The Other Pole

I’m not sure how it’s perceived in Colombia, but from here the United States’ lack of global leadership is evident. Immersed in its budget problems, the beginning of the presidential campaign and the endless war in Afghanistan, the U.S. government is a vague presence in Asia, where, in contrast, China is increasingly dominant.

I suspect that it’s not just in Asia where the United States is being eclipsed. In Africa, Latin America and even Europe, the viewpoint that the northern giant, the leader of the free world, the absolute and undisputable global superpower isn’t so “super” after all, appears to be increasing.

I wouldn’t place blame on Obama or on past administrations, with all their errors. As China gains traction, it’s only natural that the power of the United States and the West in general diminishes. As the experts would say, what we are seeing is the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world which, they believe, is a good thing.

A world in which no country plays the role of the global police could be a place with fewer wars: The persistence of the United States in imposing its values and ideas on other nations has had a high cost. Moreover, with more countries participating in the decision-making, a multipolar world would actually represent a higher percentage of the population.

But what would happen if we moved from one unipolar world to another, in which the superpower wasn’t the United States, but China?

An article on the extensive Chinese “colonization” in Africa, published last week by the English magazine The Economist, helped give me perspective on the issue. China has a massive presence in Africa and the experience there could serve as a type of laboratory for what will begin to happen in other regions — like our own, where the Asian country has special interests.

For example, in contrast to American foreign policy, China’s has an economic but not ideological logic. Therefore, doing business with leaders like those in Zimbabwe and Sudan, condemned by the bulk of the international community, is not a problem.

Latin America applies the same philosophy. It doesn’t negotiate with the most righteous countries but instead with those that provide the highest returns. Hence, between 2005 and 2010, it invested almost $9 billion in Chavez’s Venezuela, in comparison to the limited $430 million reserved for Colombia.

According to The Economist, in Africa, some Chinese business leaders aggravate the problems of corruption that already exist in the countries in which they invest, where they take advantage of institutional weakness to violate environmental and labor laws. Institutional strength is not exactly a Latin American characteristic; that is, the field is fertile to repeat the phenomenon.

As any other country, the United States defends its own interests, but also dedicates efforts and resources to promote universal values, like democracy and freedom of expression. China has a policy of not intervening in the internal affairs of other countries and doesn’t commit to causes that aren’t its own.

I don’t deny that the Chinese have brought several benefits to Africa, from financing projects that wouldn’t have come to fruition any other way to making products accessible to the public that were once unattainable. Those same benefits can end up favoring Latin American countries, but we must be aware of the price that will have to be paid.

There are those that believe now is the time to end America’s century of dominance, but I am not so sure. As much as we love complaining about Americans, we are going to end up missing them.