One night, in a bar in Zanzibar, I saw two sex workers chatting up a couple of Germans. The Germans were in their 50s, paunchy and balding — the women were young and pretty. It was a painful sight, the Germans plying the women with drinks and single entendre; the women laughing as though their lives depended on it, which in a way they did.
But after a while the true pathos became apparent: The Germans actually thought that these young women were interested in them because of who they were rather than what they had — money. That their dazzling personalities and dashing good looks had magically transformed them into irresistible specimens of manhood. Mistaking the possibility of a commercial transaction for the unlikelihood of sexual attraction, their eyes lingered on the mirror behind the bar as they started preening themselves, as though their looks mattered.
Power, whether you wield it or not, has a way of shading our sense of selves and others. In The Audacity of Hope, US president-elect Barack Obama recalls a businessman seeing former US vice president Al Gore shortly after the 2000 election.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
“During the campaign I would take his calls any time of day,” the executive said. “But suddenly, after the election, I couldn’t help feeling that the meeting was a chore. At some level he wasn’t Al Gore, former vice-president. He was just one of the hundred guys a day who are coming to me looking for money. It made me realize what a big steep cliff you guys are on.”
The US may be perched on the edge of a similar precipice. The degree to which it commands its hegemony through wealth and might (hard power) as opposed to culture and democratic example (soft power) has long been an open question. The personal aspiration, individual liberty and social meritocracy that are central to its national brand have an almost universal appeal. But how much that ethos makes sense without wealth and power is another matter. People need a social ladder worth climbing and something to do with their freedoms when they get to the top.
Have Caribbean kids been ditching cricket for basketball because it is faster and slicker or because it offers the possibility of university scholarships, riches and fame? Was Obama’s victory any more miraculous than Bolivian President Evo Morales’ — he was the first indigenous Bolivian to rule his country — or do we just know and care more about it because of the US’ impact on our lives? What is Sex and the City without the shopping and the skyline? By almost any count Sweden has greater gender equality and liberated sexual mores than the US. Yet would the escapades of four single women in Stockholm stand a chance of becoming an international blockbuster, even if it were in English? Unlikely.
The truth is that US economic and cultural power are so inextricably woven that to separate them would be to see the whole thing unravel before your eyes. Both are fundamental to how the rest of the world views the US and how Americans view themselves.
And yet, with the simultaneous transition of Obama’s ascent to the White House and the national economy’s descent into long-term decline, countervailing pressures are pushing those two factors in contradictory directions. Abroad, US political leadership has never been so popular or so impotent. At home, Americans have never felt so excited about what their country might become or so apprehensive about where it might be heading. The next few months are shaping up to be truly Dickensian: the best of times, and the worst of times.
On the one hand, almost three weeks after the election, Obama still peers out from posters and badges. The warm glow of his victory still radiates and few seem keen to snuff out the flame. On the subway in New York last weekend an African-American woman in her 50s asked me what I thought of “our new president.” We talked politics until my stop, exchanged a handshake and a hug. I dare say I’ll never see her again.
The disappointing composition of his transition team (if he was going to appoint half of former US president Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, why not just let Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have the nomination?) has done nothing to blunt the enthusiasm. Two months before he takes office Obama enjoys a 61 percent approval rating. If the rest of the world were polled, it would be even higher. As his triumph was announced, public celebrations erupted in almost every time zone. It is difficult to think of a moment when there has been more global goodwill towards an American leader, let alone such a dramatic reversal of attitude towards US leadership.
On the other hand, it is difficult to think of a moment when Americans felt more depressed about the state of their country or were less able to enforce their will on the world. Just one in six believe that the country is heading in the right direction, and consumer confidence is at a historical low. A country wedded to the notion that every year will be better than the last, and every generation more prosperous than the last, has seen social mobility stall and the past look more promising than the future. Meanwhile, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the nation’s military is hopelessly overstretched and its reputation for invincibility lies shattered. Diplomatically, it is out of moral capital. Economically, it is out of plain old capital.
While these two trends coincide, they are not moving in lockstep. The presidential transition is hostage to a definite time period — Obama will not take the oath for another 57 days. Meanwhile, the scale and pace of the economic decline is indefinite. Less than two months ago, Citigroup was one vulture swooping in to feed from the carcass of the failed Wachovia bank. With its shares now in freefall and its chief executive in peril, Citigroup now looks set to become carrion itself. Obama wants to try and save the big three car manufacturers; it remains to be seen how many will be left by his inauguration.
So Obama’s win may have been a lesson for the rest of the world, as claimed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
“Electing a black president says around the world that you can overcome old wounds,” she told the New York Times last weekend. “I’ve said in our case, we have a birth defect, but it can be overcome.”
The trouble is the rest of the world no longer needs to attend the lectures.
“Owing to the relative decline of its economic and, to a lesser extent, military power, the US will no longer have the same flexibility in choosing among as many policy options,” the National Intelligence Council (NIC) said last week.
The report acknowledged that while the US would remain the single most powerful force in the world, its relative strength and potential leverage are in decline.
It doesn’t take a genius to work this out. Which is just as well, since there are clearly few geniuses in the NIC. Its last forecast, in December 2004, predicted “continued US dominance,” and oil and gas supplies “sufficient to meet global demand.”
It can take time for perception to catch up with reality. By the time those Germans figured out their true aesthetic value, they may well have been broke.
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS