It's the Balance of Power, Stupid!

Washington Needs to Adjust to the New Global Reality

Historians agree that Britain's rise as a pre-eminent global power came as a response to changing circumstances and not as a part of a grand master plan; Britain, it has been said, stumbled into an empire. But the converse was also true: the dismantling of the British Empire wasn't a linear process involving a manageable and steady decline in its military and economic power; instead it had a haphazard muddling through quality. British leaders weren't aware that Rule Britannia was already history even after the fat lady had sung that it was over.

Indeed, Prime Minister Winston Churchill who had led his nation into an impressive military victory in World War II, confident that the defeat of Nazi Germany would help save the British Empire, failed to recognize that the enormous military and economic costs of the war had actually created the conditions for the liquidation of the empire, starting with the withdrawal from Palestine and the "loss" of India after the war.

But while the sun was setting on the British Empire, members of its political elite continued to live under the illusion that their nation had remained a paramount global power. If you traveled in a time machine to London 1949 and attended a debate in the British Parliament, browsed through the pages of the Times or listened to a BBC news program you would come across numerous references to Britain as a Great or "superpower,"; a term that was applied to the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II. And if you encountered diplomats in His and (after 1953) Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and bankers in the City of London, you wouldn't be surprised if they continued to behave as though the world was still their domain to rule.

It was the humiliating abandonment of the Anglo-French invasion of Suez in collusion with Israel in 1956 that proved to be the turning point in Britain's retreat from empire and ensured that London would never again attempt global military action without first securing the acquiescence of Washington. The time lag between the effective end of the British Empire and the recognition that indeed it was all over, proved to be quite lengthy.

The concept of "recognition lag" is familiar to economists. It refers to the time lag between when an actual economic shock, such as a sudden boom or bust, occurs and when it is recognized by economists, central bankers and the government, like when officials signal a recession in the economy several months after it has actually begun.

And just like changes in economic conditions, changes in the global status and power of nations, are not always immediately apparent, especially to the politicians and the generals who yield that power and to the journalists who cover them. That the elites continue to share such misconceptions about their nation's ability to exert global influence has less to do with the power of inertia and more with the vested interests they have in maintaining the status-quo that could be threatened by challenges at home and abroad.

While no one is comparing the global political, economic and military status of the United States to that of Great Britain after World War II, there is an eerie resemblance between the resistance of officials, lawmakers and pundits in London 1949 and that of their contemporary counterparts in Washington 2009 to adjust their nation's foreign policies to the changing global balance of power. That may explain why so many members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment seem to be so depressed in face of the Obama Administration's current difficulties in dictating global developments, ranging from the military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear aspirations and the deadlocked Israel/Palestine peace process to the stalled negotiations on global trade liberalization (the Doha Round), the efforts to reach an international agreement on climate change and the global financial imbalances between the U.S. and China. Where is U.S. leadership on this or that global policy issue? Why can't the Obama Administration "do something" to resolve this or that international crisis?

As expected, neoconservative critics depict President Barack Obama as an idealistic peacenik, if not a 1930's-style appeaser. They blame the perceived erosion in U.S.' ability to call the shots around the world on Obama's alleged failure to stand-up to Russia (by abandoning the missile shield program in Eastern Europe), to Iran (by trying to engage it), to Venezuela (by shaking hands with Hugo Chavez) and to Al Qaeda (by overturning torture practices), and on his supposed betrayal of allies (Israel, Georgia, Poland, the Czech Republic). Not to mention Obama's refusal to launch new crusades against Islamofascism, to promote the Freedom Agenda in the Greater Middle East and to annoy the commies in Beijing on a regular basis.

That's rich coming from the guys at the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). After all, it was the mess that the Bush administration, guided by these neoconservatives, had made in the Greater Middle East -- where US military power was overstretched to the maximum, and where American policies helped strengthen Iran and its surrogates in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine -- coupled with the dramatic loss of American financial resources, that has produced a long-term transformation in the balance of power in the Middle East and worldwide, and has significantly eroded Washington's geo-strategic and geo-economic clout. In fact, the increasing wariness of the American public regarding new US military interventions, as a consequence of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the expanding U.S. deficits would have made it difficult even for a President John McCain to promote an aggressive U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere.

That Obama finds it so difficult to press Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai to change their policies may have to do with the fact that unlike many of the elites in Washington, the above and other foreign leaders have succeeded in deconstructing the current geo-strategic reality and recognized that the global balance of power has been shifting and that U.S. ability to exert its diplomatic and military leverage over them has been constrained. Let's hope that these changes will also be recognized in Washington as soon as possible, and that unlike the leaders of the British Empire, those in charge of Pax Americana will have enough time to readjust to the new global reality.

 

 

Follow Leon T. Hadar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leonhadar

Comments

[hynchus]

As a banker with London contacts in the 50's I can agree that Sterling was regarded as unassailable at that time. The decline of Britain was due in great part however to the fact that when Britain stood alone against the Axis in WWII, and was on it's knees with Churchill having to make a clandestine trip in their principal warship to USA to beg for help fron the mongrel USA who had stood aside while the greatest criminals of the millenia ran rampant, The USA agreed to help only on the condition that Britain abdicate all it's colonies. Disgusting greed by the US, and look what happened most of those colonies have still not recovered, and suffered greivously for 60 years as a result.

[hynchus]

As a banker with London contacts in the 50's I can agree that Sterling was regarded as unassailable at that time. The decline of Britain was due in great part however to the fact that when Britain stood alone against the Axis in WWII, and was on it's knees with Churchill having to make a clandestine trip in their principal warship to USA to beg for help fron the mongrel USA who had stood aside while the greatest criminals of the millenia ran rampant, The USA agreed to help only on the condition that Britain abdicate all it's colonies. Disgusting greed by the US, and look what happened - most of those colonies have still not recovered, and suffered greivously for 60 years as a result.

[Leon T. Hadar - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree that the process of the British Empire's decline had started earlier in the 20th century. The Boer War was probably an important turning point. And btw, I believe that the U.S. still has the most powerful military and the largest economy. But what Washington should aspire for now is not global monopoly but a global oligopoly -- working together with the other major big power, especially EU, China, India and Russia. A Concert of Great Powers a la Congress of Vienna.

[CalmCalm]

Continued:

People who once enjoyed the American Dream and to have lost it, will be hugely angry.

Those who never enjoyed the "Dream" because of being too poor will do what they have been trained to do and that is "blame it on themselves".

Many sections of the Patriot Act were introduced because the futurists within government realized the collapse of the economy was upon us.

These articles would add to knowledge of what led to the British decline as an empire.

An Empire Like No Other
http://olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/BritishEmpire.htm

Oil and the origins of the
‘War to make the world safe for Democracy’
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/Oil_and_the_Origins_of_World_W/oil_and_the_origins_of_world_w.HTM

[CalmCalm]

America has been bankrupt since the end of the Korean war.

Any thought of American prosperity since then was because of propaganda, ficticious paper money, fraudulent derivatives and expansion of the money supply with 6 cents collateral for every dolllar borrowed.

Any country could claim success if allowed to borrow at least 60 Trillion and produce 800 Trillion in ficticious paper.

Ronald Ray-Gun was the first American president to begin dealing with the collapse fo the American Empire.

Free Trade agreements allowed the U.S. to pollute every bank vault on the planet with worthless paper in payment for goods and services.

Free Trade was not about manufacturing goods, but of allowing America unrestricted access to banking and financial services in any country signing such trade agreements.

American's are spending 7% more than waht they earn or produce each year.

Clinton was the first American president who began to introduce a "Police State" apparatus because the Ruling Class knew that the economic collapse was soon arriving.

Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Overseas, dated May 1998, and Presidential Decision Directive 39.

The anti-terror laws are all focused towards controlling "Angry Americans" as they see the country collapse and when every promise given to the Working Class over the past 50 years is broken.

It is "Take Away Time" in America.

Continued:

[Thelonius]

What really irks me is to witness Obama being humiliated by Israeli PM Netanyahu who refuses to abide by international law and previous commitments and cease illegal settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem. This despite the fact that American taxpayers provide Israel with "no strings attached" aid in the amount of over $10 million dollars each and every day. For the sake of the Middle East, the world, and the US, Obama has got to take the issue to the American people in a nationwide address and put Netanyahu in his place. I expect a president to be presidential, not to worry about how his acts will affect his chances of re-election. In the end, he will gain the support and unprecedented respect of Americans and the world.

[chercheur]

Leon, you like everyone else attributes the British "loss" of India to "the enormous military and economic costs" of World War II. I'm not claiming that economic conditions had absolutely nothing to do with it, but don't forget the impact that "bleeding-heart liberalism" had. The only way Britain could have kept India would have been for the Viceroy to hang Nehru and Gandhi and inter the entire Congress Party in concentration camps.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying the British SHOULD have done that, only that it was the only way they could have kept the Imperial Raj.

And as far as economic collapse, that really traced back to the First World War. The British couldn't even keep control of Ireland by 1922 but had to come up with the face-saver of the Free State, which any realistic observer could have seen would eventually lead to a republic, at least for the 26 counties.

The economic consequences to Britain of the Second World War weren't really much more than the coup de grace.

[Khirad]

Good post.

[BartRoberts]

Leon, excellent essay, especially your comments on the harm the neo-cons and the Bush administration have wrought on America's economic and diplomatic strength.

Signed, a member of the GOP until 2006.

[Leon T. Hadar - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the great comments. Historical analogies are not perfect. But the British imperial experience, especially in the Great Middle East, is instructive. Rising economic and military costs do force change policies sooner or later. Usually those changes takes place in response to a major global crisis, like the 1956 Suez War. I think that Obama is doing the right thing by encouraging other global power to share in the responsibility of dealing with Iran, Korea, etc. In any case, please take a look at comments I had made during a conference in Washington on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

[BluestateGuyInTX]

Could you explain why Iran needs to be "dealt with"? I don't think that's a given. It is only the US, Israel and parts of Western Europe that feel this urgent need to control Iran and it is not clear why this appears so necessary. Why are its nuclear aspirations more dangerous (if they indeed exist--which is not proven) than the proven nuclear weapons already in the hands of Israel, India, and Pakistan? This need to control and remake the rest of the world in our Western image seems more dangerous to me than anything Iran has done. I don't approve of the Mullahcracy myself but I do know this: it feeds off Western meddling and thus Western interference only hurts the kids in Tehran with the green bandannas trying to return to democracy. Why do our foreign policy elites insist on hurting the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people by stupidly feeding the power of the Mullahcracy? This is really wrong.

[clarryr]

The decline of America as the dominate power in the world started with the Reagan era and the exporting of jobs off-shore. Thinking that it was economic power or military power that gave us that dominance led Reagan to demonize the US Government as the problem. We reduced the influence of the government internally and the world naturally followed. It was not the economic and military power that gave us the dominance, it was the manufacturing, education, and innovation that made us the world leaders. When you off-shore your engineering and manufacturing, your bound to fail.

[cydRN]

Another Reagan era policy, that of underfunding education, is a prime contributor to the decline. Our literacy rates are dropping concurrent with funding declines. This is a rich source of GOP fetishism comparable to the Madrassa schools and the Taliban. Children and young adults are taught no critical thinking skills and believe that he shouts loudest is right. We are becoming a nation of super educated vs indoctrinated but not well educated.

[PIN News]

I can give you two reasons why the U.S. is loosing clout. No surprise, this has happened since January 20, 2009. mishandling of the Economy and indecision with regard to the Afghanistan War

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/why-the-world-is-telling-obamo-no-its-simple-really/

http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/unlike-bush-president-obama-is-not-an-effective-commander-in-chief/

[mamababa]

More like PINhead News.

[andycan]

Along with the Cheney compact, the AEI and Weekly Standard ideology and intriguing have caused untold damage in America and on the world scene. Not only have thousands of lives been lost, but America has been weakened.

[northstar11]

looking back 100 years from now the WTC tower bombing will be seen as the turning point. ----the event that started the US on the road to financial weakness -and military impotence

[cybereye]

Yes, Yes, Yes! I agree and am surprised why this has not been discussed more widely in the MSM.

[Mogamboguru]

It's easy as pie:

When China, Japan and the oil-countries on the arabian peninsula will stop buying US-Treasury-bonds, the gig will be up.

As soon as America cannot pay it's international obligations, bribes, subsidies, transportation fees and oil-bills any more, their troops will instantly be shown the door by their host- turning hostile countries.

No cash, no empire. It's just that simple.

The USA is on that downward slope already - see the speech of the WMF-CEO this week.

They only reluctantly refuse to take note of it.

But the bookkeepers of the world will teach America the hard way, what it means, to be broke.

[RogerHWerner]

The big difference, a huge difference, between the US in 2009 and UK in 1956 is military power and the ability to project it. When UK ceded its global roll the US was able to step in and fill it. Today, no one can fill the roll of the US. China is less a nation that an agglomeration of people who would rather not be part of china. A third of that nation wants independence. China can never play the roll the US plays and neither can Russia. I'm not sure what lies in the near term for the US or the world second rate world power status isn't likely to happen any time soon. What US leaders continue to ignore is the reality of the modern global community. We've invested trillions in weapons we can't use for fear of world outcry. We have spent the past 15 years leaping into a global economy without the slightest clue what that might mean to US status. Oh, I should say that those who really make the decisions knew precisely what was happening they just didn't bother to tell the legislature of voters. The playing field has leveled economically and that was the plan. And now we have this gigantic all-powerful military that we can't use. It;s easy to make decisions with hindsight...still, it seems to me that this country has been ill served by its leaders for the past 40 years.

[btemple]

It is true that there is no country right now, that we could consider a truly global power, capable of stepping in for the United on the international scene. Instead we have a lot more regional powerhouses looking to step in and enforce order in a more localized way. Countries that come to mind are South Africa or Brazil or India. Still there are some similarities between Britain's situation following World War I and subsequently World War II and the situation the United States now faces. Currently we are dealing with insurgencies in territories we are trying to impose order on which is similar to what the British faced in Palestine and Malaysia. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for us to maintain our international military presence due to the financial strains of long and protracted wars. We are also faced with the loss of much of our manufacturing capacity to other rising powers much like Britain was faced with a decaying industrial base that was continuously losing ground to the United States.

[BluestateGuyInTX]

Who says we need one hegemon to step in and play world ruler? This assumption of yours is as flawed as the group think of our policy elites.