US’ downward trajectory

S P SETH

The landing of the space vehicle, Curiosity, on the Mars by the United States is a brilliant achievement by any standard. Which testifies to the tremendous scientific and technological creativity in, what is still, the world’s most powerful country. But it might not continue like that. Look at some of the statistics. According to one report, the US is seventh in literacy, 27^th in mathematics, 22^nd in science, 49^th in life expectancy and so on. These are not the rankings of a great power.

And when even the US’s closest ally, Australia, starts to worry about its intractable problems, it is obviously time to take notice. During a recent US visit, Australia’ foreign minister, Bob Carr, pointed to it even as he praised the country’s underlying strengths in several sectors.  And he posed the question: “What is holding you [US] back? Debt and deficit. America is one budget deal away from banishing talk of American decline”

Bob Carr made it sound like a simple solution to stem the US decline, but it is not as simple as that. The debt and deficit is not a sudden phenomenon. It is the accumulation of a whole series of wrong policies to control the world with the dictum that: what is good for the US is good for the world. Its results are there for all to see from the Korean War to the folly of the long war in Vietnam and on to the Iraq and Afghan wars. And it is not over yet with the threat of military intervention to stop Iran from its nuclear ambitions.

Apart from considerable cost in human lives of these wars---the Vietnam War alone is estimated to have cost up to 2 million Vietnamese lives--- these wars added significantly to US debt and deficit over a period. The total cost of Iraq and Afghan wars alone for the US, including health care of wounded soldiers and other related expenses, is estimated at $3 trillion, a hefty contribution to an ongoing crisis brought about by a capitalist system run amuck.

It is a systemic crisis but the US continues to believe that it can work its way out by printing more money and raising more debt against US bonds.  Because the US is in a unique position as the world’s reserve currency, this enables it to raise ever more debt at relatively low borrowing costs. The money markets are prepared to bet on the US as credit worthy. But as the US debt is approaching 100 cent of its GDP, if it is not already there, something is going to snap somewhere in confidence chain to create a trigger effect to bring down the house. And this is even more so because the political gridlock in the US to deal seriously with its debt and deficit shows no way of sorting itself out, with the Republicans swearing by their mantra of tax cuts and spending cuts, and the Democrats favoring a mix of the two--- with rich paying more taxes and some cuts in welfare entitlements.

Even this might not solve the problem, but a political breakthrough might be a good beginning. As Gina Despres, the vice-chairwoman and principal executive officer of four large global mutual funds, has reportedly said, “We’re [the US] the least-ugly pig [compared to Euro zone] in the pen right now. But at some point that will change, and then we’ll be in trouble.” Because: “…when that happens you start to face rising interest rates, and then the interest on the debt component of gross domestic rockets, and then you’ve sort of lost the game.”

The point is that by letting things reach where the US is now in the ugly-pig race with Euro zone would suggest that the US’ best days might be behind it. And if you are the President of the United States you will feel constrained to assure all and sundry that this is not true, as Obama did recently. He said, “Anyone who tells you that America is in decline, or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they are talking about.” And if you are the presumptive president like Mitt Romney you might even go one further to declare that the 21^st century will be another American century. But, as the US columnist E.J.Dionne has argued, “American decline is the specter haunting our politics.”

Tom Switzer, an Australian columnist, commenting on the US decline, says, “The dollar is weak. Debt is of European proportions. Infrastructure is ageing…” He adds, “If the next president does not prepare his fellow citizens for this reality [of US decline], the American people’s reaction to setbacks at home and abroad is more likely to be angry and irrational.” And that really is the danger because the momentum of America’s past glory in political-power terms is likely to blind the US to real limits on its power. The specific blind spot in question, at the present time, is the confrontation with Iran, with growing pressure from Israel to bring it to its knees on the nuclear question. Israel will like to fight to the last American soldier to ensure its security against Iran or from anywhere else in the Middle East.

Even though the US has been on the downward trajectory for a long time, with the financial crisis of 2008 and continuing economic problems exposing it more markedly, the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 raised all sorts of expectations about the US renewal. For instance, the US was said to have entered the post-racial phase with the election of an Afro-American, thus radically transforming the racial divide that sapped its national energies. But nothing of the sort really happened as Obama’s election is increasingly proving to have been largely a symbolic change. All through his term he faced questions about his American (whether or not he was born in the US) and religious (if he is Muslim) identity. These questions wouldn’t have been relevant if he were white.

Even as the country’s President, Obama had to cite proof of his American birth (birth certificate) to hopefully quash rumors.  But the doubters were never satisfied. And during the current election campaign, such sniping is still going on by the Romney camp. For instance, a Romney confidante recently said that he wished ”this president would learn how to be an American.” Another Romney advisor explained why the presumptive president had a special understanding of the “special relationship” between the US and UK because Romney is “part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage.” He was highlighting this when Romney recently visited London. In other words, Obama is still the target of race politics.

Even as the United States continued to face all sorts of problems, Obama’s election as president in 2008 appeared to be a game changer in renewing the US society. But all the racial sniping is likely to continue. The celebrated American writer, Gore Vidal, who died recently, expressed his utter frustration with the way his country was functioning or non-functioning in a 2009 interview with the Times of London. He said that America is “rotting away at a funereal pace.” In this way, “We’ll have a military dictatorship pretty soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together.”

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times. 

Flashpoints in Asia-Pacific

S P SETH

While Mao Zedong was the founder of communist China, Deng Xiaoping was the architect of its economic miracle and great power resurgence. Even as China was going through spectacular economic growth during the eighties and nineties, Deng cautioned the country’s leaders to “bide your time and hide your capabilities.” The first part of his advice was spot on as China was navigating the difficult task of building and modernizing in an international environment not entirely favorable to the country. By concentrating on economic growth while maintaining relatively low international political profile right up to the beginning of the new century, China is now the world’s second largest economy with its high international political and military profile on display for any country or countries doubting its resolve and strength.

While China’s leaders did bide their time as suggested by Deng, there is some argument if they are a bit hasty in projecting and asserting their power. The argument arises in the context of China’s increasingly tense relationship with some of its regional neighbors on the question of contested sovereignty over the island chains in the South China Sea that it claims in entirety. China’s parliament passed a law to this effect in 1992, thus excluding any regional claimant(s) from what it regards as its internal jurisdiction. In other words, any external interference to thwart Chinese sovereignty will be resisted and excluded. But China was still lacking in political and military muscle to enforce its sovereign control. Therefore, while continuing to insist that South China Sea was its territorial sea, Beijing also let it be known that it was willing to sort out issues through negotiations and/or through some sort of joint exploration mechanism for its rich underwater resources.

But nothing came of it as Beijing continued to claim exclusive sovereignty over the island chains of Spratly and Paracel islands. This island chain(s) is also contested by Vietnam, as well as the Philippines, among other regional countries.  And this has led to some naval incidents between China and Vietnam, as well as between China and the Philippines. Like China in the early nineties, Vietnam has recently passed legislation enshrining its sovereignty over these islands. Which, in turn, has led China to deploy a garrison on the islands to assert and safeguard its territoriality. It has also founded Sansha city in the South China Sea to cement its control over 2 million square kilometers of territorial waters. How all this will play out is difficult to say, but South China Sea is becoming a regional flashpoint with unpredictable consequences.

Vietnam and the Philippines are obviously no match for a resurgent and powerful China. But their growing security ties with the United States will raise the stakes. While the US maintains a neutral position on the sovereignty issue, it favors a code of conduct between China and the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) for dealing with disputes in the South China Sea. China, on the other hand, is not willing to formalize the issue to give it the character of a territorial dispute. China had a victory of sorts when a recent ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in Cambodia failed to issue an agreed communiqué to avoid any mention of the South China Sea issue. Being considerably beholden to China for economic aid and political support, the host of the meeting, Cambodia’s foreign affairs minister, ruled out a communiqué because “ I have told my colleagues that the meeting of the ASEAN foreign ministers is not a court, a place to give a verdict about the dispute.” With its growing power and considerable economic leverage, China is seeking to shape the regional agenda to its advantage.

Will it prevail? It will obviously be a tough fight, as the United States is not wiling to be edged out of the region. The US regards itself as a Pacific power with its considerable economic and strategic interests. It is still the dominant military power, with a large naval fleet deployed in the region and a nexus of security ties with a number of regional countries, including Japan, South Korea and Australia. In expounding the US interest to see a peaceful South China Sea, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has maintained that, “No nation can fail to be concerned by the increase in tensions, the uptick in confrontational rhetoric and disagreement over resource exploitation.” And she has urged that the disputes between China and its regional neighbors be resolved “without coercion, without intimidation, without threats and without use of force.” China’s message for the United States basically is to butt out of the region. But that is where the issue has the potential of starting an accidental military clash or, even, something bigger. For instance, China’s shadowing of US naval movements through South China Sea might create an ugly situation, as there have recently been some naval incidents.

China is a rising power. And it is determined to make it to the top. The United States and its regional allies in Asia-Pacific are determined to check and counter-balance it. China appears confident. There is a sense that China might have to tough it out for some years until the United States is too tired from its financial woes and military overreach to pick up a fight. Even if this analysis is true, the transitional period of 5 to 10 years that China might need to establish its primacy will be hazardous, as the United States and its regional allies seek to confront China. The situation remains tense both with the Philippines and Vietnam. There have already been some naval incidents. In the midst of it all an arms race is going on, with countries in the region buying the latest in weaponry. China’s own defense expenditure has been rising at double digit figures in the last few years. The South China Sea ownership issue is also tied up with freedom of navigation, as a significant part of international trade, including oil, passes through these strategically important waters.

At the same time, there are problems between China and Japan in the East China Sea over ownership of Senkaku islands, resulting in some unpleasant naval incidents. And Japan happens to be an important security ally of the United States. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the unresolved issue of Korean unification is another live issue, with China committed to protect North Korea. The status of Taiwan is also a flashpoint, with China regarding it as a renegade province and determined to use force to bring about unification if Taipei were to declare independence.

The immediate flashpoint is likely to be South China Sea centered on the status of the Spratly and Paracel islands, and the passage through it of US naval ships that China might seek to impede or intercept at some point. In other words, the great game in the Asia-Pacific is starting in earnest and there is no knowing how it will end.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times