Intelligence

UN Secretary General Private Diary Entry

September 11, 2020

It has been exactly nineteen years today since the view from the 38th floor changed with the destruction of the Twin Towers.  I was remarking when the President of the United States phoned that more than the skyline has been altered since.  Not only has a new structure been built, partially obscuring the devastation of 9/11, but the US has risen like a phoenix-albeit a beleaguered one-and it again seems to be the bedrock of the international order.

I would say it started when Europe and America began to get together again. It turns out Venus and Mars cross each other's orbits from time to time.  The 2010 terrorist attacks in Europe had a lot to do with it.  They changed attitudes, and suddenly the Europeans had a better appreciation of catastrophic terrorism-a whole different kettle of fish from what they had known.  Publics quickly became energized, particularly as the attacks were seen as totally unjustified.  The seriousness of the attacks was such that Europe and America got beyond the name-calling and, in fact, Europeans began imploring America to get tough on terrorism. 

The closing of transatlantic ranks was prompted by more than this. One thing that became clear is that Europe was more unified than some of our American friends imagined.  New Europe turned out to be not that much different from Old Europe, once it joined the EU club and began hanging out in Brussels.  NATO went through some rough times but is now working better with the EU. There is grudging acceptance on both sides that NATO has the necessary military tools while the EU can bring to the table a capacity for nation-building.

On the European side, a lot had to do with Turkish accession-something I never expected to see.  With the prospect of Turkey coming in, the Europeans realized that their border was now squarely in the Middle East and that meant they had to be more prepared to deal with all the problems of terrorism, fundamentalism, youth bulges, etc.

Coming together as they did, Europe helped to persuade the US that something had to be done to stop the spiraling violence in Palestine.  For the Europeans, that had always been the root of the problem, but divisions and a lack of will always got in the way of any concerted action. 

Energy and climate change are also playing an increasing role in the US-European dynamics, but not the way one would have expected. For a while, the Europeans looked like they were trying to isolate the US and insist on Washington playing by EU rules.  But that was never really going to happen, and European leaders did not factor in their own publics' increasing resentment of China's and other developing countries' flaunting of environmental standards. Kyoto was suddenly out and a new framework had to be thought up with the Americans inside. 

The US role changed even more dramatically in Asia.  China was rising and, while not directly challenging the US, was certainly displacing it in the region, particularly economically. America's preoccupation with Iraq and terrorism looked set to diminish the US role even more.  Japan stood close to the US on Iraq but was conflicted too because of its economic dependence on China.  In South Korea, the younger generation blamed the US for the division and problems with the North.  It seemed only a matter of time before the US would be pushed to the sidelines.

Then a series of events occurred which changed the dynamic. Frightened by the continuing impasse in North Korea, rumors leaked of the Japanese seriously thinking about their own bomb.  About this time China also suffered an economic relapse, which exacerbated the confrontational tone over Taiwan, also heightening worries in Japan and Southeast Asia. The US initially wanted to heighten its profile but found that many worried about a US-China conflict. Washington ended up scaling back its military presence in Korea and Japan. Most do not want the US to leave; even China, I think, secretly sees some virtue in having the US around inasmuch as it  makes the others more accepting of Beijing's growing political and economic influence.

This is hardly a marriage made in Heaven and both the US and China have to work hard to keep from going off the rails. I see more storm clouds over Taiwan on the horizon. Nationalism appears to afflict everybody. The rising Chinese middle class turns out to be less interested in democracy and more in nationalism.

Worries about energy supplies have also redounded in America's favor. A stable Middle East is a must for China on energy grounds just as it is for Europe.  The US also is increasingly a balancer between the Shia and the Sunnis.  Washington may not have been prepared for how a free and Shia-dominated Iraq began to swing the balance and raise tensions right in the region where most of the world's oil comes from. Not an enviable position to be in for the Americans.

I get the feeling at times that a lot of Americans are getting tired of playing the world's policeman.  The security burden is still on their shoulders; this is the source of their frustration with the Europeans, who just want to focus on the EU.  The Americans thought they had a deal-Washington would do the heavy lifting with Israel, but the Europeans would be prepared to pony up money and troops for a Middle East peacekeeping force.  But that looks to be in tatters.

How long will Pax Americana last?  I'm not sure.  It hasn't meant much institution-building.  Sure, the UN works a little better because there is more cooperation among the members, but we've done little on reform.  India is getting more frustrated. The Africans, Latin Americans and poor Asians still feel underappreciated and some even are resentful of China and India's rise, which has squeezed out opportunities for them. The Human Rights Commission, which morphed a few years back into the Human Rights and Ethics Commission, is stymied over human cloning, GMOs and whether energy consumption should be globally regulated.  For all the practical cooperation there has been on terrorism, we still don't have an agreed-upon definition which could unite countries around a counterterrorism strategy.  To top if off, I am in a vicious fight on two fronts  in order to stay here in New York, both against the "America firster" groups calling for the UN's removal and large numbers of Europeans and Asians who think the UN is too much under the thumb of Washington.

I often wonder just how much real progress there has been.  I must talk to the US President about this the next time we "girls" get together.

"Lessons Learned"

A geopolitical environment in which US power dominates would become more complex.

• A rising China might put the US in a different position, having to act as the balancer between China on the one hand and Japan and other Asian countries on the other.

Competing coalitions would be likely to fight over moral and ethical issues. The US would be looked to for leadership, but the scenario suggests it would take dexterity to achieve consensus.

And the Pax Americana would not necessarily be a "sweet" deal for the United States. 

• Deeply entrenched expectations about the US providing the heavy lifting on security would likely to be hard to change, particularly given the underlying reality that only the US has the military capacity.

• The scenario suggests that international architecture is not designed for security burdensharing. Other than the US-dominated NATO, no other regional security organizations appear to be operational in the scenario.