Realism can be described in simplest terms as an approach to international relations in which a country considers its national interests as the sole aim of its foreign policy and so far as the interests are being served and remain protected this country is not bothered about whatever happens to anyone in the world. Realist paradigm also includes the pursuit of power and projection of power to serve national interests while negating others’ abilities to hurt them.
If pursuing national interests at any cost means being a realist, then US is definitely a realist state. However, the multiplicity of national interests means that there are different strategies to serve them, some of which may be indirect and with covert motives. For e.g. the US’s growing proximity with India is seen by many as a move to balance out a Rising China. The interest is to maintain a relative difference in power between US and China, but it is being attained by creating a rival in the neighborhood of China which will engage it sufficiently that it is not able to emerge as a threat to US dominance. Further, it will buy time for the US to enhance its capabilities further so that it maintains the lead. Similarly, the supply of world public goods by the US like internet, security of sea lanes, GPS, etc. may appear to be very generous gifts of the US to the world but they serve the great purpose of enhancing US’s legitimacy and acceptability in the world (US Hegemony) while also demonstrating its position as technological leader of the world.
So, if ‘ might is right’ is the rule and the powerful are employing all the means to maintain their position as well as lead, then how can the present phenomenon of structural adjustment of power balance around the world be explained? The changes taken place at the global level very well explain this-
Firstly, the huge increase in the number of nation states in the world order and the ability of these nation states to take concerted actions if required. That the developing countries have united more than once to demand more concessions from the US and other developed nations has impacted US’s ability to take unilateral actions without facing disapproval of so many players. This has compelled US to seek support of at least some of these nations and mostly by trying to create a divide among these numerically diverse but mostly poor countries. The US is achieving this by granting smaller concessions to individual countries like supporting an unpopular regime, by insisting on bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral negotiations framework, using its diplomatic skills to impose proposals which promote its own interests, etc
Secondly, the end of the cold war itself brought about dramatic structural change in the world, with the US emerging as the sole superpower. This status of sole superpower creates more demands upon US because earlier actions of the US whether wrong or right could be easily justified as being in response to Cold War politics and the race for supremacy between the two power centres- the US and the USSR. Now there is no one to challenge US power, hence, it has become difficult for US to justify its military adventures around the world and it is no surprise that the US strike on Iraq has been severely criticized. All the nations expect the US to act responsibly. As its interests are spread the world over, the US actions are scrutinized by the entire world and unlike before, now the US is expected to work more ideally. This situation curtails the leverage of direct intervention that US had so far successfully used to serve its interests.
Thirdly, Globalization, which was meant to perpetuate the US and developed countries’ economic dominance (relying upon the technological prowess), has emerged as more complex phenomenon than previously presumed with many spin off effects. Certain countries like India, China etc had developed a strong economic base with indigenous capacities & relying upon their own resources. Hence, when liberalization followed, these countries were able to compete and survive by using state support as in case of China and bringing efficiencies in production (‘scale economies’)thus becoming cost competitive, largely due to cheap labor; cheap raw materials and lax environmental regulations. This does not mean that the US has been defeated. In fact, the US has immensely benefitted from Globalization, but the relative weight of US in world economy is declining rapidly and because economy is at the centre stage of world geopolitical scene, this relative decline means a relative erosion of power from a significant sector. By 2025, China will replace US as world’s largest economy and there are others like India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia who are climbing the ladder fast, thus reducing the relative gap. The economic rise of these countries has begun to restructure the Global financial institutions- IMF has reviewed the quotas of the emerging economies and new institutions like the G-20 have become more acceptable worldwide. The recent demand for discontinuing the informal convention of appointing a European national as IMF head shows the turbulence generated in the world’s power structure by the rise of these economies. Apart from economy, globalization is having several other impacts like increased migration and growing diversity in developed countries, loss of jobs in US due to shift in businesses to developing countries, rise of extremism (not entirely attributable to globalization), environmental degradation and climate change, etc which pose challenges for US foreign policy.
Fourth reason follows from the third one. The US economy is recovering more slowly than expected. On the other hand, economies of the emerging countries have returned to their pre-2008 growth levels and present a robust outlook. There are structural and demographic constraints (though the situation of US on demographic front is much better than European nations) in the US economy which will prevent it to grow further drastically. Whereas the economies of China, India etc, fueled by huge middle class and young population are expected to grow at significantly higher rates for one to two decades. More importantly, these countries may bridge the technological gap or even excel in technological prowess in future because of the availability of huge technical manpower on one hand and the availability of relevant information through digital revolution on the other. China & India have the most number of cell phones in the world and they are rapidly catching up on internet and other means of information. In today’s technology driven world, superior technology is the key to dominance. That is the reason (realism) why Obama is repeatedly asking US children to focus on their studies by citing the example of Chinese and Indians.
Fifthly, though realism dictates that the US should use any and all means to maintain its power and position vis-à-vis rest of the world, the global scenario doesn’t let it do that. The US cannot fight a nuclear war as most of the rising economies either possess or have the capability to develop nuclear weapons. The US cannot also reverse globalization or shift its course in a major way (it no longer controls the Jinn of globalization) nor can it go back into ‘Isolation’ as it had done in 19th century. There is also very little chance that US will be able to prevent the economic rise of the emerging economies.
So what should US do to manage his rising rivals today so that they are less problematic tomorrow? Its priorities should be- firstly, to delay as far as possible the power shift itself, secondly to survive the first impact of power shift by gradualizing the process and thirdly, to minimize the overall impact of this shift. For accomplishing these objectives, it can engage with all the rising powers and try to derive the most benefits from all of them while consolidating its own abilities further. Rather than creating friction, it can actually recognize their rise thus reducing the ripples that would otherwise be generated by the scramble for power, in other words, rather than relinquishing the chair, US can offer a portion of the seat to the newcomer. By engaging them, rather than distancing them in managing the world, the US can ensure that it remains pre-eminent and significant for a longer time. Further, the US knows that there are multiple contenders and hence, they will compete with each other, so it should wait for the appropriate moments to eliminate contenders from the race. The weakest will go first. Further, the US can leverage its present position to create sufficient buffers for itself to maintain its position and balance the distribution of power in the world for a longer time. For e.g. India against China, Pakistan against India, China against Russia or vice versa, etc.
Conclusively, the US has immense experience as the leader of the world but its hands are getting increasingly tied with respect to the traditional methods of establishing supremacy. Hence, it is expected to evolve the most covert and indirect means to prolong its position as the sole superpower of the world. It is already using some of the means stated above and will definitely employ newer tools. China has become increasingly aggressive at international forums and Indian PM had recently said that International politics is basically about power relations, the more powerful will not relent their positions easily. It proves the recognition on the part of rising powers that US will not come down easily. Clearly, this power play is going to be something like never before seen in the history.
