We have written in the past about the leeway the US has had with regard to its actions in the era of unipolarity that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. During that period, and until recently, the US has had the ability to dictate the developments in the international system in the absence of a balancing power or coalition of powers. The power differential it enjoyed with respect to other states, enabled it to broadly define ambitious goals (such as spreading democracy to countries with vastly different cultural heritages and social structures). And for a while it enabled it to get away get away with pretty dumb decisions – i.e. pay no apparent costs.
In the 90′s and for much of the last decade, intellectual and political triumphalism abounded. The permanent victory of the west was taken for granted, and the present euphoria seemed permanent. And, as the saying goes, if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail: while small states run the danger of getting their priorities wrong in their foreign policy, and their policy decisions consist mostly of compromises and tradeoffs, superpowers run the danger of identifying too many priorities and seeing problems needing solutions where none exist. In the process they overextend themselves. Indeed, history has shown that a country finding itself unchecked is bound to get into some pretty needless adventures, in which it expends blood and treasure, undermining itself while real long term concerns go unaddressed . These adventures come with serious economic burdens, and while the superpower overextends and over-expends itself, sooner or later, superpower hubris leads other states to combine against it and balance it out.
Over the past years there have been several indications of both US overextension and formation of balancing coalitions. The war in Iraq and the Afghanistan are examples of overextension. As Steven Walt points out China and Russia are pretty happy seeing the US bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Iraq in particular, surely it must be to their advantage that the US has spent $1 trillion on a useless war whose sole strategic outcome was to dramatically impair US options in the region. Not to speak of Iran’s joy at the outcome of Iraq’s invasion, which was to remove from the equation in a single stroke the only state in the region other than Israel that posed any significant challenge to it, and radically diminish US influence in the Middle East. By invading Georgia last year Russia has proved it will assert itself, if necessary with military action, when it perceives it’s vital interests to be threatened, showing in the process that NATO will not act when its vital interests are not threatened. And it managed to get the US to back down from the (useless) missile defense system. The EU lacks a coherent voice for now, but it has de facto recognized the Russian sphere of influence by refusing to expand NATO to its borders. And there is more to come. Meanwhile, Iran is emerging as a regional hegemony with Russian and Chinese aid, and shows no signs of bowing down to international pressure.
At the same time, China, and Russia to a lesser extent, have been making inroads in Latin America, and the countries in the region have been exercising more assertive foreign policies. Venezuela, eager to diversify its oil buyers has been opening up to China and buying Russian arms. It is also talking to Iran. Brazil is attempting to forge South-to-South alliances with China, Russia, Iran, India. None of this is trivial, especially because the US has long upheld the view that outside interference in the Western Hemisphere is a threat to US safety (the Monroe doctrine). To counter the influence of outside powers in Latin America, the US has sought increased presence in Colombia (more about this read here). What is significant however is not the US attempt to balance, but its backlash. Latin American leaders have become very uneasy about it and have made it known. Colombia might need American help against the drug trade, and American might need to balance Venezuela’s influence and support of leftist movements, but that doesn’t keep others from voicing concerns.
A little balancing will do everybody some good. Checks to power teach states to husband their resources and expend their power wisely. Competition among states leads to innovation and moderation. Ultimately, the word tradeoff will have to find its way from the bottom of the US diplomatic tool list to the top. And it seems we are well on our way.
Follow us on: