Skip to footer

Six reasons to keep America as No. 1 superpower

Many around the world say American decline would preserve global stability through a better balance of power. They’re wrong, says Steve Yetiv, a political science professor at Old Dominion University. It’s not that other countries or international institutions can’t play vital roles. They do. But they can't yet do what Washington does around the world, Yetiv says. Here he gives six examples.

6. Brokering Middle East peace

  • By

If Israel perceives any weakness in America’s regional role, it will be far less likely to make peace, because it can only make major concessions for peace if it feels strong.

Don’t get me wrong. American foreign policy should be primarily multilateral in a complex, interconnected world. And Washington must accommodate the rise of powers such as China, Brazil, and India, and try to see how they can contribute more to global security – especially China which has the financial wherewithal to do so and should contribute much more than it does.

But a weaker America would mean a much less stable world, chiefly because there are no sensible substitutes for the range of tasks it undertakes. And so the real goal for other major countries should be to preserve America’s global leadership or at least not undermine it. And the real goal in Washington should be to create slowly the diplomatic architecture to bring others into roles of greater responsibility.

If that works, maybe America can take a breather from its global tasks, some time down the road.

Steve Yetiv is a professor of political science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. He is the author of “The Petroleum Triangle” and “The Absence of Grand Strategy” and is working on a book on US decline.

6 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.