The world order

"I don't disagree with Mr Kagan that America remains, for the foreseeable future, securely hegemonic"

The US embassy in Iraq has 16,000 employees and is protected by 5.500 security contractors. Because of bad relations between America and Iraq, embassy employees don't much get to leave the compound and interact with Iraqis, reducing their intelligence effectiveness and influence.

A hegemon in the original definition leads because others follow. Large numbers of Americans holed up in closed cities in distant places forced to eat McDonalds or Burger King and watch American tv, not interacting much with locals doesn't sound much like hegemony. It sounds like paranoia.

Other wealthy, liberal democracies can have large navies too? Not this large. I mostly agree with you, but the confluence in a single wealthy liberal democracy of a large percentage of the world's arable land (with its concomitant resource riches), this much wealth, this much entrepreneurialism and of this many smart, well-educated and civic-minded citizens is a difficult-to-replicate thing, and therefore so is its armed forces. By contrast, many of the potential alternative wealthy liberal democracies are in Europe, and their track record of working together in the recent economic crises in Europe doesn't bode well for the effectiveness of any potential replacement of the U.S. as global policeman. (Libya notwithstanding; that was a very nearby place that had a fairly small military and no one with any stake in blocking action, unlike Syria in the recent U.N. vote.)

As long as two things are maintained:

1) Strong, open, and useful international trade and covenants that are at least known, if not always perfectly enforced

AND

2) Global growth continues so that poorer countries at least have a path forward out of poverty,

then the US can afford to be first among equals. Failing on either of the two above conditions and the world will backslide.

It's a Leontieff-type paradox: wealthy countries produce expensive things because the return on investment is greater. Consequently, a nation which produces only certain raw materials or foodstuffs will not be able to develop a value-added economy. The value-added economy, which creates a chain of suppliers, finishers, accoutnants, service industries, externalities, etc. also creates the middle class in modern economies. So, it is therefore clear to any development economist: a nation must be allowed to develop from a pure raw-material supplier to a supplier of industry and service to the broader global market or be relegated to backwater status.

US foreign economic policy would be wise to engage development of other economies in this manner. They would then be more pre-disposed to American thinking, and one would think, an American-style republic.

An extremely thought provoking article that shows the more things change the more they stay the same.

If America, at the height of its economic and political power, couldnt turn two backwards Muslim nations into anything even remotely resembling stability and prosperity then why do people imagine some rival hyperpower that is 'more evil' will be able to do better?

I wish these neo con nerds would stop trying to bring forward their computer game fantasies into reality, every 10 years there has to be some pointless war that transfers tax payers money into defense contracts and blackwaters and all that other crap without any effect, except maybe the accelerated deaths of thousands of dark people who had the misfortune of being viewed as apt test tube subjects for some balding middle aged PhD.

Its easy to think, when a liberal is in the Whitehouse that international disputes are relatively manageable because its in everyone's interest to form effective productive relationships. If other powers become wealthier under such a system, so be it. They will contribute more to overall well being.

However when realists capture the Whitehouse and control US power, as happened with Bush and the Neocons and as reflected by Kagan and Brookings (and much of the State Department), the only way to maintain peace is to have a single dominant power that coerces everyone else into line. And if it isn't the USA it will be someone else that the USA will likely not like.

This is where the conflict starts. Imagine US determination to contain and push down a nation the size that China will become over the next 20 years not to mention with its security agreements with Russia under the SCO and that it may be about to tie its economic colours to the European mast as we start to think in terms of a Eurasian economic entity (watch China pivot to Europe as the US tries to squeeze it. Lets see if China helps to fix the Euro crisis).

Things can change quickly. But the US can ensure its own decline most rapidly by trying to maintain domination of a system in which others have become too powerful to dominate.

"But America didn't cause the world's numerous socialist and/or authoritarian experiments to fail. Those regimes faltered first and foremost because socialism and authoritarianism tend not to work out in the long run."

This point can't be emphasized enough. USSR didn't fail because of something Reagan did, or because Soviets were partcularly evil and corrupt. Soviet system was simply not sustainable due to lack of market prices and socialist calculation problem. Even if you were the smartest, kindest, gentlest Communist, the game was rigged against you from the start, and all you could do is turn to alcoholism in despair.

Back in the home country, my grandmother was an aerospace engineer. Her last military project was MiG-25 Foxbat. They used scrap from that process to make washing machines. Now, to a typical Westerner, Soviet washing machines are really awful. This is wrong. If, during doing laundry, you expect to encounter heavy machine gun and surface to air missile fire, Soviet Washing Machine is Right For You!

If you want your washing machine to actually wash clothes, well, that's an afterthought. Politicians decided so. It's not that Soviets couldn't design a good washing machine - there was plenty of talent for that, but because Top Men didn't make it a priority, it never got done. Such examples are countless, and there's only so long that the population will put up with it.

Well if America is declining relative to the rest of the world, we better hope the democratic peace theory holds. In completely unrelated news, I hear Britain and Argentina aren't getting along too well....

WW you often write brilliant analysis but although I agree that multipolarity when the power players are liberal democracies seems like a fair state of affairs one would aspire to, we may want to point out two problems with that model.

a) The last time such a system was in place was during the Belle Epoque, and it ended in the trenches of WWI. Granted the psychopathy of virulent nationalism has been eradicated in most of the West together with polio, but sometimes economic interest leads to conflict too.Multipolarity is by sheer mathematics less stable than bipolarity or unipolarity.

b)Like Curate´s Egg points out, it is not necessarily the system that is best for the people the one that achieves superior production or greater power.The Huns and Vandals offered a terrible social organization to the people they ruled by comparison with Roman Civilization, and yet they won their 1000 years of darkness.But for FDR, Hitler would have outproduced and outsmarted every other European power,Britain included.The swastika would be atop the Houses of Parliament right now, from London to Cape Town.

The idea that the political system that is best for the people produces the economic system that is best for the people, and that both in turn give birth to the strongest, most productive economy is a liberal myth based on the fact that XIX century England ruled while being one of the most democratic and per capita wealthiest nations at the time(but it wasn´t the only one) and reinforced by Pax Americana in the XX century.

But it is just a myth, for many non-liberal wretched nations have been extremely powerful in the 8,000 year history of Civilization.Most, in fact.

And if the political and economic system that is best for its people triumphs, how come then that the USA of today is so far behind and has no prospects of copying the Swiss model of Democracy, or the Scandinavian model of economic development?

Nations become powerful through complex processes not well understood, nor easy to manipulate.Nobody would have thought in 1985 China would overtake America in the 2010s-and probably double America in the 2020s.Nobody predicted 1989 (well, Norman Macrae in his 1985 WWIII book did, but it was more of a propaganda tool than a real prediction)

I´m just not as optimistic.

On the other hand, if nation states have trouble achieving balanced systems that prevent them from causing war and destruction to its citizens,and if they have a poor record of organizing themselves internally to maximize public good, then please explain what good are they for.

The time may have come to dismantle them and create less problematic ways of organizing the pursuits of the Human race.

World government would be the worst possible option,though.

What are you, a Brie-eating Chablis-drinking Francophile Surrender Monkey ?

Me too. Let someone else be Sheriff, or at least let's hegemon some countries into full-time Deputies.

Great post. One comment though... It's our strength now (economic and militarily) that enables us to shape our allies into the "peers" that we want them to be. If we lose influence, we better hope that our allies (that we will rely upon more and more to shape the world how we would like it) remain strong, vibrant, and free in a western fashion, and not in league with the state-capitalist nations that offer financial freedom on one hand, and political suffering on the other. Our strength offers stability, and while I totally agree we need strong allies, I hope it's a case of them coming to OUR level, and not us falling to theirs.

I agree with much in this article, but the only "pleasant illusion" prevailing here is that liberal democratic powers are especially benign. Face facts. America and the West have always been perfectly ready to sacrifice the sovereignty and human rights of weaker nations for the "universal value" of lower gas prices. You can't deny this. Heck, we'll even topple a government because we want their bananas.

So yes, the BRICs will rise, and America's relative power will fall. If Americans continue to act like bloomin idiots, our absolute power will fall too. But for the peoples of the world, this will not really matter. Realpolitik and gunboat diplomacy feel exactly the same regardless of the flag on the gunboat.

Put another way, Iran doesn't hate us because China pays them to. Iran hates us because they hated our Shah.

First of all, WW seems to be under the impression that the US has discouraged our allies from naval buildup, when we've actually spent most of the past 50 years actively trying to get NATO to spend more on non-US militaries; realistically less than half-a-dozen European countries could afford more than a glorified coast guard. Naval and air forces capable of guarding the sea lanes against anything beyond Somali pirates are extremely expensive (look at the price tags of the latest US/Russian weaponry, then consider that for most of those systems the logistics/maintenance/manpower costs dwarf the purchase cost...).
Secondly, history shows that institutions affect global norms/behavior because the countries with the biggest sticks are backing them, not because 8 out of 10 global citizens admire them- witness the difference between the UN and the League of Nations as one example. The power of example is real, but it pales compared to the power of self-interest; consider that in several of the likely gainers of lost US influence the relevant self-interest might well be defined as party or even individual success before national greatness. Also consider that even among countries friendly to the US there is significant frustration with "colonialist-dominated" institutions, regardless of whose interests the institutions serve.
Ultimately, WW is being a panglossian optimist and assuming that whatever institutions arrive will be the best and most representative institutions possible; looking at history, I suspect that economic/military power will override the factors he cites, and history shows clearly that having an optimal economic system (let alone optimal politics) is only one among several factors in achieving that economic and military power.

Eventually we'll have a federated liberal-democratic World State. Or civilization will collapse. Either way it should be interesting, so if we could speed things up to make sure I see it all happen that would be great.

W.W., you seem to be arguing that if the American power declines and its world order goes along with it, it is not worth saving anyways, since it will be because the Americans failed to keep competitive institutions that others wish to copy.
This, I think, is not a valid argument to make. The Soviet Union did not replace Britain as one of the two superpowers because it was any more competitive or legitimate; on the contrary, the Soviet Union became a superpower DESPITE the fact that it was a messy tyranny (although it was able to pull the wool over the eyes of western intellectuals for some time).
The hard truth is that power does not necessarily equal moral legitimacy, or even competitiveness. If you are big, and if you are reasonably functional, you will be able to act as a world power. And if you are REALLY big like China, then the bar of competitiveness/moral legitimacy that you need to meet is lowered even further.
China could be an economy twice as large as America's with half the per-capita productivity, and conceivably still with a Communist dictatorship. But Beijing will still be in a position to move the world away from the American order of democracies and liberal capitalism. I am not sure if that is a desirable outcome.

we need a Peter Wiggin!

"reflects American principles and preferences"

Nope. It reflects European principles and preferences, exported to the New World by European colonists. But I will give America this much credit: they do a great job of marketing those principles to the rest of the world. Whenever I hear President Obama say "win the future", I think of Hollywood.

Agree with the first point that the fate of the universe doesn't depend on American hegemony. But as to the loss of relative influence, surely it's better to be Google than to be GM. Sure, the US may still be better off than before in absolute terms just as GM may be better off in absolute terms than it was 100 years ago so it's not something I want to prevent but the loss of market share isn't something to celebrate. It's not a good thing when the US has to face more competition for resources.

How did it work with Roman Empire? It all depends who takes the crown next. In the absence of true equality between states of the world, we live under conditions of effective state monarchy, sometimes oligarchy, with the most powerful states ruling and influencing others. And monarchy can be great or horrendous, depending on who is on the throne...

Yes but in the multipolar world can Americans continue to consume many times their 'equal' share of the earth's material outputs? That's your $64,000 question.

We want democracies because we think they're less apt to pursue war against our (corporate) interests--not because we desire for them to be rich and have the means to bid up the price we pay for their bananas, copper, oil or labor. But of course we're of two minds on this--once again divided among the 1% and the rest. The former owns the means of production.