For decades the U.S. had been espousing the virtues of free market capitalism, urging other countries to adopt the model. America’s exceptional economic success, the thinking went, allowed it to give advice about how other countries should build their own economies.
And then the bottom fell out. The crisis, spurred by lax regulations that were manipulated by the big banks, started in the United States, before its impact spread globally. An unemployment and debt crisis soon followed. So did a rush to rethink the way countries handle their economies. With the free-market system no longer sacrosanct, countries with other approaches were happy to second-guess the system. China’s state capitalist model became a viable alternative as it navigated the financial crisis much better than most. I’ll never forget my meeting with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei in 2009, when he asked me outright, “Now that the free market has failed, what do you think is the proper role for the state in the economy?” The financial crisis was an opportunity to reopen the debate surrounding perceived global values — and to kick the U.S. system while it was down.
That’s a case study that points to America’s larger problem. All too often, America has been leading by rhetoric rather than example. In a G-Zero world — what President Obama described as a “vacuum of leadership” in his U.N. General Assembly speech — strong words do not qualify as leadership. It’s only credible when you call for reforms or actions that you actually stand behind — and reflect them in your domestic policy.
In pursuit of American humility
by Ian Bremmer
This week, as Washington navel-gazed its way into a shutdown, its actions didn’t go unnoticed abroad. In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, took the opportunity to gloat about the U.S.’s refusal to pay its federal workers, many of whom are on furlough because of the shutdown. “We are now witnessing the crisis in the U.S. We have never been a government that could not pay its personnel,” Erdogan said.
This is how America’s dysfunction at home is undermining its credibility abroad. The latest development: Obama’s desire to maintain laser focus on the Republicans for political gain has prompted him to cancel a pivotal trip to Asia to attend an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting. But it’s not just the shutdown: it is a series of issues over the past decade, chief among them the financial crisis. For decades the U.S. had been espousing the virtues of free market capitalism, urging other countries to adopt the model. America’s exceptional economic success, the thinking went, allowed it to give advice about how other countries should build their own economies.
And then the bottom fell out. The crisis, spurred by lax regulations that were manipulated by the big banks, started in the United States, before its impact spread globally. An unemployment and debt crisis soon followed. So did a rush to rethink the way countries handle their economies. With the free-market system no longer sacrosanct, countries with other approaches were happy to second-guess the system. China’s state capitalist model became a viable alternative as it navigated the financial crisis much better than most. I’ll never forget my meeting with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei in 2009, when he asked me outright, “Now that the free market has failed, what do you think is the proper role for the state in the economy?” The financial crisis was an opportunity to reopen the debate surrounding perceived global values — and to kick the U.S. system while it was down.
That’s a case study that points to America’s larger problem. All too often, America has been leading by rhetoric rather than example. In a G-Zero world — what President Obama described as a “vacuum of leadership” in his U.N. General Assembly speech — strong words do not qualify as leadership. It’s only credible when you call for reforms or actions that you actually stand behind — and reflect them in your domestic policy.
Whether it’s botched Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, a failure to close Guantanamo, or a disregarded redline on Syrian chemical weapons use, the discrepancy between America’s words and deeds opens it up to criticism from abroad. It’s hard enough to defend dysfunctional domestic policies — but when you are projecting those values on to the rest of the world, any mistake is that much more glaring.
On these leadership metrics, Barack Obama has proved to be better in theory than in practice. He certainly can give a stirring speech, but contradictions between the United States’ promoted values and its actions have undercut Obama’s leverage in diplomatic negotiations. Just ask Xi Jinping, whose meeting with Obama was neutered by Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. I wrote a Reuters column back in June explaining the drawbacks of American exceptionalism — and how the Snowden affair was undermining any progress on cyber policy with the Chinese. Even if NSA surveillance and China’s cyberattacks on American intellectual property are apples and oranges, the Snowden affair makes for an easy pretext for China to bury the issue.
Recently, there has been a lot of discussion surrounding American exceptionalism, from Vladimir Putin arguing against the concept in his New York Times op-ed, to Obama strongly reasserting it in his U.N. speech. But exceptionalism is dangerous and counterproductive when America’s missteps make it an exception to the very rules it champions. Obama was correct in identifying the “vacuum of leadership” in the international system. He could have been more honest about the vacuum here at home. It’s one thing when a student dozes off in class — it’s entirely different if the teacher scolds the student, only to nap right after. As a shutdown leaves the U.S. government unable to perform its most basic functions, how can it presume to weigh in on what a political system should look like?
To be exceptional, the United States need not be the global policeman, nor an indispensable nation. What it needs is a leader who can clearly outline the principles that the administration and the country stand for, uphold them whenever possible, and take ownership of any failures to do so with honest accountability. Recently, America has fallen far short of that mark, and its exceptionalist rhetoric leaves the bar as high as possible. A little humility wouldn’t hurt.
コラム：米国に必要なのは「少しの謙虚さ」
イアン・ブレマー
http://jp.reuters.com/article/jp_column/idJPTYE99805W20131009?sp=true
米国は、与野党が暫定予算案で合意できず、一部政府機関が閉鎖に追い込まれるという事態を世界に露呈した。トルコのエルドアン首相は、閉鎖により一時待機させられている米連邦職員がいることについて、「われわれの政府は職員に給与を支払わなかったことはない」と勝ち誇ったように語った。
国内政治の機能不全は、海外での米国の信頼を損なう。オバマ大統領は国内の政治的利益を最優先し、アジア歴訪を中止。インドネシアで開催されるアジア太平洋経済協力会議（ＡＰＥＣ）首脳会議も欠席した。
政府機関の閉鎖は、金融危機を筆頭に過去１０年ほど続く問題の一部だ。何十年にもわたり、米国は自由市場資本主義を信奉し、他国にも導入するよう促してきた。米国は例外的な経済的成功を手にしたことで、他国経済のあり方に口を出せると考えるようになった。
しかし、大手銀行に踊らされた甘い規制が生んだ金融危機は米国から始まり、その影響は世界へと広がっていった。失業と債務危機が相次ぎ、各国は経済運営方法の再考を余儀なくされた。自由市場経済の神話が崩れると、他の経済システムを取る国々は喜んで批判した。中国は大半の国よりもうまく金融危機のかじを取り、同国の国家資本主義は実行可能な代替モデルとみなされるようになった。
２００９年当時、中国の何亜非外務次官から投げられた言葉は決して忘れないだろう。「自由市場が失敗に終わった今、経済で国家が取るべき適切な役割とはどのようなものだと考えるか」と率直に聞いてきたのだ。金融危機は、それまで認識されてきた世界的な価値観を見直し、米国流システムを見放す機会にさえなった。
これは、米国が抱える大きな問題を指摘するケーススタディと言える。大抵の場合、米国は実例よりもレトリックで世界を主導してきた。しかし、中心的な役割を果たす国が不在の「Ｇゼロ」世界では、力強い言葉がリーダーシップとみなされるわけではない。改革や行動を訴え、実際に政策に反映してこそ信頼できるリーダーシップと言えるのだ。
グアンタナモ収容施設閉鎖が難航している問題であろうと、シリアの化学兵器使用をめぐる「レッドライン（越えてはならない一線）」であろうと、米国の言行不一致は海外から批判を招く。機能不全の内政を擁護することすら大変なのに、自国の価値観を世界中に投影しようとするなら、どんな過ちでも、それはいっそう目立つことになる。
こうしたリーダーシップが問われる数々の問題を通じ、オバマ大統領は実践より理論に長けていることを証明した格好だ。オバマ氏のスピーチは確かに感動的だ。だが、米国が推進する価値観とその行動における矛盾は、外交交渉において同氏の影響力を弱めている。
オバマ大統領が、国連演説で国際システムにおける「リーダーシップの真空状態」を認めたことは正しかった。同様に、米国内のリーダーシップ不在についても、もっと正直になれたのではなかったか。一部政府機関が閉鎖され、最も基本的なことが機能しない中、米国政府が政治システムのあり方を描けるわけがない。
米国が例外的であるために、世界の警察である必要はない。米国に必要なのは、国家が立つ原理のアウトラインを明確に提示でき、過ちの責任を誠実に取ることができるリーダーである。最近の米国はこの水準よりはるかに劣っており、米国例外論がそのハードルを可能な限り高くしている。少しばかり謙虚になっても傷つくことはないのだ。