Superpower
John Mauldin
May 20, 2015
Ian
Bremmer’s new book on the future of the US and geopolitics, Superpower, just hit the streets
yesterday, and it’s already creating quite a buzz. It draws on Bremmer’s
remarkable understanding of politics, America, and the world. I first ran into
Ian at a conference about four years ago, where he was the after-dinner keynote
speaker. It was one of those dinners where I had to go (I had spoken earlier),
and I confess I had no knowledge of Ian other than his official bio. A
professor of geopolitics. From New Yawk.
So this Texas boy settled in while Ian walked on stage … and in three seconds I realized that this was an uber-nerd. Total geek. Seriously, when Hollywood wants to type cast a brilliant super-nerd, they should use Ian as the model. He hit all my stereotype buttons, and I of all people should know better.
So this Texas boy settled in while Ian walked on stage … and in three seconds I realized that this was an uber-nerd. Total geek. Seriously, when Hollywood wants to type cast a brilliant super-nerd, they should use Ian as the model. He hit all my stereotype buttons, and I of all people should know better.
Now
I know, you’re saying it takes a nerd to know a nerd, and I do get that. But
within five minutes, this nebbish professor was blowing me away. I was totally
captivated. He took me on a trip through the geopolitical landscape as profound
as any I had ever been on. I knew that I had to have him at my own conference,
and he has been a featured speaker and crowd favorite there for the past three
years.
Ian
gave one of the most compelling presentations at our most recent Strategic
Investment Conference. No fancy Powerpoint, just one machine-gun idea after
another, strung together in what I now realize is his own carefully crafted
style.
As
I shared with you in Thoughts
from the Frontline last week, Ian’s summary of the geopolitical
situation and America’s role in managing it can be expressed in two words: it’s
bad.
The
US is not in decline, he asserts in today’s Outside
the Box, citing “the strength of the dollar, US equity markets,
employment levels and the economic rebound, the energy and food revolutions,
and generation after generation of technological innovation”; but America’s
foreign policy and international influence are most certainly in decline.
Nevertheless, no other country can even come close to claiming superpower
status, so the role the US chooses to play in the world remains of paramount
importance.
For
the past quarter-century, says Ian, our leaders have just been winging it:
From the fall of the Wall and Soviet collapse,
US presidents of both parties have defined America’s mission in terms of
tactics. US foreign policy has been reactive and improvisational for 25 years.
And we can no longer identify a Democratic or Republican approach to foreign
policy.
That’s
where we, the American public, come in. We will have a national election in a
year and a half, and our foreign policy needs to be front and center in the
national conversation until then. To help us think about how we want to be in
the world, in Superpower
Ian offers three dramatically different foreign policy alternatives, which he
outlines in today’s OTB. As I read Ian’s book, there was, I confess, an
attraction to each elemental strategy.
I
remember being at the Naval War College a few years ago, where Andrew Marshall of the Office of Net Assessment (the
premier Defense Department think tank) assigned one group to split up intro
three and adopt radically different views of what US strategy should be
vis-à-vis China. These were serious thinkers from a wide variety of fields, and
they spent over a week developing their arguments. Andy was kind enough to let
me sit in on the final presentations and discussion at the end of the week. I
found myself nodding as each presentation was rolled out, but at the conclusion
I noticed that what I had thought was the most illogical position at the
beginning (a nearly total military disengagement from Asia and a renewed focus
on our borders and defense) made a great deal of sense. It gave me a great deal
to think about.
That
is the same feeling I had when I read Ian’s book. Each strategy will have its
proponents, and all have their own logic; but that is why we need to have this
national discussion. Rather than responding to events tactically, we need to
have a national strategy. What is in the real interest of the world’s dominant
power? Most of us can agree that the last 20 years has seen a mishmash of US
actions that in hindsight we might want to change.
Which
path forward does Ian prefer? He’s not going to tell us until the final chapter
of the book, he says, but he makes as forceful a case as he can for each of the
three choices, and he believes that each is viable. He adds, “I hope this book
will help set the stage for a serious-minded, constructive debate among the
candidates in 2016.”
Now,
you can actually see this policy debate taking shape as the various candidates
(on both sides) lay out their views of the future role of the US in the world.
I
seriously urge you to get this book. Just like Ian’s speaking style, it is easy
and mesmerizing. It is the opposite of nerdy. There is a reason that the
company he founded, the Eurasia Group, is perhaps the largest geopolitical
strategy think tank in the world and that his rather pricey service is
subscribed to by Fortune 1000 companies and global funds. Ian is one of the
most insider-connected guys I know. He literally got up from a dinner one night
a few years ago with “the guys” in NYC, apologizing that he had to leave
because Japanese President Abe was in town and wanted to see him. I am going to
get together with him in a few weeks when I’m in NYC. I think I’ll ask who’s on
his speed dial.
Get
Superpower
and read it. Click on the link if you are an online guy, or get to your
bookstore. It will be there.
I
am on yet another plane, flying from Raleigh to Atlanta to attend a board
meeting for Galection Therapeutics (GALT) for the next day and a half before I
head back to Dallas. I guess it’s geopolitical week for me, as my old friends
George and Meredith Friedman will be over for dinner Friday night. George
delivered his own power speech at my conference. I look forward to being able
to get both George and Ian’s speeches up on the web for you as soon as possible.
I
have spent four fabulous nights at the Umstead Hotel just outside of Raleigh.
It’s one of the finest hotels I have been in anywhere. And even better was
being with a group of friends and getting to have long serious conversations
with Mark Yusko, Raoul Pal, and Kyle Bass and catching up with Dennis Gartman.
Long days but really good ones.
And
as I hit the send button – just so you’ll know that I don’t think being a nerd
is a problem – let’s remember the answer to the old question: “What do you call
a nerd after five years on the job?”
“Boss.”
And
now, let’s enjoy Ian’s intro to his book that he sent to his clients this week.
Your
proud of being a geek analyst,
John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box
Superpower
By Ian Bremmer
President Obama hosts a Gulf security summit,
and most Arab leaders decide not to attend. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
comes to Washington to address Congress on Iran over protests from the
president. Britain ignores pleas from the United States and becomes a founding
member of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a potential
competitor for the World Bank. The Obama administration gripes that the Brits
are pandering to the Chinese. Russia’s Putin, like Syria’s Assad, strides
across American redlines with little consequence. Beijing and Moscow announce
joint military exercises… in the Mediterranean. NATO ally Turkey turns to China
for new defense equipment. The Dutch go to Huawei for internet security.
These are not random events. What’s going on?
America is not
in decline. Look to the strength of the dollar, US equity markets, employment
levels and the economic rebound, the energy and food revolutions, and
generation after generation of technological innovation. But America’s foreign
policy and its international influence most certainly is in decline. Superpower or
not, too many countries now have the power and self-confidence to say no to US
plans.
Globalization and an Americanization of the
world once moved in lockstep. No longer. Globalization is accelerating; ideas,
information, people, money, goods, and services cross borders at an
unprecedented pace, but the Americanization of values, standards, political and
economic systems, and international architecture is eroding.
I take this as the starting point for my new
book (out tomorrow!). It’s called “Superpower: Three choices for America’s role
in the world.” For this week’s update, I’d like to outline my key arguments for
you.
Superpower
I called the book “Superpower” because, despite
all the challenges facing American foreign policy—geopolitical creative
destruction and the g-zero world—the United States remains the world’s
only superpower and will for the foreseeable future. That means that America is
the only country with the political, economic, and military muscle to persuade
governments in every region of the world to take actions they wouldn’t
otherwise take. That’s a working definition for the global projection of power.
Over the next decade, the absolute size of China’s economy will probably
surpass America’s, but militarily, technologically, diplomatically, and
culturally, China cannot compete with the Americans. No other country comes
close.
But most Americans don’t want their government
to project power as it has in past decades. A $3 trillion price tag for
ill-conceived wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn’t helped.
Revolutions in energy and food production ease both US dependence on imports
and Washington’s need to partner with potentially unstable countries in unstable
parts of the world. A hollowing out of the American middle class has helped
persuade a growing contingent of Americans that their country doesn’t benefit
from globalization. New tools of coercive diplomacy—cyber-surveillance and
attack, drones, and the weaponization of finance—relieve US dependence on
partnerships and alliances. US allies are losing leverage in their respective
regions, and their governments are preoccupied on domestic challenges. America
needs Europe less, most of Europe feels the same about America, and the
transatlantic relationship, the bedrock of the post-war order, is weaker than
at any time in decades.
And so America faces an identity crisis.
Americans—voters and leaders alike—know what they don’t want: they don’t want
America to play global policeman; they don’t want to try to rebuild the Middle
East; they don’t want to sacrifice troops and taxpayer dollars to make the
world safe for democracy. But what do
they want? What does America stand for? What’s all that superpower for? Americans
don’t know. US allies and enemies don’t either. This has become the world’s
biggest geopolitical question mark.
* * *
Enter the candidates. As the 2016 presidential
election takes shape, foreign policy has re-entered the national conversation.
The US economy is growing, sidelining a central political issue. Most Americans
are tired of partisan hand-to-hand combat over healthcare. President Obama’s
approval ratings are weakest on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton, the
prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination, is Obama’s former
secretary of state. For both these reasons, republicans see Obama foreign
policy as a promising political target. GOP candidates, from Jeb Bush to Marco
Rubio and Chris Christie to Rand Paul—have lined up for a turn at bat.
But the lack of a coherent US foreign policy
strategy didn’t begin with Barack Obama—though his second term struggles have
made the problem more painfully obvious. From the fall of the Wall and Soviet
collapse, US presidents of both parties have defined America’s mission in terms
of tactics. US foreign policy has been reactive and improvisational for 25
years. And we can no longer identify a Democratic or Republican approach to
foreign policy. There are now hawks, doves, and civil libertarians within both
parties. Those hoping to understand their own policy preferences by falling
back on party loyalty have some thinking to do.
In short, it’s high time to reconsider America’s
role in the world. In “superpower,” I offer three dramatically different alternatives.
And though I have a preference, which I argue for in the conclusion, I believe
each is a conceivable option. What’s not workable is continuing to blunder
forward reactively without a strategy. That’s the fourth option, and it’s by
far the worst.
It’s foolish to think that the world’s only
superpower has only one viable path forward. I’ve made as forceful a case as I
can for each of the three choices to challenge the reader to decide, and I hope
this book will help set the stage for a serious-minded, constructive debate
among the candidates in 2016.
Here are the three choices. Each gets its own
book chapter:
Indispensable America
This one will be the most familiar to readers.
We live in a profoundly interconnected world. No, America shouldn’t play the
global cop, but if America doesn’t lead, nobody else will either. International
wildfires will burn out of control. More Middle East states will fail, and
terrorism will metastasize. Russian revisionism will threaten Europe and
beyond. China will use its growing economic influence to expand its political
leverage, undermining structures and standards created by advanced industrial
democracies to strengthen individual liberty and free market capitalism.
These values, which have benefitted both
developed and developing nations, are increasingly under threat. The United
States must actively defend and promote those values. That means using
every available tool of American power to bolster alliances with capable and
like-minded partners. It means buttressing weakened international institutions.
It means that in our interconnected world, America must develop and maintain a
coherent and comprehensive global foreign policy strategy.
We can have no illusions that indispensable
America will deliver quick and easy wins, that enemies will cower before
American determination, or that longstanding allies will always follow
America’s lead. Washington can’t topple every tyrant. But that’s all the more
reason to take a stand. It’s not enough to undermine Syria’s Assad; America
must help empower Syria’s citizens to build a stable and prosperous country.
Answer Russian aggression and support Ukraine’s sovereignty to ensure that the
Kremlin has no illusions that it can move onto NATO allies. Stand by
traditional allies in the Middle East—Israel and the Gulf states—and don’t make
any deal with Iran that depends on the honesty and good will of its leaders.
Engage China, but contain its expansionist ambitions, including in the South China Sea. And do everything possible to empower China’s people to build irresistible momentum for political chang e inside their country.
Engage China, but contain its expansionist ambitions, including in the South China Sea. And do everything possible to empower China’s people to build irresistible momentum for political chang e inside their country.
If Americans learned nothing else from 9/11,
it’s that Washington can’t afford to ignore emerging threats in faraway places.
The world has become an increasingly dangerous place. There is important work
to be done, and no one, not even the sole superpower can do it alone. But a
volatile world needs leadership. For all its faults, who but America can lead?
Moneyball America
I take the idea of Moneyball America from
Michael Lewis’s groundbreaking book on Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane,
who revolutionized the way in which winning baseball franchises are built.
Without sentiment, he swept away old rules and conventional wisdom to focus on
relentlessly rational results-oriented management. The A’s didn’t have the
money of those damn Yankees, but by spending scarce capital only where it
offered the most promising return, they found they didn’t need it. A champion
of Moneyball America is less interested in promoting America’s values than in
enhancing America’s value.
Don’t waste money and lives to sell ideas that leaders in China, Russia, and the Middle East are easily able to ignore.
Don’t waste money and lives to sell ideas that leaders in China, Russia, and the Middle East are easily able to ignore.
The pivot to Asia—a true pivot, where turning to
Asia means turning away from something else—offers a prime example of shrewd
moneyball thinking. Build commercial and security ties in the heart of the
world’s most economically dynamic region. Spend no time or political capital on
selling a peace plan that Israelis and Palestinians don’t want, and balance
traditional ties with Gulf Arabs with a more pragmatic relationship with Iran,
a country and market that offer America future opportunities that others in the
region can’t match. Share technology and information with allies, but let them
assume greater responsibility for their own security. Never fight a war to
defend a principle.
Where terrorism directly threatens American lives, fight to win.
Where terrorism directly threatens American lives, fight to win.
The world is becoming a more challenging and
competitive place. All the more reason to invest our human and material capital
wisely. With a clear head and a sharp pencil, moneyball offers a path forward
that all Americans can profit from.
Independent America
American values matter only if Americans live up
to them at home. Washington can’t bribe, bully, or blackmail China (or other
authoritarian states) into an embrace of liberal free-market democracy.
Americans don’t have that kind of power. US allies and enemies know this, and
both are banking on a more multipolar world—and a more balanced global economy.
Many Americans now accept that a stronger will, deeper insight, and deeper
pockets will not help Washington reshape the world as it would like.
No nation, not even the sole superpower, can consistently get what it wants in a world where so many other governments can shrug off US pressure.
No nation, not even the sole superpower, can consistently get what it wants in a world where so many other governments can shrug off US pressure.
Those who advocate independent America recognize
that all those global challenges are far more dangerous and damaging for other
countries than they are at home. Terrorism is a much greater threat for the
Middle East, Europe , and Russia than for the United States . The conflict in
Ukraine has little bearing onUS security or prosperity. Instability in
energy-producing countries is less relevant for increasingly energy-rich America
than at any time since the 1960s.
China’s expansion matters far more for China’s neighbors than for the United States . In fact, a more volatile world highlights the strength, stability, and resilience of US markets.
China’s expansion matters far more for China’s neighbors than for the United States . In fact, a more volatile world highlights the strength, stability, and resilience of US markets.
America must lead, but mainly by example. Its
tremendous resource, demographic, and technological advantages—and the
advantage of its position between Mexico, Canada, and two vast oceans—will be
enhanced by committed investment in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure:
bridges, railways (clearly), highways, ports, and schools. Leading by example
also means open borders, welcoming more of the world’s growing number of
refugees, and more trade.
An America that declares its independence from
the responsibility to solve other people’s problems must ask allies to do more
in exchange for continued US investment in global public goods. NATO can
survive only if other members bear more of its costs and risks. Let Europe
manage relations with Russia as it chooses. Cut a deal with Iran that reduces
US involvement in the region’s conflicts. Recognize that decisions made in
Beijing, not in Washington, will determine whether China sinks or swims. Most
importantly, invest the savings to build a secure, dynamic, and prosperous
America that others want to emulate.
2016
The 2016 presidential season offers a crucial
opportunity to force this debate.
Candidates are beginning to test these issues. Far from the 2012 Obama-Romney foreign policy debate, which spent way too much time on the Benghazi scandal and not nearly enough on anything else, we can hope for a more serious exchange this time around. No more bromides about how America must lead without explaining why, how, and to where—with attention to the all-important details.
Candidates are beginning to test these issues. Far from the 2012 Obama-Romney foreign policy debate, which spent way too much time on the Benghazi scandal and not nearly enough on anything else, we can hope for a more serious exchange this time around. No more bromides about how America must lead without explaining why, how, and to where—with attention to the all-important details.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton seemed to
embrace the moneyball approach. Think of the Asia pivot, “economic statecraft,”
support for the transpacific partnership, an end to war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and a reset with Russia—all while avoiding intractable issues like
the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. These choices demonstrated a willingness
to prioritize low-risk, high-reward projects over those that came with high
costs, high risks, or the near-certainty of wasted time and political capital.
But as a presidential candidate, her rhetoric has veered toward the more
familiar campaign terrain of indispensable America. She has downplayed the
Russia reset and distanced herself from the Iran deal and President Obama’s
non-intervention in Syria.
She’s also incorporated an element of populism that leads to foreign policy incoherence, by refusing to take sides on TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership].
She’s also incorporated an element of populism that leads to foreign policy incoherence, by refusing to take sides on TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership].
On the other side of the spectrum, Senator Rand
Paul has been the most overt advocate for independent America. His adamant
opposition to the use of drones and cyber-surveillance, and his consistent
rejection of costly military engagement in most places sets him apart in a
crowded Republican field. But, hedging his bets, even Paul has, in recent
speeches, been drifting toward moneyball.
Jeb Bush has been opaque, and he’s never held a
national office that would give him a foreign policy voting record. He’s hit a
few moneyball notes, but his determination to defend his brother’s foreign
policy—and the decision to engage many of his brother’s advisors—clouds the
issue. Marco Rubio has been the most thoughtful and articulate advocate for
indispensable America. Chris Christie is also working to align with that
position. Scott Walker doesn’t yet have a foreign policy, he acknowledges his
lack of experience on these issues and the need to do some homework. That’s
surely the case for others as well.
America needs this debate. Without a coherent
foreign policy strategy, the next botched response to a bolt-from-the-blue
crisis—a next generation 9/11, a cyber fight with Russia, or an economic
flareup with the Chinese—will prove much more costly, for Americans and for
others. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 came when American foreign policy
influence was at its height; the next geopolitical convulsion will come in a
dramatically different context.
***
That’s the argument in a nutshell. Which choice
comes closest to my own view?
I won’t tip my hand here, but I hope you’ll do some serious thinking about which one you would choose. After all, I wrote the book to challenge readers to reach their own conclusions. My goal is not to persuade you that my opinion is right but to provoke a debate that can benefit all of us—Americans and everyone else. I honestly didn’t know which option I would favor until I’d finished writing all three.
It’s a tough decision, and one that I think everyone should consider with an open mind.
I won’t tip my hand here, but I hope you’ll do some serious thinking about which one you would choose. After all, I wrote the book to challenge readers to reach their own conclusions. My goal is not to persuade you that my opinion is right but to provoke a debate that can benefit all of us—Americans and everyone else. I honestly didn’t know which option I would favor until I’d finished writing all three.
It’s a tough decision, and one that I think everyone should consider with an open mind.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario