20:21 VISION. Twentieth-Century Lessons for the Twenty-first Century
by Bill Emmott
Publisher: Farrar Straus, Giroux, New York, 2003

book reviewed by Peter Slocum.

Jarring. That's how it felt reading Bill Emmott's overwhelmingly pro-American scan of world affairs in the midst of the United States' pre-Iraq war diplomatic disaster, with millions of people around the world condemning the USA's increasingly isolated policy and plans. How can he be so sanguine about a nation which seems determined to destroy the United Nations and allied unity in the process of establishing a "new world order" in its own image?

In fact, 20:21 VISION: Twentieth-Century Lessons for the Twenty-first Century, is a particularly useful volume. Not all of Emmott's arguments hold up, but he offers a valuable perspective on the evolution of post-World War II international order, and a framework for thinking about the future.

The editor in chief of The Economist Magazine clearly expected his book to point the way toward what he describes as a benign American hegemony in the unfolding 21^st Century. Conversely, his analysis also suggests the way in which the Bush Administration may be squandering this magnificent opportunity, with a potentially destabilizing unilateralism.

Emmott poses two basic questions to frame his book: 1) Will the United States maintain world leadership and continue to keep the peace? and 2) Will capitalism prevail and spread?

His answer to both questions might be summed up as follows: "Yes, but. Reason would have it so, but beware of unpleasant surprises."

He hopes so, because he believes that the world badly needs a preeminent power like the United States. Without that over-arching power, the world can tumble into chaos, as it did during so much of the 20^th Century:

"What is evident, at least with the benefit of a great sweep of historical insight, is that the world suffered badly during the first half of the twentieth century from the lack of any dominant, or even leading, world power."

America is, without question, that dominant power, and Emmott argues, a beneficial one.

"For the most part America has since 1945 built a cooperative empire, one that is intended to be mutually advantageous to virtually all its members, rather than a coercive one," he writes. "Why? In part because of America's own democratic and liberal values, which have long had a more universalist, utopian cast than did nineteenth-century Britain's; but also for a more pragmatic reason: in principle, a cooperative empire is a lot cheaper to maintain than a coercive one."

That was the American hegemony forged during the Cold War, when all foreign policy issues were seen through the prism of the ideological battle with the Soviet Union and its allies.

Now, after a period of some uncertainty, the prospect of international terrorism offers another unifying prism, Emmott suggests, one that can give structure and meaning to an American-led, international world order. To be sure, defeating ethnic, religious, and regional terrorists is a common goal shared by most if not all governments. Terrorists, Emmott points out, are not a new phenomenon. They have been around for centuries, and they have always used terror tactics, often against civilians, because they do not have the power, popular strength or weaponry to fight standard battles.

The question is whether the American response to this modern terrorist threat-- more frighteningly potent because of technology and easy international travel--results in a leadership style that will enlist broad international support. In the short term, the answer would appear to be 'no.' 'Yes,' the US and British troops are in Baghdad. (There was never any doubt they would conquer Iraq, notwithstanding all the talk during the second week of war about progress slowing down. That was just the second week, for goodness sake. Does our all-news, all-the-time society have no capacity whatsoever for patience, for thinking beyond the next fast food meal?)

No, the doubts arise because of the way we went to war, and the challenges of managing the aftermath. Bush's preliminary decision to hand post-war Iraq over to the Pentagon and its military contractor partners does not appear to be going down well with the international community.

What does the new Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike portend for the 21^st Century? Will the US continue the pattern of benign empire building (relatively speaking, and ignoring Vietnam, Chile, Congo and other similar episodes)? Or will it be forced to revert to a 19^th Century European Imperial model, characterized by more direct occupation, in order to carry out the doctrine?

Never mind the rest of the world, does the United States have the stomach, the attention span and the economic flexibility to manage a New World Order of that sort?

Other challenges abound. The second half of Emmott's book is an extended defense of capitalism, free markets and world trade. In the main, he points out, free trade and open markets are good for virtually all societies, rich and poor. The book contains a load of interesting statistics to prove the point.

However, while he argues that globalism can and should be a unifying and pacifying force in the world, Emmott makes no attempt to hide a great and looming threat -- the growing disparity between the wealthiest and the most impoverished nations and classes. This is a long-term threat to stability and international order.

Furthermore, the "creative destruction" that allows capitalism to generate so much economic power is not without its victims. Emmott's survey of the international scene demonstrates that in China and elsewhere, the great upheavals associated with economic surges threaten to create social dislocation that could spill over into international conflict.

Overall, this is a valuable and timely book, crisply written and thoughtful. If the arguments are sometimes a bit glib, the analysis of long-term trends and historical developments is exceptionally important for anyone interested in foreign policy, and especially for Americans concerned about their country's new role in the world.

Peter Slocum is VP, Advocacy with the American Cancer Society, Eastern Division. He has worked for Family Planning Advocates, the NYS Dept. of Health, United Press International and the Washington Park Spirit.

*******

04/14/2003