The Foreign Service Journal, September 2012

In his first United Nations General Assembly address, for instance, Pres. Obama listed his initial steps to bring the United States into sync with the rest of the world, and then put them into perspective: “This cannot solely be America’s endeavor. Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.” Calling out the irresponsible. A loud and clear message of responsibil- ity is equally important when coun- tries fail to step up. When Russia and China vetoed a recent U.N. resolution aimed at preventing further violence in Syria, the United States and its part- ners did not let them off easily. “It’s quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto while people are being murdered,” Sec. Clinton said in a blunt statement publicized around the world. “It is just despica- ble, and I ask whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people.” British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Russia and China had “sided with the Syrian regime and its brutal suppression of the Syrian peo- ple in support of their own national in- terests.” And Morocco’s U.N. ambass- ador, the sole Arab member of the Se- curity Council, voiced his “great regret and disappointment” at the double veto. This public shaming did not sit well in Beijing and Moscow, and they were distinctly more forthcoming in the months afterward, though not enough to agree on a course of action. Rhetoric vs. Reality The gap between the palpable de- mand for international cooperation and the inadequate supply is one of the great quandaries of our interconnected age. While key powers agree on de- sired outcomes — ridding Iran and North Korea of nuclear weapons pro- grams, rebalancing the global econ- omy, alleviating chronic poverty — figuring out how to allocate the pain and work to reach these ends some- times seems a Sisyphean task. If the responsibility doctrine suc- ceeds, emerging powers will internal- ize the duties that come with being a stakeholder. Here in the early stages of the process, these players are grad- ually gaining a sense of ownership over the major challenges confronting the world and a dawning awareness that shared problems must be solved. The internal debates in China, India and elsewhere about those nations’ global roles are positive signs. Just in recent years, nations united under U.S. leadership to keep the world economy from falling off a cliff in 2008-2009, protect the Libyan peo- ple from an imminent bloodbath and help depose their dictator, battle pi- rates off the Somali coast, decimate al- Qaida’s leadership, contain a swine flu pandemic, repatriate nearly 900 kilo- grams of highly enriched uranium and isolate Iran like never before. On some issues progress has fallen far short of what is needed. Climate change negotiators are devising impor- tant new frameworks and commit- ments, but nowhere near what the sci- ence demands. China has revalued its renminbi 40 percent since 2005, but the larger challenge of rebalancing its economy is advancing slowly at best. The Long Haul Many of these problems have fes- tered for years or decades, with nations avoiding paying the piper. For partic- ipants and onlookers alike, the process of breaking ingrained habits will test everyone’s patience. Nor do the polit- ical incentives help: the downside is immediate, while gratification comes years later. Today’s leaders won’t repeat the order-building masterstrokes of their postwar predecessors at Bretton Woods or Dumbarton Oaks. Instead, the contemporary marks of leadership will be the diligence and dexterity to grind out steady progress. Finally, the responsibility doctrine asks Americans to embrace a more ex- pansive definition of international lead- ership. While America will remain the world’s indispensable power, it can only be effective by inducing others to act alongside it. Trying to block other na- tions from boosting their stature will not preserve American influence. Instead the United States should focus on setting the global agenda and defining genuine success. Reaching solutions to critical global problems is more important than constantly af- firming the U.S. as the unique and powerful leader the world already fully recognizes. Sec. Clinton expressed this crucial point when she said that “part of leading is making sure you get other people on the field.” Indeed, the main justification for the responsibility doctrine is the reality that the times demand it. It has be- come one of the clichés of global in- terdependence that today’s challenges are too formidable for even a super- power to deal with on its own. But this particular cliché has the virtue of being true. S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 51 The responsibility doctrine asks Americans to embrace a more expansive definition of international leadership.