Fareed Zakarias The Post-American World - Book Report/Review Example

Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World divulges into the theory that many countries throughout the world are striving to be worthy of competition with the United States in regard to cultural, political, military, and economic power. This need to compete and prove superiority is due to the fact that the United States has been attempting to spread liberal democracy around the world, unconsciously challenging the powers of other countries. The United States remains to hold victory in political and military power, but other countries, like China and India, are beginning to make themselves known for accomplishments in other fields. Warranted by the ominous competition, Zakaria makes it known that while the United States will still be the most powerful country, its power will be less than what it has been. As such, he proposes six guidelines that are intended to help the United States and its power survive in the post-American world. However, given the United States’ past, it can be argued that adhering to these guidelines will be more than impossible given the strength of the United States’ power and its inability to allow other countries the chance to make itself appear weaker in comparison. The first guideline that Zakaria presents is Choose, which suggests that the United States should make priorities instead of attempting to have it all. The great strength that America holds has made the government believe that it is capable of having all that it wants, rather than just what it needs to survive. Instead of focusing time, effort, and money to have it all, which would inevitably continue to make the United States greater than other countries, the United States needs to decide and focus on priorities. When the government fights to have all that it wants, it risks receiving nothing. However, if it is able to make up its mind and focus on a few sole priorities, it stands a better chance of getting what it wants. The United States, having always preferred and worked to have it all, would be unable to simply focus and settle on a few priorities. The government has grown accustomed to having the power to obtain all that it needs that it would be unwilling to agree on fewer things. This largely comes from the inability of the government to determine which of their needs is greater than the others. Instead of taking the time to discuss what would be more beneficial or what is most likely to be successful, the government would rather aim at obtaining all of it. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, this often results in the government receiving nothing. Furthermore, the government has a history of being unable to sort out the priorities in a way that can benefit the citizens of America. By implementing one option, a prolonged war might be avoided; by implementing another, a prolonged war is inevitable. The government, on the other hand, “wants to avoid a prolonged war while making it known that they are still willing to fight, which only provokes other nations (Mingst 199)”. In the end, Americans are left with the least friendly option. As long as America believes that it can have it all, it is going to do what it must to get it all and it will only continue to pay for the consequences of its greed. The second guideline proposed by Zakaria is Build broad rules, not narrow interests. This guideline points out that the United States should be most concerned with creating a structure that the entire world will be bound to. This is opposed to the United States forcing its interests on other countries, which is something that other countries are also attempting to do. By creating a structure, the rising countries of the world would be able to lessen their chances of becoming too competitive with one another and forcing their own interests, which could greatly unbalance the power that has been building up. The reason that this guideline would be impossible for the United States to adhere to goes back to the United States’ inability to decide on priorities. If a structure would be set up that the other countries would have to abide by, the United States would also have to abide by the structure. This means that it would not be able to press its interests on other countries. Instead, it would have to work with other countries to make one set of guidelines for all to follow. Given its want to spread its power throughout the world, the United States would still attempt to force its own interests on others. The government believes that what is right for the United States is right for all, though they do nothing to make sure that every nation is involved in this. They do not help where they do not want to, such as the case of not encouraging democracy in Taiwan and Pakistan while doing so in other nations (Chomsky 129). Even if the United States were able to settle down long enough with the United Nations to create something that could be agreed upon by all, as well as be benefited, the United States would still be working with its own interests in mind. It would sway the plans in their favor in order to exercise the strength of their power. The third guideline for the United States in the post-American world is Bismarck, not Britain, which encourages the United States to perpetuate excellent relations with every nation instead of trying to balance itself against a rising and more dangerous power. This would prevent offsetting the emerging powers of these countries. The world is more connected now that it has ever been, and if more countries continue to rise in their own power, the more chance there is that relations can improve or strengthen where they already exist. Being unable to main relations with other greater nations is not a complete disregard of the United States’ ability, but the abilities of all nations. In a world that will never see complete peace, maintaining these relations with the greater powers would be easier said than done. There will always be a need for the United States to be balanced against a rising power, which is something that has been proven in history. As the adage claims, history does repeat itself, and this would be no exception. “When a greater power emerges, there is always the fear that it will become corrupt (Reid 6)”, causing certain damage to the world, which is something that was seen during World War II and the Holocaust when the United States tried to make itself more powerful than Nazi Germany, matching it or being better than its power. The United States has had experience in balancing itself against another power, and while it did not work out so great the previous times, there is nothing to suggest that it will not try again in the future, especially if it means attempting to protect itself and other nations against potential threats posed by this other rising power. Zakaria’s fourth proposed guideline is Order à la carte, which is the speculation that international peace is most successful when the most steady system consists of a single dominant power that sustains order. This has been the case for the longest time, a position shared between the United States and Britain. There is the fear that this dominance is slowly but surely diminishing since the United States is no longer the largest market in the world. The recommendation is for the United States to begin compromising and striking bargains with other nations so that it may combine its forces with the forces of other growing, powerful nations. The government of the United States will not allow its dominance to dwindle, and it will do so without resorting to compromises and bargaining with others. The system may be diminishing, but the United States will ensure that it does not become too fragile. If it does decide to seek help from other nations, it will continue to refer to the United Nations, which means leaving out certain nations. The government of the United States has become used to being the dominant power, and while it has accepted that it is not the only power or the only large market in the world, it can still fight to make itself the dominating nation, and it will (Gelb 56). Power is a corrupt tool that nobody wants to give up, and the United States is no exception, especially when it has held this power and dominance for so long. As an independent nation, it will prevent itself from seeking national help, unless it becomes a dire need, for as long as possible. The fifth proposed guideline is Asymmetrically, which gives the United States the advice to only respond to greater, more serious problems, like terrorists. The United States should ignore the smaller attacks that are meant to only draw attention and provoke the United States into fighting back. In this way, the United States will lessen its risk of falling into traps. This does not go against the need of the United States to exercise its power, but its inability to sit still and allow itself to be attacked when they know that they have the power to fight back in defense. Regardless of how small a problem might seem, the second that it reveals itself in the form of attack, no matter how big or small, the United States is ready to fight it off. Even if the attack may be attention-seeking, there is nothing to suggest that it will not escalate into something bigger, like a terrorist attack. “When the United States defends itself, it not only does so to ward off the current attack, but to also prevent future incidences (Jackson & Towle 117)”. The government of the United States likes to nip things in the bud, which is an intelligent action. It informs all enemies that it is not a nation to be reckoned with. Furthermore, if the government of the United States does fall into a trap, it boasts a powerful military to guide them out of it. Unfortunately, this is often when a small attack or trap becomes something larger. By applying this fifth guideline, the United States would prevent itself from exacerbating what should have been an action to simply brush off. However, the pride and power of the United States also encompasses its ability to remain stationary while another nation plays with their own. The final guideline proposed by Zakaria is Legitimacy is power. Of all the power that the United States has, it still lacks legitimacy. By lacking legitimacy, the United States also lacks the inability to create an agenda, determine if there is a crisis, and gain support from nongovernmental forces. By acting without the legitimacy, the United States has implemented actions on a whim without gaining approval or support from others. In other words, it has done what it wanted to do without permission. If the government of the United States were to provoke legitimacy, and gaining international approval and support, the results of any actions can prove to be more beneficial for many, instead of just a few. Again, the United States will continue to do what it has believed has worked best for itself. In the case of the terrorist attack that targeted the World Trade Center, the government on the United States acted on a whim to fight back. Its actions are only condoned because it was a serious threat, but instead of scaring the enemy, it terrified the entire world. The United States will continue to condone its actions regardless of the consequences or the opinions of other nations in the aftermath. If the government of the United States feels that it will send a more powerful message by being illegitimate and secretive to other nations, than it will continue to do so in the future. It believes that by preparing other nations for the blow that is about to come, its sending a warning to the enemy that it does not deserve (Goldstein & Pevehouse 202). It all comes down to the need of the government of the United States to exercise its ability as a more powerful nation and to continue to implement supposed tried-and-true methods. While other countries are gaining more power in certain aspects, the United States still remains to be the greatest, no matter how much of its power has fallen to the other rising nations. As such, it will continue to exercise its power as the greater nation. It may eventually succumb to some of the recommendations of the six guidelines proposed by Zakaria, but the government of the United States will still put itself at the head of the pack as long as it remains to have the power to do so. Works Cited Chomsky, Noam. Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2007. Print. Gelb, Leslie H. Power Rules. New York: Harper, 2010. Print. Goldstein, Joshua S., and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relationships. New York: Pearson Longman, 2011. Print. Jackson, Robert J., and Philip Towle. Temptations of Power. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Print. Mingst, Karen. Essentials of International Relations. 4th ed. New York: Norton, 2008. Print. Reid, T. R. The United States of Europe. New York: Penguin Books, 2005. Print. Read More