Who Will Lead?
Since WWII the world has been guided by formal and informal arrangements designed largely by western democracies. Institutions embodying values of democracy, free press, human rights, rule of law and free trade imparted an order on international relations that enabled relatively peaceful coexistence, economic growth and expanding world trade. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, those western values were touted as the endpoint of humanity’s socio-cultural evolution.
Nearly 30 years later, that endpoint has proven to be elusive, if not improbable. China’s rise has demonstrated that rapid economic growth can occur under authoritarian government. Nationalists in Western countries are questioning the policies of their own governments. And the presidency of the United States, once perceived as the nominal “head of the free world,” is held by someone who is disinterested in maintaining the current world order, and would happily withdraw from a world leadership role, redefining the country’s interests in strictly nationalist terms.
So, who will lead? Or is a leader even necessary?
A June 9, 2018 article in The Economist asserted, “Though [Chinese] Communist Party officials are somewhat wary of taking on great-power responsibilities, they see tempting opportunities to portray China as the defender of world order in matters of climate change and trade.” However, The New Yorker journalist Evan Osnos, in an article titled “Making China Great Again,” perceives China asserting much more ambition,
… by increasing its investments in the types of assets that established American authority in the previous century: foreign aid, overseas security, foreign influence, and the most advanced new technologies, such as artificial intelligence. It has become one of the leading contributors to the U.N.’s budget and to its peacekeeping force, and it has joined talks to address global problems such as terrorism, piracy, and nuclear proliferation.
Furthermore, Osnos notes that China’s foreign infrastructure plan, including roads, ports, power plants and train lines in 60 countries from Southeast Asia to Europe, Africa and Latin America, could cost a trillion dollars, seven times what the U.S. Marshall Plan spent, in current dollars. China governance expert Minxin Pei noted, in an online debate on The Economist website, that China had already established two financial institutions to potentially rival the World Bank. All this is concurrent with the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate change accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Iran nuclear weapons agreement, and proposals to cut billions of dollars from the U.S. foreign assistance budget, reduce its UN contribution by 40%, and pressure the UN General Assembly to cut $600 million in peacekeeping expenditures.
World leadership takes many forms: military, economic, environmental, cultural, scientific/technological. Osnos wrote that “By some measures, the U.S. will remain dominant for years to come.”
… It has at least twelve aircraft carriers. China has two. The U.S. has collective defense treaties with more than fifty countries. China has one, with North Korea. Moreover, China’s economic path is complicated by heavy debts, bloated state-owned enterprises, rising inequality, and slowing growth. The workers who once powered China’s boom are graying. China’s air, water, and soil are disastrously polluted.
Martin Jacques, author of “When China Rules the World,” wrote in a June 14th online article for The Economist, “Western hegemony has left a huge imprint on the world, but it was never destined to last for ever. Hegemons are never eternal.” But contrary to the title of Jacques’ book, China, or any single world power, may not be where the world is headed. Others see a future with multiple leaders, a “multi-polar world.” Osnos quotes a Beijing professor and student of American history. “China, Russia, and the U.S. are moving in the same direction. They’re all trying to be great again.”