Collegiate Times

In an article titled “U.S. empire going way of Romans” in the Daily Trojan (March 30), the author made a convincing argument that the U.S. “empire” is in the process of a long, slow collapse. Over the past 50 years America’s dominant power has declined rapidly from a post-World War II high, yet foreign policy has not evolved in response to the changed situation. This decade can be a turning point in stopping the erosion of American influence only if American policy can adjust to recognize this downward trend and take steps to reverse it.

The importance lies in distinguishing between accepting a new position as “a” leader in the global community and attempting to assert a no longer applicable position of “the” leader of the world. The United States needs to take a leading role in international organizations and can no longer afford to shrug off these organizations as irrelevant and/or subservient to the American “empire.” By participating fully in organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, the United States has the opportunity to be a powerful partner and through this role can accomplish more and achieve more goals of national interest. When the United States was the world superpower, nations were forced to follow our role; however, with the erosion of America’s former claim to hegemony as a result of globalization, international development of previously impoverished areas (such as China) and growing trade interdependence on an international and transnational scale, it becomes increasingly important to cooperate and reach consensus with foreign partners in order to gain our objectives.

Some critics mistakenly believe that American foreign policy is based on a “go it alone” mindset; however, as the Iraq war showed, the policy is more aligned with a view of “go one way and the world will fall in step behind.” The Iraq war is a vivid example of why this thinking is outdated and why policy change is necessary. Few allies rallied behind a war cry they saw as morally or tactically wrong and when U.S. resources became overextended, overtaxed and clearly inadequate for the job, the United States turned to organizations it belittled, such as the United Nations, to take some of the responsibility.

Moreover, the economic and scientific dominance that the United States has enjoyed for over a century has also been declining through a combination of American policies, increasing globalization and international competition. New economic groups such as the European Union are, for the first time in the current era, presenting an economic force as strong and technologically advanced as our own. The American share of the world market gets smaller everyday as the European Union and the “Asian Tigers” continue to grow. Additionally, the long held advantage of boasting the best and the brightest innovators and scientists, and thusly being able to benefit the most from inventions and new advances, is declining as globalization has allowed an invention to be patented in Kenya and manufactured in a factory in China for sale to Brazil. Singapore and other places are attracting hundreds of scientists from the United States for their generous research grants and lax restrictions. While a “brain drain” occurs in many underdeveloped nations as the best and the brightest leave for better opportunities elsewhere, the same can be said about academia in the United States as well.

Furthermore, a history of double talk and “do what I say, not what I do” has forced America to surrender the moral high ground it has enjoyed for decades during the fight against dictatorships, fascism and communism. The country where freedom, liberty and justice formed the basis of our constitution has been unveiled as a hypocrite throughout the many years where the United States abused its position as sole superpower. Leading by example is ultimately more morally rewarding and is far more likely to encourage other nations to conform to our wishes than will threat of force, sanctions or other methods, particularly as the power behind these methods continues to weaken.

However, is the moral high ground even the most desirable position for the United States to take anymore? In the post-Cold War period, rhetoric is taking a backseat to economic interests. For example, consider the issue of China; it may be more desirable to be firm allies and let indirect American participation via international organizations galvanize change in China instead of taking a direct role in doing so. I do not suggest that this is the best path for the United States to take, only that in the changing world of today, this approach may ultimately be the more rewarding one for all parties and that policymakers should undertake such considerations. It is in a forum where diverse views on policy are fielded and considered that the best policy actions can be undertaken.

The absolute power that the United States once enjoyed is now unattainable, but a power role in the global community is still within reach. Yet policy must change before the United States becomes an increasingly irrelevant and obsolete empire, such as the Roman Empire with which Shazia Haq drew parallels. The United States’ “empire” based on military might, economic dominance, and coercion and threats is no longer possible; instead, America’s future is only bright if global cooperation and participation as an international partner becomes the dominant policy at the State Department.