Whoever gets to occupy the Palace by the Pasig in 2010, he/she will have to deal with the former colonial power, a changed United States. It’s official, the biggest news organizations in the world have reported and analyzed the intelligence community’s report that the US would continue to lose influence as a superpower in the decade to come. Here is what CNN says. The US will have to compete for influence with soon to be superpowers, India and China and in the Americas, possibly Brazil. Iran will be nuclear armed and will continue to make headlines.India recently demonstrated that it can have blue water punch. Its navy sunk a pirate ship in the western Indian Ocean.
What is happening with the USA is what happened to earlier superpowers Portugal, Spain, Holland and Britain. The costs of maintaining an empire doomed Portugal and Spain. The Dutch,French and English took their place but also found maintaining an empire draining. Thus in the last half century the superpowers were the US and the USSR. The USSR supported by Marxist ideology couldn’t cope with the requisite technological race that only capitalism can sustain. The USSR imploded!
We are left only with the USA. But what has happening to America is history repeating itself. Britain drained by an exhausting world war in 1945 had to give up its empire. It became since then a second rate power. Today America is exhausted by George W Bush’s War against Terror but unlike Britain in 1945, there isn’t any victory at all. In 1945 Hitler and Goebbles were ashes, Mussolini hanged, Goering and leading Nazi’s in Nuremberg jail and Hirohito was pulled out of Heaven and made mortal. (Only Hirohito wasn’t tried as a war criminal)
Seven years after 9/11 Bin Laden hasn’t been captured, forced to wear a burkha and hanged. We have these Al Qaeda terrorists sputtering videos on the Internet. What victory was Bush talking about?
At the end of Bush’s term, the US economy is on the brink of collapse. Detroit is sinking and with it Windsor Canada across the river. Who would ever think that Detroit carmakers would go bankrupt? Henry Ford must be spinning like centrifuge in his grave.
Another historical parallel with Britain. Obama’s inauguration in January could be likened to Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1952. The coronation gave Britain a self-esteem boost and tempered the humiliation of the 1956 Suez crisis which confirmed Britain’s second rate status.
How will Americans respond to their changed status? Unlike other ex-superpowers, America has an ace. Its adherence to its liberties should help their country deal with this. This is one of Barack Obama’s biggest challenges.
The Philippines will have to deal with an Asia where India and China are the powers and not the United States despite our historical links with America.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Whether or not the USA is a dimming power, the Philippines has to deal with China, Japan and India. Heck… the Philippines has to deal with Vietnam and Thailand and Cambodia (reason : rice-supply). And Saudi Arabia and Syria and the Vatican, too.
i doubt it. depending on your definition of “superpower”, i don’t think the u.s. will ever become “ex-superpower” unless its home-based enemies that has been pining for its destruction succeed. the u.s. can only be destroyed from within when its avowed haters get to dominate all the seats of power.
the u.s. is a self-contained nation that hardly needs outside resources to flourish. with its natural wealth, second-to-none technology and strong, self-disciplined and patriotic population, a national defense system that can not easily be surpassed, among other things, no country on earth can ever match its status or threaten its position in the global hierarchy of nations.
the current u.s. government must be able to govern properly. continuing dependence on foreign oil must be stopped. local fuel sources must be developed, and american technology must be geared towards developing alternative energy sources. exports of manufacturing industry and jobs must be curtailed.
the government must be able to maintain strong family values that breed an educated, productive, freedom-loving, benevolent and patriotic citizens.
i think it is for the best interest of the whole world, not merely of the americans, that the u.s. remains the most dominant superpower on earth.
The U.S. last great gift to the world–Internet–has only given back to the U.S. a few billion dollars in stock price. Future contributions like space occupation and alternative fuel will be even less lucrative.
The damage the Bush wars and the housing meltdown have done to the world puts America at a very interesting place. Does it seek to rebuild its former influence in the world or does it focus on domestic issues like health care. They can do both, of course, but there’s no money. Let’s just hope in the Obama presidency we won’t see any bold moves from Iran and Russia. The Chinese economy has proven to be too dependent on the U.S. Less problem there I believe.
Bencard
The US will still be a superpower among other superpowers, albeit a second rate one. True superpowers command respect not only due to their military might but for the values their nations are built upon. But in my opinion what did erode much of the world’s respect for America is when Bush had Guanatanamo made into a prison. Despite what Bush apologists and lawyers have said, it is obvious that America has thrown out of the window the values that made it great.
The only way that the USA can be destroyed is if its citizens throw away their “inalienable rights” that are guaranteed by law.
BrianB
Obama has been preempted by the Medvedev-Putin duocracy. Russia has already made a bold move stationing missles within the EU orbit in its enclave of Kaliningrad.
Bush’s damage is so great. I can’t still digest the news that Detroit is bankrupt!
your view is one gaining currency, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?ex=1359176400&en=1af8c9c386cc212d&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
commentary here also: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002751.php
this is an old vision of a multipolar world, even one envisioned by the americans themselves at the height of their ww2 optimism:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/286-the-new-world-moral-map/
but it was and is one where to a certain but diminished extent, the rp’s still considered a us satrapy, although since the end of the clinton years southeast asia has been ceded to china and australia (the chinese symbolically purchased several thos. jefferson centers in the region and established confucious centers there).
re: qe2, the point you highlight marking the uk’s transformation from great to second rate power was not her coronation, it was the suez crisis. and even british decline from the independence of india took half a century to wind down, with the handover of hong kong.
what isn’t being considered is that if the us economy is staggering, decoupling has also been disproven and the indian and chinese economies are staggering too, and they have less social solidarity compared to say, the usa. by this i mean actually having to marshal your forces to maintain control for the state, a scenario the pla or indian armed forces have to consider and which is remote in the american scheme of things.
if you will use a british analogy the british empire at the end of world war i might be a better parallel, not the british empire at the close of world war 2.
instead of the bipolar world the unipolar postwar scheme of things seems almost a return to the dynamics of the 19th century, and see also
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87203/jerry-z-muller/us-and-them.html
what matters more is if obama can be a latter-day fdr; if he can, theymight get their second wind. if not then perhaps you qre right. there is the possibility, too, that those hoping militant islam will serve to unite and galvanize the west -a dream shared by the pope and neocons and even liberal secularists to a certain extent- will not happen.
blackshama, by your definition of “true super power”, was the former u.s.s.r. not one because it didn’t command the respect of the “free world” or that their “values” were not the right kind?
bush has done a lot for u.s.’ national security since 9/11. the nation is relatively safe because of his actions. guantanamo was a necessary evil that america’s enemies should not be heard to complain about. america cannot fight them with its hands tied behind its back. the enemy wants to destroy america and kill its citizens, men, women and children young and old. wtf are you griping about turning gitmo into a prison. it is a prison, and it is for the barbaric, conscience-less, cowards who have no sense of fairness, justice or mercy themselves.
as to economic downturn, it is cyclical and this is not the first time it happened. the great depression cannot even compare to it. even the more recent 1987 recession was much worst. there’s no reason for america not to recover from this unless obama drops the ball. we just hope he does a good job for our sake and for the rest of the world (yes, including the philippines).
BrianB
” wtf are you griping about turning gitmo into a prison. it is a prison, and it is for the barbaric, conscience-less, cowards who have no sense of fairness, justice or mercy themselves.”
WTF are you making these statements? The Nazis did the same thing. Do you think America and Nazi Germany can be considered morally equivalent?
I suggest you read once more the Constitution of the United States and its amendments.
kanina ko pa nakita pero kala ko me magkokorect.
Blackshama your 1:11 pm was not addressed to bencard,instead you typed Brian B.
I learned a lot of world history, in this post and comment thread.
as to the British empire.
I watched boxing (Hatton vs. Malignaggi)and the british fans shouted or sang:”Rule Brittania,Rule the Waves…”
Some of them feel they are still an empire, well it is supposed to be a patriotic song,but they no longer rule the waves.If they feel patriotic,by imagining that they still rule, then who am I to question them?
Not to ruin the nicely written blog;
please allow me to point out the ff:
Hitler and the Goebells family did die one day part in 1945 by commiting suicide thus from ashes to ashes,but it was said(by wikipedia) that the Russians cremated them in 1970.So they they did turn to ashes afterall.
Mussolini was hanged post mortem.
Again according to wikipedia. Mussolini and his fellow fascists were summarily executed by the Communist Italians or Italian Communists.
They hung Mussolini upsidedown to show to the people that he is indeed dead.
wala lang,I was just so interested that i did further reading (last night).
blackshama, your one-sided moralism/legalism, as applied to america, is appalling. the “rules” of conflict should have drastically changed since 9/11/01, don’t you think? need i tell you about how the enemy prosecutes its “war” against the u.s.?
I actually like the idea of the US being a secondary world power, or maybe even a non-superpower.
But because of the prevailing realities, we may have to drop the discussion and cat-with-the-canary wishing until certain realities are dispensed with.
Like until Europe, for example, takes responsibility for its own defense and removes the US from NATO, which at this point still accounts for the major force in it. Or the “emerging” superpowers in Asia maybe take responsibility for keeping the peace between South and North Korea, or heaven forbids, keeping mainland China from gulping down Taiwan. So first remove the 30k US troops from SoKor and let sail away the US Fleet that is patrolling the seas in those areas. The US Armed Forces site religiously lists down where US troops are deployed around the globe. And widely dispersed they truly are.
Or for some small measures, what about the overarching UN being asked to finance itself from other sources and reduce US contributions to its survival budget? Let the “emerging” superpowers contribute more.
Let’s put the walk to the talk.
Bencard
Do you think the US constitution and declaration of independence is relativist and its founding fathers would have considered the moral relativism your argument is based on?
Can “inalienable rights” be interpreted in a relativist manner?
If you say “yes” then that is really appalling!
blackshama, morality and human rights are two principles recognized in the u.s. constitution and the declaration of independence. but these are, in my view, aspirational ideals that the american people collectively endeavor to achieve. they are not meant to provide aid and comfort to the ruthless enemy who seeks to wipe off the nation from the face of the earth through the most sinister and heinous means. who are we to hold america to it’s own ideals, and not be mindful of its supreme right to preserve itself?