State of the Union

And while by measurements both economic and military US power is still overwhelmingly superior to any peer-competitor, it is reality that American power is in relative decline, a trajectory which will not be reversed any time soon.

Americans will have to adapt to a more complex multi-polar world, in which America’s role is changing and in which the US no longer enjoys supremacy in every field. This is not a moment where Americans will be able simply to ‘out-compete’ the rest of the globe. The diffusion of technology and the continuing enrichment of once poor populations means that in the future innovation will stem from all over the world. 

While the US might be home to the founders of Google, Microsoft and Facebook, in coming decades, valuable technologies and science will originate in other countries. These developments can either be seen as threatening or as opportunity for co-operation.

Yet the language of competition was laced throughout President Obama’s  State of the Union speech, and the language of co-operation with ‘outsiders’ was absent. This was startling, given that the years ahead will witness a need for closer global co-operation in many different spheres, from agriculture and medicine to security and space exploration.

To give one example, until 2014 the US will be forced to use Russian spacecraft to reach the International Space Station, since NASA’s next model of spacecraft is yet to become operational.

Immanuel Kant, in his famous work ‘Perpetual Peace’, set out a vision of the world in which commerce would come to dominate inter-state relations to the extent that armed conflict was no longer feasible. Perhaps the language of competition is used so freely in Obama’s speech because it is thought that Kant’s vision is becoming reality; that international economic relations are so foundational and globalised that driven and openly expressed competitiveness will no longer threaten, but enliven relationships with rivals.

But Kant’s vision of a global society of states, a ‘republic of republics,’ ignores the realities given rise to by shifts in power. Kant bases his philosophical conception of international order on the model of a republic – he compares the society of states to the citizens of a republic – with some different interests maybe, but with enough interests in common to settle differences peaceably.

In such a republic competing forces and interests are constrained by laws and the sole source of legitimate force is the government. However, in a global society of states, there is as yet no government, and competing interests, if pursued without a readiness to accommodate, can lead to escalating tension very quickly. Given this, using the language of competition is fraught with danger.

When great powers are faced with rising challengers, the most likely source of tension is a self-perception of decline. If the existing great power does not make room for the rising powers to share global influence, then distrust and corrosive competition will probably emerge. In the late 19^th century, Great Britain successfully negotiated rapprochement and accommodation with the rising United States, partly by ceding naval power in the West Atlantic and allowing Washington the status of equal partner. Had Great Britain reacted to America’s rise by striving to out-compete it, to ‘beat’ it, it would have bred tension in the relationship.

President Obama did refer to a changing world, but he presented this world as one where competition, rather than co-operation, would be more intense. The State of the Union speech failed to communicate a renewed and less alienating sense of ‘the other’, a sense which might allow ordinary Americans to comprehend the current shift in global dynamics. Instead, the language of fierce competition, a struggle for the American future and the desire to ‘win' painted the coming decades as a battleground rather than a meeting place.