Back to muscle-flexing on the world stage

An influential segment of Americans believes in the notion of ‘exceptionalism.' This theory promotes the view that the US is unique and has a specific world mission, especially in promoting liberty and democracy. It comes in quite handy domestically when you are trying to justify attacking another nation even if they did nothing to you, such as Iraq.

It can also be handy in guiding foreign policy — such as when former President Mr George Bush while declaring war on the Taliban in Afghanistan also warned other nations that it did not give them the right to get into their planes and bomb countries they were upset about.

Two political consultants and conservative sympathisers, writing in a recent issue of the Foreign Policy magazine advised that “the Republican nominee should adopt a confident, nationalist tone emphasising American exceptionalism, expressing pride in the United States as a force for good in the world, and advocating for an America that is once again respected (and, in some quarters feared) as the preeminent global power.” They continue with this argument and take exception to the statement made some time ago by the President, Mr Barack Obama, that just as he believes in American exceptionalism, he thinks the British probably believe in British exceptionalism as would other countries in their exceptionalism.

To the authors, this indicates that Mr Obama sees the US as a ‘flawed global power' and that is enough reason to want him out of power.

Election time

But this is election year and even if he thinks differently, President Obama dare not allow his domestic critics suspect that he is anything but furthering America's power and position in the world. And, hence we can see the recent election of the World Bank President in this light.

The World Bank recently advertised a ‘global search' for the post of Group Chief Financial Officer . A important job in a global financial institution justifying a global search for the best person. Unfortunately, the person the CFO will report to, namely the President of the World Bank Group, need not be the best person in the world.

Apparently, it is enough if a small coterie of officials in the administration of the US President finds the candidate they like. That's what they did when they nominated Mr Jim Yong Kim for the post of President of the World Bank.

It is considered an unwritten rule that the US gets to appoint the head of the World Bank. But this time around, many other countries did not think that tradition makes sense anymore.

Times have changed, and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are even thinking of having their own bank; with over three-quarters of the people who live in middle-income countries coming from these states, that would dilute the power and influence of the World Bank. A good time, you would think, to get somebody in from a developing country who understands the problems of development.

Powerful challenger

A powerful challenger for the World Bank position emerged in the person of Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria's Finance Minister. She had distinguished herself previously in a senior position at the Bank and had the experience to do the job.

In contrast, Dr Kim, considered a health expert who had done a brief stint as head of a US university, was the last person you would think of for the job. But the US and its allies had the votes to ensure that Mr Kim's election happened.

A majority of the voting shares on the governing board is held by the US, the European Union (EU) countries, Japan, Canada and South Korea.

The old global power structure is once again safe and secure. In a similar situation, when the post of the head of the International Monetary Fund fell vacant last year and as per tradition the EU nominated Ms Christine Lagarde, a former French Finance Minister, for the job, she was also challenged in vain by the head of the Mexican central bank.

But more importantly, the election of Dr Kim ensured that the US view of how global development and poverty elimination should take place, the mission of the World Bank, will be maintained, and re-affirmed the position of the US in guiding the world on these matters.

Genuine fear

Other examples of US exceptionalism abound, such as extra-territorial laws that restrict foreign entities from doing business in Cuba, if such entities also operate in the US.

American exceptionalism seems imperialistic, but on the other hand, there are areas of genuine fear where a nation needs to assert itself.

A representative from Florida in the US Congress (equivalent to Parliament) has introduced a Bill to the effect that no judge should decide a case in a US court in part or wholly based on a foreign law. She is alarmed by some judgments of the Supreme Court recently that have cited foreign practice or laws. She is worried that the courts which are expected to enforce domestic laws may slowly introduce foreign case law.

The idea that domestic policies and practices should not be overruled by foreign ones is a justifiable fear in an era of globalisation when nations try to carve out their space even as they are constantly overwhelmed by external pressures.

Two of the Republican Party candidates who, till recently, competed for their party nomination, came out stridently criticising President Obama's apology to the Afghans for the episode where some American servicemen burnt the Koran in Afghanistan. Both Mr Newt Gingrich and Mr Rick Santorum insisted that the US does not need to apologise to anyone.

(The author is professor of International Business and Strategic Management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. >blfeedback@thehindu.co.in )

COMMENT NOW