On Being Powerful

by Scott Savitz


I wrote this during the spring of 1999, when NATO's war over Kosovo was subject to facile criticism from many quarters.

The world's leading power always inspires strong emotions, chiefly resentment and admiration. Sixteenth-century Spain, Napoleonic France, and Victorian Britain were both viscerally loathed and eagerly imitated by foreigners. Specifically, Britain's "Splendid Isolation" arose partly from the antipathy which faced Britain in international circles. Great powers will always be the subject of criticism, regardless of whether they choose action or inaction in any particular situation. Had NATO refrained from action in Kosovo, much of the Islamic world would have viewed this as a blatant disregard for a group of Muslims being attacked by Christians. Had the U.S. refused to get involved, and action taken place under the aegis of the European Community, many countries would be complaining about American isolationism; South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, among others, would be fearful of American disengagement abroad. The U.S. was resented by many in Europe for not sending peacekeeping troops to Bosnia earlier, and is now resented for having imposed the Dayton accords and its own stamp on the fragile peace in that country. Many of the angriest people on both ends of the spectrum are Americans who disagree with their government's policies.

Powerful figures--individuals, organizations, states, or alliances--will always be resented by others who lack their power, but who would have exercised it differently if they had. As for the predominance of U.S. forces in this conflict: much of this stems from issues of military preparedness, rather than political will. Note that the British government, for example, has been more hawkish than that of the United States. This week's Economist had a series of articles on NATO, which showed that western Europe's conscript-based armies are extremely limited in their ability to project power to the Balkan theater. Chirac would leap at the chance to demonstrate French military prowess, but the French military is not as technologically sophisticated as that of the U.S., and would be much more likely to incur politically unsustainable casualties.

The U.S. is not loved abroad, both for its actions and for its omissions. But if the U.S. unilaterally disarmed itself, or retreated into isolation, it would be the subject of bitter criticism for having thus destabilized Europe and East Asia.

It's lonely at the top. But, as the world's greatest political scholar wrote five centuries ago, it is better to be feared than loved.


Return to Writings