Who Is to Carry the Burden of the U.S.?

The world’s problems are not merely whether or not the United States will decline, but whether any other country, including those seemingly solid allies of the United States, will help bear the load the U.S. would take off its back. Who is to bear and how? Is it possible to bear this load and how long will it take for us to do it? Will the United States feel comfortable about sharing some of its load? Ultimately, it is not just a transfer of power or problem-sharing, but more an issue of sharing responsibility.

Bad news keeps coming from Wall Street. Again, the decline of U.S. hegemony became a hot topic of debate. Complaining or even cursing a world of hegemony brings excitement to us. However, faced with a decline of U.S. hegemony, the power vacuum could also be painful. We do not like hegemony, but have we ever thought about this problem when we mocked its decline? If the United States is no longer hegemonic, or its strength is declining, then who will be willing to pick up the load that the United States is not able or willing to carry?

The U.S. probably has three causes. First, with the rise of other countries, the United States is getting relatively weak. Second, for the United States, “its ability of world domination” is “plunging into the lowest valley” (quote from “Berlin Daily”) – European media having even called the U.S. “a young patient getting weak.” Third, in today’s world that has more rising powers, Americans have realized that they do not have sufficient ability or willingness to continue providing more public services. Instead, the U.S. is to take initiative in order to discharge its own burdens.

These three aspects together create one result: the future “power vacuum” we will face. The current world, including U.S. allies, tends to just lodge complaints or accusations against the United States, rather than pick up its burden. Some developed countries are even quietly calculating how to better get out of the “pit” if the United States is ready to slip away. Another reality is that no country is strong enough to bear the whole burden, which can only be shared amongst many countries; but as to how to share, no one can offer a solution at the moment.

Moreover, the current globalized world calls for order. Superficially, the forces of globalization seem to be very strong: countries are interdependent and common interests must be taken into account in decision-making. However, during the crisis, the world is not different from what it was: national interests always remain paramount, with the iron allies of the United States not being an exception. The world is still full of risks.

Since the world needs order, and an independent power cannot maintain order and provide the world with more development opportunities, other countries should stand out and assume this role in establishing a mutually participated system. Unfortunately, such an ideal system has not been formed, and nobody knows when it will take shape. The world is still a place where power speaks.

The subprime crisis is an example. Many people anticipate, through this financial turmoil, a change of the current system that relies overly on the U.S. Good intentions are one thing, however, it is another matter whether or not a new multi-polar system can be established in the foreseeable future. We should notice that at present the world’s financial system does not exist in isolation. It is the result of long-term historical evolution, closely associated with a country’s strength, its openness, the development of globalization, and the existing global economic, political patterns. The relationship can be described as “the whole body moving when pulling one hair.”

Or perhaps, it will not take you long to discover that Wall Street’s decline is not followed by a more orderly global financial market, but a more chaotic one. You may even complain about another market that is even worse than Wall Street. This is a helpless and cruel reality. The subprime crisis has affected many foreign enterprises, banks, and individuals which in itself is again a true portrayal of the power of the United States.

Of course, in the long run, the growth of other economies and the rise of emerging countries will eventually alter this situation. However, this change does not depend on the amount of complaints from those countries victimized in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis, but will depend on whether they have the ability and desire to bear the responsibility the U.S. is unwilling or unable to take, in order to build a more pluralistic and stable system with more opportunities for the entire world.

Therefore, the world’s problems are not merely whether or not the United States are declining, but whether any other country, including those seemingly solid allies of the United States, will help bear the U.S. load. Who is to bear and how? Are they capable of bearing it and how long will it take? Will the United States be at ease with sharing some of its load? Ultimately, it is not just a transfer of power or problem-sharing, but more an issue of sharing responsibility. The lack of strength and desire to assume responsibility will lead to an unstable world.

It is from this sense that U.S. decline is dangerous. This is why many Western historians share a view that the end of U.S. hegemony is unlikely to nurture a multi-polar world system in an orderly fashion, but will lead to a world torn apart, because no other country is able to play a role of global leader. Ferguson, a British historian, even pessimistically addresses it as a “dark age.”

Of course, we would prefer to believe that humanity will not be foolish enough to repeat the same mistake. The world would gradually run under an order of common responsibility. But there is no doubt that it will be a difficult, painful, long and risky process, possibly accompanied by intense turbulence. This is the most important external factor that China faces in its rise. So the issue really is whether China is ready for such a change.