Despite recent setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States remains the world's sole superpower and must reshape international institutions to address the challenges of the 21st century, Dartmouth government professors Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth argue in an article to be published in the March/April 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. The article denies that "the rise of the rest" will soon cause the world to become multipolar, meaning that several states have relatively equal power.
"People are writing the United States off as having declined, as no longer being in the number one position, and I think that people are being overly pessimistic," Brooks said in an interview with The Dartmouth.
An overinflated view of America's strength at the turn of the millennium has contributed to the misconception that the United States is declining, Brooks said. Many political and academic commentators became so disillusioned watching perceived military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that they became convinced that the country is weaker than it actually is, he added.
"A lot of people concluded that the United States had magic bullets and could defeat its adversaries with no costs," Brooks said. "Why did they think we ever had magic bullets? No country has ever had magic bullets."
The tendency to underestimate the United States' world power is "potentially very dangerous," Wohlforth said, because it could prevent the United States from exercising the kind of dynamic and creative leadership needed internationally. The United States will likely remain the world's strongest power for at least the next 20 years, he said, and must use its influence while it can.
"If you're right on the edge, if you're feeling that you might lose [your status], you really might go for keeping your powder dry and taking conservative positions," he said.
As the world's preeminent power, the United States should be willing to intervene internationally, using institutions like the United Nations and World Trade Organization to advance its interests, Brooks and Wohlforth argue in the article.
These institutions "facilitate the United States' own global leadership," Brooks and Wohlforth write, because they establish frameworks for cooperation on a variety of transnational issues and ensure that the United States does not have to renegotiate alliances whenever a new problem arises.
"The United States may be frustrated that other members of NATO are not contributing more to the mission in Afghanistan," the professors state. "But it is far better to have this particular conversation than to debate whether countries such as France and Germany should make any contribution at all."
Modern challenges, including terrorism, infectious disease, international finance and global warming, cannot be solved without the cooperation of many states, Brooks and Wohlforth write. International institutions, including the Atomic Energy Agency, allow the United States to pursue its interests in ways that do not appear to be blatant and provocative exercises of power, the professors argue.
Noting that current international institutions are far from perfect, Brooks and Wohlforth offer several suggestions as to how the United States can reform these organizations. Although the United States' reputation has been damaged in recent years, the professors argue that other countries still believe the United States is the best choice to lead international institutions.
As a leader, the United States can reform these institutions by framing changes as beneficial to all members, Wohlforth and Brooks write.
The article cites historical examples, including Britain's reformation of maritime trade and an agreement between President George W. Bush's administration and Liberia that gave both states the right to search each other's vessels.
The article makes several general policy recommendations for the United States, including the expansion of states' access to low-level fission, which would help to distinguish peaceful from war-like nuclear development. Further research is needed to determine how to implement these policies, Wohlforth told The Dartmouth.
The United States' influence is also connected with its will to lead, Wohlforth said. No other states, even regional powers like Russia and China, wish to assume responsibility for the international system, he said.
"If you name any major issue -- climate change, nuclear proliferation, transnational terrorist networks -- any of these interest areas, does it look likely that the solutions are going to come from Moscow, Beijing, Delhi or Brussels?" he asked.
Wohlforth said he was optimistic that President Barack Obama's administration will exercise leadership on the global stage, noting that the article quotes Obama as praising the United States' history of international cooperation during the Cold War.
"I think they agree with us," he said of the Obama administration. "If they read our article, many of them will say 'we're already there.'"