Given the current situation of the American economy it would be prohibitively expensive to continue on or to start new national-building missions.

Rule 2: Concentrate on the elephants
This is what I find a bit contentious. The writer proclaims that Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq are "distractions from what should be the focus of US foreign policy", i.e. chasing after rabbits and not looking out for the elephant on the field. The writer then compares Europe, East Asia and the Middle East to the elephants that should be watched out for, by maintaining "balance of power" through America's presence (economic or military). For example, he claims that the US will assure Germany about worries of an aggressive Russia while Germany will be restrained by the US. I agree that many of the American army's incursions have missed the big picture, but it seems weird then to say that regions that these countries belong to are elephants because instability or disturbing situations in individual countries can have an effect on the region as a whole and the Americans might see a prerogative for them to act out of consideration for the big picture. Just as Iraq and Afghanistan are said to be rabbits, instability or chaos in these countries will badly affect stability and confidence in the Middle East and South Asia. Like, can you exclude looking at Iraq if you're looking at the Middle East? Not quite, even though there's also Iran. Indeed America needs to focus on regions as a whole but perhaps the role it should play is more of assurance from mere presence rather than active intervention.

Rule 3: Raise the petrol tax
This third rule is what I agree with the most, and what Thomas Friedman advocates in his book Hot, Flat & Crowded - time to raise the petrol tax to curb oil consumption and to stop funding "undesirable" (from the American point of view at least) oil-exporting countries like Iran and Venezuela. In a review that I will soon do on Hot, Flat & Crowded, I will highlight further how intervention by the Americans in the politics of the Middle East are made complicated by the addiction of the country to oil. The article by Mandelbaum summarises nicely how the whole concept should work.

In essence, all the rules are quite hard to obey, but if American can stick to it as much as possible it would continue to be a superpower of relevance, otherwise it will accelerate into decline as the new superpower China emerges from the shadows.