In recent years, I have often said to European friends: So, you didn’t like a world of too much American power? See how you like a world of too little American power — because it is coming to a geopolitical theater near you. Yes, America has gone from being the supreme victor of World War II, with guns and butter for all, to one of two superpowers during the cold war, to the indispensable nation after winning the cold war, to “The Frugal Superpower” of today. Get used to it. That’s our new nickname. American pacifists need not worry any more about “wars of choice.” We’re not doing that again. We can’t afford to invade Grenada today. 
Ever since the onset of the Great Recession of 2008, it has been clear that the nature of being a leader — political or corporate — was changing in America. During most of the post-World War II era, being a leader meant, on balance, giving things away to people. Today, and for the next decade at least, being a leader in America will mean, on balance, taking things away from people.
And there is simply no way that America’s leaders, as they have to take more things away from their own voters, are not going to look to save money on foreign policy and foreign wars. Foreign and defense policy is a lagging indicator. A lot of other things get cut first. But the cuts are coming — you can already hear the warnings from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. And a frugal American superpower is sure to have ripple effects around the globe.
“The Frugal Superpower: America’s Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era” is actually the title of a very timely new book by my tutor and friend Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert. “In 2008,” Mandelbaum notes, “all forms of government-supplied pensions and health care (including Medicaid) constituted about 4 percent of total American output.” At present rates, and with the baby boomers soon starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare, by 2050 “they will account for a full 18 percent of everything the United States produces.”
This — on top of all the costs of bailing ourselves out of this recession — “will fundamentally transform the public life of the United States and therefore the country’s foreign policy.” For the past seven decades, in both foreign affairs and domestic policy, our defining watchword was “more,” argues Mandelbaum. “The defining fact of foreign policy in the second decade of the 21st century and beyond will be ‘less.’ ”
When the world’s only superpower gets weighed down with this much debt — to itself and other nations — everyone will feel it. How? Hard to predict. But all I know is that the most unique and important feature of U.S. foreign policy over the last century has been the degree to which America’s diplomats and naval, air and ground forces provided global public goods — from open seas to open trade and from containment to counterterrorism — that benefited many others besides us. U.S. power has been the key force maintaining global stability, and providing global governance, for the last 70 years. That role will not disappear, but it will almost certainly shrink.
Great powers have retrenched before: Britain for instance. But, as Mandelbaum notes, “When Britain could no longer provide global governance, the United States stepped in to replace it. No country now stands ready to replace the United States, so the loss to international peace and prosperity has the potential to be greater as America pulls back than when Britain did.”
After all, Europe is rich but wimpy. China is rich nationally but still dirt poor on a per capita basis and, therefore, will be compelled to remain focused inwardly and regionally. Russia, drunk on oil, can cause trouble but not project power. “Therefore, the world will be a more disorderly and dangerous place,” Mandelbaum predicts.
How to mitigate this trend? Mandelbaum argues for three things: First, we need to get ourselves back on a sustainable path to economic growth and reindustrialization, with whatever sacrifices, hard work and political consensus that requires. Second, we need to set priorities. We have enjoyed a century in which we could have, in foreign policy terms, both what is vital and what is desirable. For instance, I presume that with infinite men and money we can succeed in Afghanistan. But is it vital? I am sure it is desirable, but vital? Finally, we need to shore up our balance sheet and weaken that of our enemies, and the best way to do that in one move is with a much higher gasoline tax.
America is about to learn a very hard lesson: You can borrow your way to prosperity over the short run but not to geopolitical power over the long run. That requires a real and growing economic engine. And, for us, the short run is now over. There was a time when thinking seriously about American foreign policy did not require thinking seriously about economic policy. That time is also over.
An America in hock will have no hawks — or at least none that anyone will take seriously. 

Süper Züğürt, Süper Tutumlu, Süper Güç

Son yıllarda Avrupalı arkadaşlarıma hep şunu söyledim: Demek ABD'nin çok güçlü olduğu bir dünyadan hoşlanmadınız? Amerikan gücünün çok az olduğu bir dünyayı sevip sevmeyeceğinizi de göreceğiz çünkü bu yanı başınızdaki bir jeopolitik sinemada gösterime giriyor. İkinci Dünya Savaşı'nda herkese hem savaş malzemesi hem de tüketim ürünleri sağlayan ABD, Soğuk Savaş sırasında iki süper güçten birisi, soğuk savaşı kazandıktan sonra vazgeçilmez ülke, şimdi ise "Tutumlu Süper Güç" oldu. Amerikalılar, buna alışsanız iyi olur. Yeni lakabımız bu. Amerikalı barış yanlılarının artık "seçme savaşlar" konusunda kaygılanması gereksiz. Bunu tekrar yapmayacağız. Artık Grenada'yı işgal etme lüksümüz yok. 2008'de Büyük Durgunluğun başlamasında bu yana, ABD siyasetinde ve iş yaşamında liderliğin doğası açıkça değişiyor. İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrası dönemin büyük bölümünde, lider olmak genelde insanlara bir şey vermek demekti. Günümüzde ve en azından önümüzdeki on yılda, ABD'de lider olmak genelde insanlardan bir şey almak anlamına gelecek. Kendi seçmenlerinden daha fazla şey istemek zorunda kalan Amerikalı liderlerin, dış politikaya ve ülke dışındaki savaşlara harcanan parayı kısması kaçınılmaz. Dış politika ve savunma politikası, gecikmeli göstergelerdir. Birçok başka harcama kalemi, kesintilere en baştan maruz kalır. Ancak bu alanlardaki kesintiler de yolda. Savunma Bakanı Robert Gates'in uyarılarını şimdiden duyabilirsiniz. Tutumlu bir Amerikan süper gücünün etkileri, dünya çapında hissedilecektir. Aslında "Tutumlu Süper Güç: Amerika'nın Paraya Sıkıştığı Bir Dönemdeki Küresel Liderliği", öğretmenim ve arkadaşım olan Johns Hopkins Üniversitesi'nden dış politika uzmanı Michael Mandelbaum'un gündeme uygun kitabının başlığı. Mandelbaum, "Devletçe karşılanan her tür emeklilik ödemesi ve sağlık hizmeti (Medicaid dâhil), 2008'de Amerika'nın toplam hâsılasının yüzde 4'ü kadardı" diyor. Şu anki süreçler ile 1950'lerde doğan kuşağın yakında Sosyal Güvenlik ve Medicare'den yararlanacağı birlikte düşünülünce, "2050'de bu oran, ABD'nin toplam üretiminin yüzde 18'ini oluşturacak". Durgunluktan çıkmak için yapılan bütün masraflara ek olarak bu harcama kalemi, "ABD'deki kamu hayatını ve bunun sonucu olarak dış politikayı temelden değiştirecek". Mandelbaum'a göre, son 70 yılda hem dış politika hem de iç politikada temel sloganımız "daha fazla" idi. "21'inci yüzyılın ikinci on yılında ve sonrasında, dış politikanın temel sloganı 'daha az' olacak". Dünyanın tek süper gücü, kendisine ve diğer milletlere olan bu boyuttaki borcun altında ezilince, bunu herkes hissedecek. Nasıl? Bunu bilmek zor. Ancak tek bildiğim şu: Son yüzyılda ABD dış politikasının en benzersiz ve önemli özelliği Amerikalı diplomatlar ile kara, deniz ve hava kuvvetlerinin, bizden başka birçok kişinin de yararlandığı küresel kamu hizmetleri sağlamasıydı. Bunlar arasında, denizlerdeki güvenlikten serbest ticarete, çevreleme politikasından terörizmle savaşa kadar birçok şey vardı. ABD'nin gücü, son 70 yılda küresel istikrarın korunmasında ve küresel yönetimin sağlanmasında kilit rol oynadı. Bu rol kaybolmayacak ama neredeyse kesin olarak azalacak. Büyük güçler, örneğin Britanya, bundan önce de masraf azaltma yoluna gitti. Ancak Mandelbaum'un dediği gibi, "Britanya artık küresel yönetimi üstlenemez hale geldiğinde, nöbeti ABD devraldı. Şu anda hiçbir ülke ABD'nin yerini almaya hazır değil. Bu yüzden, ABD'nin geri çekilmesi nedeniyle uluslararası barış ve refah konusunda yaşanacak kayıplar, Britanya'nın çekilmesinden sonrakilere kıyasla muhtemelen daha ciddi olacak. Ne de olsa, Avrupa zengin ama etkisiz. Çin ülke olarak zengin ancak kişi başına gelir bakımından hâlâ çok yoksul olduğu için, ülke içi ve bölgesel konulara odaklanmak zorunda kalacak. Petrol geliriyle sarhoş olan Rusya sorun yaratabilse de güç uygulayamaz. Mandelbaum, "Bu yüzden, dünya daha düzensiz ve tehlikeli hale gelecek" öngörüsünde bulunuyor. Bu gidişi nasıl yavaşlatabiliriz? Mandelbaum üç öneri getiriyor. İlk olarak, Amerikalılar sanayiyi tekrar canlandırmayı ve ekonomik büyümeyi sağlamayı sürdürülebilir biçimde halletmeli. Bunun için gereken her tür fedakârlık, ağır iş ve siyasi uzlaşma sağlanmalı. İkincisi, önceliklerimizi belirlemeliyiz. Bir asır boyunca, dış politikada hem önemli olan hem de arzu edilen şeyleri elde etmenin tadını çıkardık. Örneğin, ABD bence sınırsız insan gücü ve parayla Afganistan'da başarılı olabilir. Peki, bu önemli mi? Arzu edilir olduğuna eminim, ancak önemli mi? Son olarak, bilançomuzu düzeltip düşmanlarımızı zayıflatmalıyız. Bunu bir hamlede yapmanın en iyi yolu, benzine daha yüksek vergi koymak. ABD acı bir ders almak üzere. Borçlanarak kısa vadede refaha kavuşabilirsin ama uzun vadede jeopolitik güç elde edemezsin. Bunun için, büyüyen gerçek bir ekonomi motoru lazım. Bizim için kısa vade artık doldu. Bir zamanlar ABD dış politikasını ciddi biçimde ele almak için ekonomi politikasını ele almak gerekmezdi. Artık o devir bitti. Borç içindeki bir ABD şahinleşemez ya da en azından, şahinleştiğinde kimse onu ciddiye almaz.

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

STOCKHOLM — Two dozen members of an association to abolish the monarchy were settled around a table in a spacious apartment in the north end of the capital when someone in the back of the room muttered, “Two hundred years since the French Revolution, and still we have a king.” 

In other times and in other places, these would-be regicides might have been hounded by the king’s agents. But here in liberal Sweden, they are thriving.
Indeed, so fast has membership in the Swedish Republican Association grown in recent months, rising to more than 7,300 from 2,500 one year ago, that the meeting was called to discuss a number of ambitious proposals, including the opening of a permanent office, the founding of an antimonarchist newspaper and the formation of a pan-European antimonarchist movement.
The group envisions branches in the seven countries where kings or queens still reign, including Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden’s Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark and Norway.
“Support for monarchy is falling across Europe,” said Mona Abou-Jeib Broshammar, the association’s secretary general.

To be sure, 7,300 members is not much in a country of nine million, yet the association’s growth is notable, given that Sweden is riding a monarchist high in the wake of the fairy-tale wedding in June of Crown Princess Victoria, 33, to her former fitness trainer.
For the wedding parade, thousands flocked to the capital; millions more watched on television. Stores across the country featured porcelain dishes and cups, wooden trays, dishtowels and aprons, postcards and fountain pens adorned with portraits of the smiling couple.
Yet amid the monarchic euphoria, doubts lingered. Although Sweden’s leading newspaper, Aftonbladet, established a team in February to cover the wedding, it supplemented bright photos and gushy coverage of the royal court with editorials and opinion pieces, even cartoons, critical of the monarchy. Then, last spring, a leading polling group, the SOM Institute, published results of a survey showing that support for the monarchy had dropped to 56 percent, from 68 percent six years earlier.
“It was important that there also be some critical pieces, too,” said Susanne Nylen, who led the team covering the wedding. “All this money was being spent; some were critical.”
The attitude of Ms. Nylen, who was the newspaper’s London correspondent before assuming the royal beat, is like that of many Swedes. “I can see that the monarchy is not in line with democracy, and I see why people are against it,” she said. “But they are good at representing Sweden; it’s hard to get publicity the same way with a president.”

Moreover, as the wedding date approached, less criticism was heard. Aftonbladet found that 74 percent of respondents in a survey supported the monarchy.
Anders Janeborn is one of those supporters. “I think it’s good; it’s a historic thing,” said Mr. Janeborn, whose company sells fitness equipment.
King Carl XVI Gustaf was expected this weekend in Mr. Janeborn’s village to celebrate its 900th anniversary “with a big party,” Mr. Janeborn said. To those who object that upkeep of the royal family costs about $16 million a year, he argued, “they bring in far more; they’re selling Sweden in a good way.”
Mr. Janeborn’s surety is not shared by Nina Hemmingsson. Early on, Aftonbladet invited Ms. Hemmingsson, 38, a cartoonist and kind of Swedish R.Crumb, to contribute cartoons commenting on the wedding. “I was always very skeptical of the royal family,” said Ms. Hemmingsson, who works out of a basement studio outside Stockholm.
“They are so special, people don’t even think they go to the toilet,” she said of the royalty. “Yet, they’re a symbol of a time in history that was not democratic, so they’re a bad symbol.”
At first, she said, Aftonbladet gave her a free hand. “Then they said, ‘Don’t call the princess in your cartoons ‘Victoria,’ just ‘the crown princess,’ ’ and then, ‘Just princess,’ ” she said. “And they said from the start, ‘No sex.’ ” 

Lennart Nilsson of the SOM Institute said that confidence in the royal family has dropped year by year since the institute began measuring it in 1995. “It continues going down,” he said.
Yet he sees no urgency from society for making a change. In September, Swedes will vote in national elections, but the monarchy is not an issue. “Other issues” — like jobs, education and health care — “are much more urgent,” Mr. Nilsson said.
The Swedish Republican Association is in for the long haul, said Ms. Broshammar, its secretary general. Born in Lebanon to a Syrian father and Swedish mother, Ms. Broshammar, 32, is emblematic of the changes overtaking Sweden. She moved to Sweden when her family fled Lebanon because of war there. “I have seen how a country can fall apart for lack of democracy and human rights,” she said, adding that she has received hateful messages about her heritage — her father is Muslim and her mother Christian. “Because of my multiethnic background, they say I should leave the country. They’re racists, not monarchists.”
Still, she does not suggest that Sweden will end up like Lebanon. “My best friend is a monarchist; she loves the fashion, the marketing of the royal family,” she said. “On a rational level she agrees with me; on an emotional level she disagrees.”
The association has attracted some high-powered figures, including the minister for European affairs and leading members of several political parties. Most parties on the left include in their platform the establishment of a republic, but none pursue it actively. The leaders of all parties in Parliament were invited to Victoria’s wedding; only Lars Ohly, 53, leader of the Left Party, formerly Sweden’s Communists, stayed away.
The members discussed a name change for the Republican Association, so as not to be confused with the party of John McCain and Sarah Palin, Ms. Broshammar said. And if they ever succeed in deposing the monarchy, said Magnus Simonsson, a member of the Liberal Party and the association, they promise leniency to the king.
“He would be more free than he is today,” Mr. Simonsson said, grinning. “And of course he can stay in Sweden.” 

İsveç'teki Masalsı Düğünler Kraliyet Ailesine Yetmiyor