with only 1 millennial in 30 American, who in the world wants US to be gloab leader of everything

[chris macrae]

Octo9ber 2021 Oxford Union hosted this debate

Oxford Union on Twitter: "Professor Amitav Acharya ...

https://mobile.twitter.com › OxfordUnion › status

Oct 28, 2021 — , speaking on Opposition for the US debate: ' I don't see it as leadership. I see this as hubris. It is dangerous for the world, and for America ...

==================================

in more detail

Proposing the motion This House Would Still Look to the US for Global Leadership”.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind

Robert Spalding

Jane Harman 

Motion lost by about 2 to 1

 

Opposing Orof Acharya, Ambassador Andrey Kelin

 

Youtube Professor Acharya  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGJsk5JjMCg

 

Oxford Union President

now i look to professor amitav acharya to continue the case for opposition

00:22

 

the proposition has claimed a lot of knowledge but actually has shown very little light

00:31

let there be light: i represent no country, no branch of government, no diplomatic service

no cabinet no congress, no house of representatives no parliament

 i speak as an independent person

i'm a citizen of united states ; citizen of canada and half a citizen of india

 i have taught in south africa, thailand, hungary, united kingdom the great university of

bristol…from that perspective some of the things i heard from the proposition

sound to me as unbelievable

01:16

in arguing against the proposition, let me start by giving you two very memorable lines about american leadership

01:29

one comes from madeleine albright-    congresswoman harmon had referred to her in 1998

referring to iraq albright said  “if we have to use force it is because we are america; we are the indispensable nation

01:56

a few months later she said if we act others will criticize us, others may not like us but why should we care”  this was her interview with william safire

02:11

a decade and a half later, another american statement, former president barack obama

another liberal multilateralist stated in a speech to West Point:

here is my bottom line- america must always lead on the world stage

if we don't,,noone else will

that was in 2014- the same year i published my book the end of american world order

 

02:37

i don't see this as leadership; i see this as hubris:

it is dangerous for the world and it is dangerous for america itself

 

let me give you three reasons why  (now my fine colleague from the opposition simon has preempted me somewhat but let me emphasize the points he made)

03:16

first us leadership has failed in many critical junctures especially when it comes to this weird

idea of regime change -changing governments to make them democratic

03:27

so we have examples in iraq , libya even afghanistan which was originally started as probably a

justifiable intervention but trying to change the regime and the way the withdrawal happened--

it's a failure of policy

 

 i've heard the statements from many people that in the liberal order led by u.s disappears , then the world will be on fire; my question is who started those fires: who started the fires in iraq,

who started the fires in libya, who started the fires in afghanistan

04:01

Second  again simon has made this point it's about capacity but let me give you an

Example: nothing is more important to the world than economic development

That puts people out of poverty

04:16

Today china spends more money on international development than the united states:  i'm

not inventing this college of william and mary in us has done a study on this

china consistently annually spends more money on international development than

the united states so why should china lead? why shouldn’t the united states lead in one

of the most critical aspects of international relations

04:41

china and india have spent billions helping hundreds of millions of people out of poverty why

shoukld they lead when the world is still mired in poverty inequality and lack of progress

04:55

finally third point domestic politics in the us we would love america to lead in some

cases would the congress allow it? Would congresswoman jane harmon..

05:07

 

partisan fractious domestic politics of the united states has drained it of

any credibility of global leadership; there was a time which recalled american

foreign policy consensus during the cold war so republicans and democrats agreed

with each other on a whole variety of issues

05:28

Today the extreme polarization, the extreme mood swings, when administration changes

makes it very difficult to take united states foreign policy seriously

05:44

to the house then,  suggest a schizophrenic nation cannot be an

indispensible nation

05:50

look at what donald trump did

05:52

he reversed a whole range of policies of barack obama not because they were wrong

not because they were obama's policies;I’m talking about trans-pacific partnership

the iran nuclear deal, talking about the paris agreement climate agreement

06:13

there is no basis to it just personal vendetta policies;

 and immigration howcan countries trust a country whose

politics is so divided so franctious

06:25

to be a leader you know credible,  american commitments to the

world are no longer credible because domestic politics is so fragile and

poisonous

06:35

so moving on:i believe the us must not always lead as

obama put it; it should sometimes be led,sometimes you should step back,

let others lead.. and this point has been made by some of my colleagues also by ir malcolm there are many other countries to lead, we always think it is either u.s or china or u.s or china and

russia…what about the rest of the world what aboutce what about france oir uk

 

 now here is one important thing : regarding the mentality that if we if america doesn't

lead nobody else can lead

07:15

this have led to free riding this is why sir malcolm's government cannot lead.

because you have become dependent on the united states of america you cannot think

clearly for yourself

07:27

this is very very common in academic literature called  “free riding”

https://warontherocks.com/2014/06/unipolar-no-more-the-obama-doctri...

07:31

free riding: if you take on this free riding if

we can explore the term (I call) multiplex world – this is not about g1 g2 g7 g20 or g0

07:53

it is g plus

07:55

If we value g plus then no country should want to lead in every issue area

i'll give you an example china leads in economic development no question about

european union lives in climate change- can't find a better leader

08:12

united states when it is not unilateral as it was in iraq war can actually lead to collective security

08:20

or America could lead in vaccines

08:25

but why  america or any country lead everything?

 

this the vast majority of the people in the world don't live in these countries

08:34

they live in africa latin america middle east and asia they don't have to choose

08:39

Why force them to choose between one country to elad everything

08:41

so the united states therefore has to step back

08:46

let others lead and leadership also it's not just a question of governments it's also

the matter of people

08:54

now there's a lot of literature and global governance that says increasingly

leadership in global governance can not only be done by states or the big multilateral

institutions like imf

09:06

It can be done by civil socuiety networks, with digital media we can all join in

The world doesn't need a single leader; you certainly don't need the kind of

president obamacare rhetoric above or even madeleine albright kind of ethic i am a

09:35

big fan of president obama but i do not like the idea that if america doesn't

lead no one else can; that's not based on an unrealistic understanding of how the world

is changing and why we're moving so i

09:48

So I asked the house (Oxford Union)

to reject the proposition

This House Would Still Look to the US for Global Leadership”.

and to vote for the opportunity

 

 

Motion Context  https://oxford-union.org/event/us-debate-this-house-would-still-loo...

 

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has held a pre-eminent position in the Global Order. It has dominated the world stage diplomatically, economically, and militarily, leading the actions of NATO and the West in affairs ranging from Iraq to the financial crisis. However, as diplomatic power shifts from West to East, politicians on every continent are starting to question their nation’s position in relation to the United States, a process only accelerated by President Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy. Has time run out for American global leadership?

————————————–
Proposition Speakers

1. Rt. Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind KCMG QC

Former Secretary of State for Scotland, Defence Secretary, and Foreign Secretary under Thatcher and Major. He served as Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, providing oversight of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ.

2. Brigadier General Robert Spalding (Retd.)

Former United States Air Force Brigadier. He now serves as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, focusing on US-China relations and national security. He is the author of Stealth War: How China Took Over While America’s Elite Slept.

3. Congresswoman Jane Harman

Former Democratic Congresswoman for California’s 36th congressional district and President of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. She was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and Homeland Security Committee’s intelligence subcommittee.
————————————–
Opposition Speakers

1. His Excellency Ambassador Andrey Kelin

Russian Ambassador to the UK. He has been in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 1979, serving as the Deputy Permanent Representative to NATO and the Permanent Representative to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

2. Professor Amitav Acharya

Distinguished Professor of International Relations at American University, Washington DC, and author of The End of the American World Order. He has made major contributions to constructivism and Asian regionalism.

3. TBA