Book Review: Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety

Today, when someone thinks about the future, they are likely to believe that the 2008 global financial crisis will greatly influence the evolving state of world geopolitics, global economics, and institutional cooperation. However, beyond global economics, it is particularly difficult to determine the extent of the financial crisis’ impact on international relations and the future shape of international geopolitical governance.In Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety, Gideon Rachman, Chief of Foreign Affairs for the Financial Times, argues that the financial crisis has called into question the fundamentals of open market policy, and has, with equal implication, triggered a shift in the underlying philosophy of modern geopolitics. According to Rachman, prior to 2008, nations enjoyed a Win-Win environment, where globalizing, liberalizing markets prevailed. Today, nations find themselves on the eve of a Zero-Sum world, where each nation acts in its own geopolitical interest.To support his paradigm shift – from cooperative, mutually beneficial globalization to each nation fending for itself – Rachman offers a historical review, starting from the late 1970s until present day. The narrative begins with a time period called the “Age of Transformation”: A period when China’s Deng Xiaoping, Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, and America’s Ronald Regan implemented more open market policies and showed the world the benefits of free-market trade for their domestic economies.The next period, the “Age of Optimism” included a greater push towards liberalization: the fall of the Berlin wall, pervading American leadership, and the active promotion of open markets in the international community. These seemingly bright, economically successful periods were then confronted with a number of economic and geopolitical changes that bring about the present “Age of Anxiety.” Today’s period is defined by the crossroads between Western anxiety over rising Eastern influence and diminishing Western economic leadership.Rachman devotes a great deal of attention to the Age of Anxiety because, unlike the previous periods, the “Age of Anxiety” is filled with many startling changes likely to shape the future ahead. It is a period that will likely witness waning U.S. world leadership and a myriad of internationally divisive issues, such as global warming, competition for resources, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Geopolitically, all of the changes during the “Age of Anxiety” take place as Asia begins to rise and democracies co-exist with authoritarian regimes, such as China and Russia.What, if anything, can be done to govern and manage these changes occurring during the “Age of Anxiety?” Rachman’s advice when faced with this vastly different landscape: “Keep calm and carry on.” He suggests that policymakers use U.S. leadership to spearhead scientific breakthroughs and include China as a partner to solve global warming. Most importantly for Rachman is the consideration of appropriate forms of future global governance.Unfortunately, Rachman does not appear to be optimistic that global governance can take hold. At a recent Brookings Institute event, Rachman elaborated on the challenges associated with establishing global governance during the Age of Anxiety. Rachman pointed out that today even regional governance structures (such as the EU) find it difficult to keep members together. Since even these regional governance structures find it challenging to remain unified, it is difficult to imagine that global governance structures will not face similar problems tomorrow. To highlight the difficulties the EU is facing to stay together, Rachman shared that during the financial crisis late last year German Chancellor Merkel hinted that EU existence was not guaranteed. This comment by Chancellor Merkel is symbolic of what is more likely to come in the Age of Anxiety. In the coming time period, nation states will be forced to think in terms of self-interest rather than in terms of greater governance because of the changing geopolitical environment.The other panelists at the Brookings Institute event, Kemal Derviş and Justin Vaïsse, agreed with the challenges associated with global governance but presented reasons to persevere.Kemal Derviş, Vice President of Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institute, stated that the emergence of the G-20 could augment support for global governance in the future. Unlike the G-7, the G-20 connects more countries around the world and allows for greater dialogue between different regional divides. Yet, even Derviş acknowledged the G-20 challenges in managing the forum going forward.Justin Vaïsse, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute, optimistically revisited the EU’s challenges. Vaïsse offered the fiscal policy reforms undertaken by Ireland and Greece evidence that countries are willing to make changes not in their interest in order to help sustain governance structures.One issue altogether unaddressed by Rachman or the Brookings Institute panelists is whether or not global governance is the best pursuit. As Rachman and Derviş indicate, effective global governance is not easy to achieve, to say the least. Dani Rodrik, a Harvard professor of political economy, discussed the idea of global governance in an op-ed for Project Syndicate in November 2010 and reached a very different conclusion than Rachman on the practical utility of global governance. According to Rodrik, the idea of global governance as it applies to markets “is not like controlling emissions.” It would be misguided to direct all countries down the same economic road, because they inevitably have different interests. For Rodrik, it is more important to strengthen media and institutions to deal with any friction that can arise as countries seek different goals, rather than to govern collectively.Rodrik’s view appears to make more practical sense because countries’ interests are likely to fall along different points of an issue-specific spectrum and, by their diversity, are less likely to find agreement in collective governance. On the other hand, developing appropriate guidelines for dealing with friction would allow all countries to potentially work toward an agreed framework for mutual benefit. Similar to the challenges of a zero-sum world, finding the right forum and principals for conflict resolution will be important should Rodrik’s ad-hoc approach gain momentum. The binding, legal nature of such forums and guidelines, like The Hague or the Geneva conventions, pose challenges themselves and make it difficult to present Rodrik’s view as a better solution.After reading Rachman’s work it is still difficult to conclude if we are indeed in a new zero-sum era or simply repeating history. Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety offers one thinker’s vision for the post-financial crisis and his prediction of the world which lies ahead.About the Book: Rachman, Gideon. Zero-Sum Future: American Power in an Age of Anxiety. (Simon and Schuster, New York). 340 pages.Anand Datla is a former Defense Department civilian who worked on strategic planning, policy and operations. He also served as a professional staff member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is currently a consultant based in the Washington, D.C. area. This image is being used under Creative Commons licensing. The original source can be found here .