Great Powers

Since the turn of the 21st century global intellectual debate has focused on the historical Great Power paradigm. In general, the theory goes that a state rises to Great Power status remains there for a number of years and then begins to decline in status until it is replaced by emerging great power states, a cycle of approximately one hundred years.

The current debate is that the United States has had its one hundred-year and who will be the next great power to emerge. To understand the debate one must understand the nature of great power. Far to often people look at shiny armies as the measure of great power. Military power is only one element of great power. The Soviet Union had great military power but lasted less than 50 years on the international stage. The Soviets never balanced all the measures of power to be considered a truly great power. A state must not only possess military power but also economic power, mastering technology, natural resources, human capital and remain flexible enough to grow with the changing measures of power. Most of all a Great Power must have the respect of other states. Great Power may be shared among states, known as the balance of power. Great Powers are not defeated: they erode, unwilling to commit themselves to power responsibilities; or they commit suicide, focusing on past greatness rather than adjust to changing power dynamics.

The Americans are arguing that the United States is an exception as its manifest destiny is to be the global power doling out favors and punishment to the rest of the world. The Americans also argue that no other state is capable of great power. This argument fails to remember that the United States emerged as a Great Power in one generation.

Moving toward great power status are, Brazil, China, EU India, Russia. All have educated populations, resources and growing economies. The United States could be dropped into the jungles of Brazil with enough space left over for several smaller states. The EU alone has twice the population of the United States, China and India comprise over half the worlds population. It is true that Brazil and Russia have development and internal political issues. It is also true that the EU has limited natural resources and is still dealing with internal nationalistic issues. India must deal with religious issues as well as population divided by education and wealth. It is China that is most immediately prepared for Great Power status but it to has internal issues to settle. The American argument that none are capable of exercising world leadership rolls ignores that it may only take one generation of dynamic leadership to move a state to a Great Power.

The two most enduring measures of power are economics and international leadership. The United States is faced with unprecedented financial melt down from its “have it now” debt ridden life style. As U.S. financial institution began to drag down the global economies foreign banks and corporations stepped in to shore up the United States while picking up cut rate plums for themselves. It is unlikely that foreign governments will link themselves closely to the United States that it can again threaten the global economy.

At the end of World War Two the United States was the most respected nation on the planet. Momentum carried it to the top of the hill but “for us, or against us” leadership has lead to a steady decline in world respect.

In the 20th century the United States was instrumental in linking the world. In the 21st century that linked world now questions the value of following U.S. leadership. The coming American elections are far more important than the American public realizes. At stake is America as a Great Power or a struggling state clinging to past glories.

The new administration must lead the public away debt laden policies and toward shared power among equals. Only by enlightened leadership can the United States escape the historical long cycle decline as a great power.