The West’s decline? I don’t think so

Given concern about income disparity and environmental degradation, I remain very much interested in any article that offers a better understanding of how greater international co-operation occurs.

So how plausible is the recent suggestion that declining US hegemony can be offset by multipolar power relations, as suggested by Coral Bell’s article The End of the Vasco da Gama era.

Bell argues that we are now entering an era where the unilateral power of the US is waning for the first time since the demise of the Soviet Union, but that “There should be no difficulty at all with regard to India, and very little with regard to China”.

Notwithstanding the possible decline of the US, this article argues that events may get worse should Western influence wane, although there are considerable policy differences between Western nations.

I do not want to imply that Western leadership is perfect. As history tells all, the promotion of liberalism has not been without coercive tactics. Even Britain, which has done more than most nations to promote liberalism, was determined to dominate the seas with its navy at the height of its power during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Even today, Europe is exploiting the fishing stocks of West African nations. Though the number of boats run by locals in Senegal has fallen by 48 per cent since 1997, resulting in its government refusing to renew its fishing agreement with the EU in 2006, European fishermen (mostly from Spain and France) now register their boats as Senegalese, buy quotas from local fishermen, and transfer catches at sea from local boats (George Monbiot, The Guardian, August 26, 2008).

And Western nations, with their greater per capita resources, unquestionably have a greater capacity to embrace new ideas to help people both within and beyond their society, although foreign aid by the richest nations has hardly been extensive for any lengthy time period.

But Western nations can be proud of their achievements in this competitive world, despite the many remaining problems associated with income disparity and environmental degradation. Their own societies have evolved to find a better balance between the public and private sector, though this balance will always fluctuate given that innovation and the business sector always remain crucial to national economic success.

Furthermore, it has been Western societies, especially the US, which has done most to promote freer trade by accepting trade deficits as being just as important as trade surpluses to promote the international economy, thus giving opportunities to poorer nations (even one-party governed nations).

So I ask Bell and critics of liberalism, including various authors contributing to the December 2008 On Line Opinion feature who still fail to recognise policy limitations in any liberal democracy, to explain how the world will be a better place if the West was to lose its influence, despite the need for extensive policy reform as a result of the current economic and environmental crisis?

Take India. Limited debate allowed Monsanto to sell GM seeds to Indian farmers, and did little to help prevent tens of thousands of Indian farmers from committing suicide after the failure of these GM cotton crops. GM seeds were sold for up to £10 for 100 grams by “unscrupulous merchants”: equivalent to 1,000 times that of conventional seed, and required double the water of conventional seeds. The GM crops were ruined by two years of drought and bollworms, a voracious parasite (Andrew Malone, Mail Online, November 3, 2008).

Further, the Indian anthropologist Amita Baviskar noted that compensation was given to only 20 per cent of the Indians who lost their homes because of construction for the athletes’ village for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, as the rest could not produce official records of having lived there (ABC radio Saturday Extra December 13, 2008).

And how will the rise of China offer the world greater hope that income disparity and environmental degradation will be better addressed? Already, China has most of the world’s polluted cities, despite committing to a significant level of renewable energy; and has a level of income disparity even more obscene than most Western nations, despite having a communist party supposedly representing all.

Bell suggests that “the great powers must treat each other as if they were equals, even though they are not quite that in reality, and internal political change must be allowed time to do its work”, but at what expense to Western nations?

In truth, China is a threat to Western nations as seen by its improving economic prowess, and its rapidly developing space program, including an anti-satellite weapon in 2007. A US Congress panel has also noted that China aggressively pursues cyber warfare as shown by the number of Chinese computer attacks, about 43,880 during 2007, on some five million US government offices, defence companies and businesses (The Guardian November 20, 2008).

Tougher times for Western nations will indeed test their willingness to promote freer trade as the most appropriate concept for promoting peace and prosperity among competitive nations. The US federal budget deficit has already reached $402 billion in the first two months of the fiscal year (October and November), while 43 of 50 US states are facing shortfalls in their budgets for this year and/or next year (CNNMoney.com December 10, 2008).

Quite simply, the US will find it even harder to balance its desire to provide international military and economy security with its own domestic need to provide a decent public social welfare system. It is a difficulty that is often downplayed by critics of the US, and an aspect which may force Western nations to step up and fill any security void.

As the last few decades indicate, Western nations were happy to boost their domestic growth by a greater reliance upon services, with China exporting cheap manufacturing goods and India helping to lower some service costs with its large pool of cheap English-speaking labour.

But it is always difficult for a number of powerful nations with different cultural traditions to easily live alongside each other, just as it is unrealistic to assume that the beautiful messages of various religions would never become politicised.

However, this article should not be viewed as more doom and gloom.

History shows that divisive issues can be overcome: ideas do matter rather than just a mere struggle for resources. After all, the thousands of human societies that once existed have evolved into 200 or so nations today.

Certainly, as Bell noted, the second half of the 20th century did see a “hothouse growth of new and ambitious norms (or proposed norms) for the society of states” which have proven difficult to achieve. This included a campaign urging a ban on the killing of whales for food; the abolition of capital punishment; and the need for intervention to uphold “human security” rather than just focus on “national security” - as seen by the West’s attack on Serbia when Muslim Kosovars were exiled from their long-established home of Kosovo.

One has only to note the failure of the West to intervene in Sudan to help the persecuted people of Darfur, or the failure to remove the disgraceful government of Zimbabwe, to realise that any ambition to enforce human rights will probably never be realised.

However, there is enough opportunities to allow the West to maintain influence, even allowing for a declining US. This is because China, India and Russia are unlikely to forge a close alliance to oppose the West as each has vastly different cultural traditions and foreign policy strategies.

Further, do either China, India or Russia have the cultural or ideological appeal to become a true superpower? I doubt it. While their rich citizens emulate the excesses of Western society by extensively purchasing famous global brands, their societies are light years away from becoming effective pluralistic societies with respect for any individual or group to express ideas that can help challenge the status quo.

What will continue to enhance Western power is how its nations use their resources to help others and influence the world.

This will include ongoing (and perhaps greater) assistance to help poorer nations which often fall into civil disarray: a reality that only hastens the prospect of conflict or rise of religious doctrines.

At present, China is seeking to increase its international influence through aid to many poorer nations: a strategy often tied to its desire for resources, as seen by most aid going into infrastructure (roads, ports and bridges). Unlike Western loans through the World Bank which usually comes with conditions for environmental standards or community resettlement, Chinese aid does not carry penalties for corruption (Jane Perlez, New York Times, September 18, 2006).

And if Western aid was to wane, the consequences of new trends will hardly enhance humanity’s plight in the longer term. Already Middle Eastern countries, led by Saudi Arabia, are seeking to secure future food supplies by buying land in poorer nations with produce to be shipped directly to the owners (George Monbiot, The Guardian, August 26 2008).

Though Bell highlights the decline of the US, and the different policies of London, Paris and Berlin, the example of the EU demonstrates how resources are used to encourage policy change and ensure greater equity between member nations. With more than 35 per cent of the Union’s budget going to such areas (EUR 213 billion in 2000-06), such assistance had helped increase the GDP of Portugal by 3.5 per cent in Portugal and Greece 2.4 per cent.

In a world of cultural differences, there is no doubt that co-operation and generosity is more extensive between like-minded nations. Nothing surprising about that. For instance, Turkey’s bid for EU membership is complicated by its lack of reform progress, laws infringing freedom of speech, refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, and concern by many European societies about their large Muslim minorities.

And the West may have to make difficult decisions in the future, hopefully with a UN mandate than without, although it should carefully consider policy consequences. For instance, the decision of a few nations to invade Iraq now has to contend with a majority Shia population (about 60 per cent of Iraq’s population) with closer ties to Iran, a far more dangerous enemy to the US.

The issues facing humanity today are enormous, perhaps unprecedented, and it is difficult to predict just what will happen.

Western societies, with their democratic traditions, will place enormous pressure on their governments to uphold domestic needs first.

And just how Western nations balance domestic and international needs, with both its economic and environmental dimensions, will probably determine the level of resentment to Western nations in coming decades.

But I, for one, am still putting my faith in pluralistic Western democracies to lead the way. The US may be declining, although its ability to renew itself should not be underestimated, but the EU alone (along with other Western nations) will long remain a force to be reckoned with.