How should the US interact with the rest of the World?

The Rise of China

The link above is to an essay in Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs. Here is my letter to the editor with my reaction:

To the Editor:

In “The Rise of China and the Future of the West” January/February 2008 G. John Ikenberry presents a reasonable case for a cooperative effort by the West led by the United States to integrate China into the current world order. I agree with his thesis that the United States will be better off to calculate its position in the world on a more global coordinate system, i.e. the West vs. China, rather than a more local system i.e. U.S. vs. China and that making common cause with the Western order is in the best interest of the United States. However, I have the following comments:

The article recommends that the US once again become “the foremost supporter of the global system of governance”. This recommendation is obviously the antithesis to the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the PNAC’s antipathy for multilateralism in U.S. foreign policy. Given this stark contrast, I was struck by the muted criticism of the Bush administration contained in the article. I found only two instances, one encrypted and one explicit. I perceive that, when Professor Ikenberry writes, “…China will rise, but the Western order—if managed properly—will live on” (emphasis mine) he is making a thinly veiled comment on the management acumen of the chief executive of the Western order’s managing partner, the United States. The only explicit criticism is in the last section of the article where he states, “Many Bush administration officials have been outright hostile of to the multilateral, rule-based system that the United States has shaped and led. Such hostility is foolish and dangerous.”

Perhaps Professor Ikenberry believes the majority of the readers of Foreign Affairs have already been persuaded of shortcomings of unilateralism. Perhaps he believes that it is more important to emphasize the positive benefits of his recommended course of action rather than reiterate the costs of alternate Bush administration policies which include the loss U.S. moral authority. However, I consider the loss of U.S moral authority a grave issue. When I look back at recent history and compare that reality to the strengths of the Western order listed and assumed by Professor Ikenberry, I begin to seriously question the assumptions.

When the U.S. political system and society acquiesces to enhanced interrogation techniques, denial of the writ of habeus corpus, and rendition it leads me to question just how deep and wide the foundations of the rule based system really are. These are violations of long held civil tenets if not explicit violations of the U.S Constitution, i.e. the model for governance in which image, Professor Ikenberry argues, the U.S. created the rule-based system of the Western order. Given this behavior, will other members of the order remain truly committed to the rule-based system?

I would also submit the Western order’s fairness and openness is in the eye of the beholder. The Muslim street would more likely say that the rules of the West are written for the members benefit and particularly the benefit of the U.S. If the Western order was perceived to be open to membership, would socialism be making such a strong comeback in Latin America, a region where China is growing in influence?

Again, I am all for the West working together as a team to integrate China peacefully into the world order or on other important issues. But lets be frank, the captain of the team has been badly injured and will have to go through rehab.

I will let you know if it gets published.