America, the New Leader for Third World Countries
American international relations theorist John Mearsheimer indicates in his book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” that international politics has always been a game for the greatest powers. Recent years, however, have seen a change in this regular historical pattern, that is, a rapid soar of small powers’ influence on international politics and the idea that “the tail is wagging the dog” keeps cropping up. Though some small powers may have limited national strength, they usually sit in a strategic geopolitical location, contend with different great powers, are in control of abundant natural resources and carry out flexible foreign policies. They take action at the mere sight of oncoming forces and seize every opportunity they get to gain an advantage, much like Gulliver playing between Brobdingnag and Lilliput. It’s easy for them to cause a sensation and draw the whole world’s attention.
Small powers’ increasing influence in today’s world reflects the problems of great power politics. Since the financial crisis, America has been carrying out a “domestic affairs first” principle and is somehow unwilling to shoulder its international responsibility. Now every time that it is facing international dispute, America acts entirely based on its own national interest and thus gives room to the small powers to expand their international influence.
When the cat is away, the mice will play. Certain countries that did not rely on America’s support in the past now see that America is dodging its responsibilities, and they have seized the opportunity to exploit this change. They have used it to encourage arguments among other countries over island sovereignty, to create conflicts on hot issues and snatch energy resources. After the financial crisis, small powers have gained an even greater trouble-making ability, which has become one of the root reasons for the instability of today’s world. While America, a self-named world leader all along, has taken on an indulgent and even supportive attitude toward those small powers that intend to challenge the local order and the principles of international relations.
Facing the turbulent situation in Western Asia and North Africa, America is no longer acting like it used to when dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, where it originally took the lead and ran at the forefront of the pack. This time the U.S. is sitting aside, letting loose some countries that are working for the enlargement of the U.N. Security Council and turning a blind eye to the turmoil in certain small-power countries. In other words, America seems glad to sit on its hands, enjoy the fights from a distance, and wait patiently for everything to settle down.
As for the disputes in the Asia Pacific over the islands in the area, it is more obvious to see that America is supporting and indulging smaller powers. Regardless of who has the truth, America always sides with the small powers. As long as one country in particular makes the proposal, America will very actively carry out a military drill with it, regardless of whether it’s within the scope of its obligations to its ally or not. Choosing sides so indiscriminately like this is pretty rare in America’s diplomatic history.
Therefore, we can see that America is behaving more and more like a leader for the third world in its diplomatic relations. On one hand, it holds up a banner of insisting on principles and upholding justice, increases its assistance and support for the small powers, befriends the third world countries, and incites small countries to challenge other great powers; on the other hand, America has taken up a stick and carrot policy toward other countries, and is encouraging other great powers to more actively shoulder the so-called “international responsibility” by exerting increasing political and economic pressure regarding regional and international affairs on them. In one word, this kind of “smart power” strategy of playing the great and small powers off of each other all boils down to the protection of America’s place as a world leader.
As for America’s wish to be a leader for the third world, China will not interfere. If America is sincere about such a position, China holds no objection against it, and the third world countries would be glad to follow America’s lead as long as it doesn’t lead them to act against the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter or trigger regional upheaval, and as long as it doesn’t harm China’s legal interests.
But the heart of the matter is that if America’s cooperation with third world countries breaches the principle of non-interference in internal affairs and breaks the existing principles of international relations, China is determined to protect its own principles and bottom line. China should make a clear stance of opposing making internal affairs international, making bilateral issues multilateral and making regional disputes more complicated. That way even if America successfully assumes the post of new leader in the third world, it may soon realize that it’s just utterly boring.
Small powers’ increasing influence in today’s world reflects the problems of great power politics. Since the financial crisis, America has been carrying out a “domestic affairs first” principle and is somehow unwilling to shoulder its international responsibility. Now every time that it is facing international dispute, America acts entirely based on its own national interest and thus gives room to the small powers to expand their international influence.
When the cat is away, the mice will play. Certain countries that did not rely on America’s support in the past now see that America is dodging its responsibilities, and they have seized the opportunity to exploit this change. They have used it to encourage arguments among other countries over island sovereignty, to create conflicts on hot issues and snatch energy resources. After the financial crisis, small powers have gained an even greater trouble-making ability, which has become one of the root reasons for the instability of today’s world. While America, a self-named world leader all along, has taken on an indulgent and even supportive attitude toward those small powers that intend to challenge the local order and the principles of international relations.
Facing the turbulent situation in Western Asia and North Africa, America is no longer acting like it used to when dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, where it originally took the lead and ran at the forefront of the pack. This time the U.S. is sitting aside, letting loose some countries that are working for the enlargement of the U.N. Security Council and turning a blind eye to the turmoil in certain small-power countries. In other words, America seems glad to sit on its hands, enjoy the fights from a distance, and wait patiently for everything to settle down.
As for the disputes in the Asia Pacific over the islands in the area, it is more obvious to see that America is supporting and indulging smaller powers. Regardless of who has the truth, America always sides with the small powers. As long as one country in particular makes the proposal, America will very actively carry out a military drill with it, regardless of whether it’s within the scope of its obligations to its ally or not. Choosing sides so indiscriminately like this is pretty rare in America’s diplomatic history.
Therefore, we can see that America is behaving more and more like a leader for the third world in its diplomatic relations. On one hand, it holds up a banner of insisting on principles and upholding justice, increases its assistance and support for the small powers, befriends the third world countries, and incites small countries to challenge other great powers; on the other hand, America has taken up a stick and carrot policy toward other countries, and is encouraging other great powers to more actively shoulder the so-called “international responsibility” by exerting increasing political and economic pressure regarding regional and international affairs on them. In one word, this kind of “smart power” strategy of playing the great and small powers off of each other all boils down to the protection of America’s place as a world leader.
As for America’s wish to be a leader for the third world, China will not interfere. If America is sincere about such a position, China holds no objection against it, and the third world countries would be glad to follow America’s lead as long as it doesn’t lead them to act against the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter or trigger regional upheaval, and as long as it doesn’t harm China’s legal interests.
But the heart of the matter is that if America’s cooperation with third world countries breaches the principle of non-interference in internal affairs and breaks the existing principles of international relations, China is determined to protect its own principles and bottom line. China should make a clear stance of opposing making internal affairs international, making bilateral issues multilateral and making regional disputes more complicated. That way even if America successfully assumes the post of new leader in the third world, it may soon realize that it’s just utterly boring.