The Responsibilities and Costs of Being a Superpower

Xiaoming Yuan

February 1, 2007

(Link to Chinese version: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqzg/2007-02/01/content_798420.htm)

With the end of the Cold War, the world has undoubtedly entered an era dominated by a single superpower. It is fair to say that a prosperous people and a strong nation are aspirations shared by many. Yet people are often captivated by the prestige and glory associated with being a superpower. Few recognize that, in addition to bringing the United States enormous benefits and prestige, its status as a superpower also imposes tremendous responsibilities on the country and requires it to bear enormous costs.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American scholar Samuel Huntington once predicted that, from the perspective of the United States, the dissolution of the Soviet Union was not necessarily a good thing. Without a competing rival, the United States might lose the motivation to continually improve itself through challenges and competition.

In fact, as the world's only superpower, the United States must not only endure the loneliness of having no equal rival; it must also assume greater responsibilities toward the world.

In 2005, Professor James D. M. from Johns Hopkins University wrote a book entitled How the United States Should Govern the World in the Twenty-First Century. He rejected the argument that the United States is an "empire," but agreed that, as the world's only superpower, the United States shares certain similarities with historical empires in military, cultural, and economic terms.

For example, the United States has military forces stationed in approximately 150 countries. However, during the era of traditional empires, countries under imperial rule did not possess sovereignty and were economically obligated to surrender part of their wealth to the empire. Today, by contrast, nations are sovereign states, and America's economic relationships with other countries are based primarily on contractual arrangements.

Professor James argued that many things the United States does go beyond the traditional boundaries of a nation-state. This reflects both America's own needs and the needs of the international community. Therefore, he proposed a new definition of America's role in the twenty-first century: a kind of "government of the world."

He argued that the United Nations is primarily an international coordinating institution and does not possess the administrative functions of a government. The United States, however, provides certain functions and public services to the international community, including military security and international financial services.

He further pointed out that a national government provides services primarily through taxation. America's role as a kind of global "government," however, is also largely supported by taxes paid by the American people.

Compared with other wealthy Western countries, such as Switzerland, the United States clearly has to pay a greater price to maintain a similar standard of living and level of domestic security.

Within America's global strategic framework, allies such as Western European countries and Japan have been placed under the American security umbrella, effectively benefiting from America's security without bearing the same level of cost.

After World War II, Japan received substantial assistance from the United States, allowing its economy to develop rapidly and eventually making Japan an economic power capable of challenging the United States.

While the United States has had to maintain enormous military expenditures, Europeans have been able to use money saved on national defense to build extensive social welfare systems, enjoy longer vacations, and reduce working hours.

The same dynamic can be seen in the Middle East. If stabilizing the Middle East is partly about securing access to Middle Eastern oil, Europe and Japan are actually far more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the United States.

When the price of crude oil on the international market falls to $50 per barrel, the American economy certainly benefits from lower oil prices. But Europe and Japan benefit even more, and the global economy as a whole benefits as well.

By that time, the Iraq War had already cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of approximately 3,000 American soldiers. As the war continued, the United States would inevitably pay an even greater price.

If the United States truly serves as a kind of global "government," then the international community also has many expectations of this "government."

More specifically, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the United States was expected to lead a coalition of nations to drive Saddam's forces back into Iraq. When AIDS spread throughout Africa, the international community looked to the United States to provide substantial assistance in helping Africa combat the epidemic. After the tsunami disaster, the United States was criticized by the international community for responding too slowly to the relief effort.

There is no doubt that America's role as a global "government" has both positive and negative aspects, along with many controversial dimensions.

The international community welcomes the services the United States provides through its economic power and international assistance. However, there is considerable dissatisfaction and anger over American military intervention and what many perceive as American cultural dominance.

After the September 11 attacks, television screens showed scenes of people celebrating and cheering. Many Americans, besides being shocked and horrified, were deeply puzzled by one question:

"Why do they hate us so much?"

Over the past several decades, the global economy has experienced unprecedented growth, and some countries have been rising peacefully. Although regional military conflicts around the world have continued, the world has, for more than half a century, essentially enjoyed a period of broad global peace.

Yet not everyone is willing to accept America's position as the world's only superpower, and not everyone is comfortable with a globalized environment maintained under American leadership.

As America's superpower status has expanded, so too have the functions and responsibilities associated with its role as a global "government." At the same time, forces hostile to the United States have grown stronger. America has consequently paid a heavy price.

The tragedy of September 11 can certainly be explained from the perspective of religious and cultural conflict. But another factor cannot be ignored: America's status as a superpower.

Successfully attacking the world's only superpower undoubtedly gave the terrorists' plans a far greater dramatic impact and allowed their message to reach a much wider audience.

It is clear that the terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks were not only seeking to weaken American power; they also sought to destroy the global system that the United States had established and maintained.

Each of the targets they attacked carried a particular symbolic meaning. Al-Qaeda's targets represented America's political system, the global economic system, and the American military system.

There is another point worth noting. As American scholar Joseph Nye has observed, the United States, as the world's only superpower, carries an enormous amount of symbolic significance.

In the eyes of many people, American corporations have become representatives of global capitalism, while Americans are often viewed as the leading advocates of individualism.

Although many European countries also export popular culture to the rest of the world—and in some respects have even moved ahead of the United States—for example, by legalizing same-sex marriage, many conservative people around the world still associate the United States with sexual liberation and moral decline.

These symbolic associations with America have generated resentment among many people.

It can be predicted that for the next several decades, the United States will remain a superpower and will continue to fulfill the responsibilities that come with that status.

At the same time, other economic powers will rise within the globalized environment, and additional countries will gradually become major powers and influential nations.

As potential successors to America's position, these countries will also, like the United States, have to pay a tremendous price for the status, responsibilities, and actions that come with being a superpower.

The author is a senior management consultant and columnist living in the United States.

Source: Global Times. Editor: Chen Fan.