Argument

Rotting from the Inside Out

The debate over American decline is missing the point. All this talk about projecting U.S. power abroad means nothing if we can't fix our severe problems at home.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney don't generally agree on much. But these days they appear to have one area of surprising consensus -- they both believe that stories of American decline are greatly exaggerated. According to Foreign Policy's own Josh Rogin, Obama has been praising Robert Kagan's recent article in the New Republic on the myth of American decline -- a perhaps not unsurprising position to take for a candidate regularly accused of being insufficiently exceptionalist. Romney -- author of No Apology: The Case for American Greatness -- also counts Kagan among his top foreign-policy advisors.

Kagan's article, as well as his new book, The World America Made, is the most obvious recent example of pushback against the declinist meme, but others have also taken up the mantle. In the recent issue of International Security, Michael Beckley wrote a widely cited piece that argues "America's Edge Will Endure" against potential rivals like China. FP's Daniel Drezner has adopted a similar view. These anti-declinists largely base their arguments around the notion that U.S. economic and military power, compared to other countries, is unsurpassed -- and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, Kagan frames a good part of his argument around America's "relative power" -- factors such as "the size and the influence of its economy relative to that of other powers; the magnitude of military power compared with that of potential adversaries; the degree of political influence it wields in the international system."

By this notion, U.S. global power remains unparalleled and its hegemony is uncontested. There is much to sustain this argument. America today faces no great power rival, no existential threat, and an economy that -- while currently in the doldrums -- remains vibrant and adaptive.  Compared to other nations, the United States is not simply a great power, it is the greatest power. Even if its influence declines, it is likely to continue to enjoy an outsized role on the international stage, in part because there is a consensus among foreign-policy elites -- like Romney and Obama, for instance -- that the U.S. must do whatever it takes to remain, as Madeline Albright once put it,  "the world's 'indispensable nation.'"

There is, however, one serious problem with this analysis. Any discussion of American national security that focuses solely on the issue of U.S. power vis-à-vis other countries -- and ignores domestic inputs -- is decidedly incomplete.  In Kagan's New Republic article, for example, he has little to say about the country's domestic challenges except to obliquely argue that to focus on "nation-building" at home while ignoring the importance of maintaining U.S. power abroad would be a mistake. In fact, in a recent FP debate with the Financial Times' Gideon Rachman on the issue of American decline, Kagan diagnoses what he, and many other political analysts, appear to believe is the country's most serious problem: "enormous fiscal deficits driven by entitlements." Why is this bad? It makes it harder, says Kagan, for the United States to "continue playing its vital role in the world" and will lead to significant cutbacks in defense spending.

However, a focus on U.S. global dominance or suasion that doesn't factor in those elements that constitute American power at home ignores substantial and worsening signs of decline. Indeed, by virtually any measure, a closer look at the state of the United States today tells a sobering tale of rapid and unchecked decay and deterioration in a host of areas. While not all of them are generally considered elements of national security, perhaps they should be.

Let's start with education, which almost any observer would agree is a key factor in national competitiveness. The data is not good. According to the most recent OECD report on global education standards, the United States is an average country in how it educates its children -- 12th in reading skills, 17th in science, and 26th in math.  The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in the quality of its mathematics and science education, even though we spend more money per student than almost any country in the world.

America's high school graduation rate is lower today that it was in the late 1960s and "kids are now less likely to graduate from high school than their parents," according to an analysis released last year by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. In fact, not only is the graduation rate worse than many Western countries, the United States is now the only developed country where a higher percentage of 55 to 64-year-olds have a high school diploma than 25 to 34-year-olds.

While the United States still maintains the world's finest university system, college graduation rates are slipping. Among 25 to 34-year-olds, America trails Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Ireland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom in its percentage of college graduates.  This speaks, in some measure, to the disparities that are endemic in the U.S. education system. If you are poor in America, chances are you attend a school that underperforms, are taught by teachers that are not as effective, and have test scores that lag far behind your more affluent counterparts (the same is true if you are black or Hispanic -- you lag behind your white counterparts).  Can a country be a great global power if its education system is fundamentally unequal and is getting steadily worse?

What about national infrastructure -- another key element of national economic power and global competitiveness?  First, the nation's broadband penetration rates remain in the middle of the global pack and there is growing divide in the United States between digital haves and have nots. Overall, its transportation networks are mediocre compared to similarly wealthy countries and according to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 23rd in the OECD for infrastructure quality -- a ranking that has steadily declined over the past decade. American commuters spend more time in traffic than Western Europeans, the country's train system and high-speed rail lines in general pale next to that of other developed nations, and even the number of people killed on American highways is 60 percent higher than the OECD average. Part of the problem is that the amount of money the U.S. government spends on infrastructure has steadily declined for decades and now trails far behind other Western nations.  In time, such infrastructure disadvantages have the potential to undermine the U.S. economy, hamstring productivity and competitiveness, and put the lives of more Americans at risk -- and this appears to be happening already.

Finally, a closer look at the U.S. health care system is enough to make one ill. Even after the passage of Obama's 2010 health care reform bill (which every Republican presidential candidate wants to repeal) the United States is far from having a health care system that meets the needs of its citizens. According to a July 2011 report by the Commonwealth Fund, "the U.S. has fewer hospital beds and physicians, and sees fewer hospital and physician visits, than in most other countries" even though it spends far more on health care per capita than any other country in the world. In addition, "prescription drug utilization, prices, and spending all appear to be highest in the U.S., as does the supply, utilization, and price of diagnostic imaging." Long story short, the United States spends more for less on health care than pretty much any other developed nation in the world. That might also explain why life expectancy in America trails far behind most OECD countries.

The United States also has the unique distinction of having one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world, on par with such global powerhouses as Cameroon, Madagascar, Rwanda, Uganda, and Ecuador. It has the fourth worst child poverty rate and trails only Mexico and Turkey in overall poverty rate among OECD countries. And when it comes to infant mortality, the U.S. rate is one of the worst in the developing world.

But not to fear, the United States still maintains some advantages. For example, it is one of the fattest countries in the world, with approximately one-third of the country considered obese (including one out of every six children). In addition, the United States has, by far, the largest prison population -- more than China, Iran, and Cuba --  one of the highest homicide rates in the world, and one of the highest rates of death from child abuse and neglect.

This steady stream of woe is certainly dispiriting, but the more optimistic might be inclined to respond that America had has problems before and has always found a way to right the ship. Certainly, this is a legitimate counter-point. The problem is that anyone looking to Washington today  would have a hard time imagining that Congress and the White House will lock arms anytime soon and fix these various national crises. And this political gridlock is the biggest reason to be concerned about decline.

Perhaps at no point in recent American history has the country's politics been less capable of dealing with serious challenges. Certainly, when one party basically rejects any role for the federal government in providing health care, improving educational opportunity, or strengthening the social safety net, the chances for compromise appear even slimmer.

As Harold Pollack, a professor at the University of Chicago, said to me, "What future president, witnessing Barack Obama's difficulties over health reform, will make an equivalent political investment regarding climate change or another great national concern? I fear that we are headed for a kind of legislative Vietnam syndrome in which our leaders will shy away from the large things that must be done."

Obama argued in his recent State of the Union speech that "innovation is what America has always been about." Indeed, the recent report of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that the United States is currently sixth in global innovation and competitiveness. Good news, right? Not so fast. The report also found that the country is dead last in "improvement in international competitiveness and innovation capacity over the last decade." Bottom line: dysfunction reaps an ill reward.

Kagan's retort to this argument is that "on many big issues throughout their history, Americans have found a way of achieving and implementing a national consensus." True, but the philosophical divide between the two parties over the role of government offers little reason for optimism that such a new national consensus is in the offing.

The fact is, discussions of U.S. power that only take into account America's global standing in relation to other countries are not only misleading -- they're largely irrelevant. Sure, America has a bigger and better military than practically every other nation combined. Sure, it has a better global image than Russia or China or any other potential global rival. Sure, America's economy is bigger than any other nation's (though this is a debatable point). But if its students aren't being well educated, if huge disparities exist in technological adoption, if social mobility remains stagnant if the country's health care system is poorly functioning, and if its government is hopelessly gridlocked, what good is all the global power that transfixes Kagan and others? The even more urgent question is how the United States can hope to maintain that power if it's built on a shaky foundation at home.

Rather than talking about how great America is on the campaign trail -- which surely both candidates will do throughout the 2012 election -- the country would likely be better off having an honest discussion on the immense challenges that it faces at home. Even more helpful would be a recognition that education, health care, infrastructure, and overall national economic competitiveness is as essential to U.S. national security as, for example, the number of ships in the U.S. Navy. All this talk about the myth of American decline might make Americans feel better about themselves for a while, but it is a distraction from the real and declining elements of U.S. power.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Democracy Lab

You Can Run But You Can't Hide

Activists are preparing to charge Yemen's ex-strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh with crimes against humanity -- despite a deal that guarantees him immunity at home.

On Jan. 28, Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh arrived in the United States to seek medical treatment for wounds received during his country's continuing civil strife. He left shortly after parliament passed a law last month granting him blanket immunity for any crimes committed during his 33 years in office. The law was part of a deal brokered by the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council in order to ease Saleh out of power.

Not so fast, say some human rights activists. They're planning to bring Saleh to justice in a foreign court, where Yemen's laws don't apply.

International criminal law doesn't apply to sitting heads of state, and for the moment Saleh is still president. But that is about to change. On Feb. 21, 2012, Yemenis go to the polls to elect a new leader - and at that point, says Letta Taylor of Human Rights Watch, "authorities in another country can prosecute those suspected of serious human rights crimes in Yemen."

Fourteen years ago the arrest of the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London dramatically confirmed the principle of universal jurisdiction, already established in the wake of World War II. Today, with certain restrictions, any court around the world can issue arrest warrants for crimes against humanity, genocide, or war crimes. "Saleh may well be safe in Yemen for as long as he has immunity there," says British legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg. "But a former head of state has no immunity in a country that has not granted him special privileges. That's the message of the Pinochet case."

If Saleh is indicted, it's most likely to be for the use of live ammunition by security forces attempting to break up anti-government demonstrations. During the year-old uprising in Yemen, over 200 protestors have been killed and more than 1000 wounded, according to Amnesty International. The single worst incident occurred in March 2011, when security forces and government supporters opened fire on the protestors in the capital city of Sanaa, killing 52 people. In the flashpoint city of Taizz the death count includes 22 children, and international NGOs are reporting cases of medical facilities shelled. Protestors responded to the immunity deal by chanting "it is our duty... to execute the butcher." (In the Jan. 16 photo above, demontrastors are holding up a sign reading "no immunity.")

Nonetheless, the immunity law is unlikely to meet with serious challenge in Yemen. Saleh's notoriously powerful family still holds key positions of the government. With only one candidate (the current vice president) running in the presidential election, Yemen has a long way to go before it can veritably hold its own leaders to account.

Ibraham Qatabi, a Yemeni-American human rights activist who recently demonstrated with other Yemenis outside Saleh's New York City hotel, says that he and like-minded compatriots are "definitely intent on prosecuting Saleh," though he declines to provide details. "We're putting together a legal committee and gathering evidence. He must be prosecuted. If we don't set the terms right now, the corruption and the killings will just continue." Qatabi says that it's important to send the message that leaders should still be held accountable - even if their own countries won't do it.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the London-based Independent Yemen Group is working on the same initiative. Galal Maktari,  Director of Projects, says that they hope to recruit "prominent human rights activists and lawyers" to build up their case against Saleh. "We are trying to access information about direct cases through Yemenis who have a relative or who have lost someone."

The most likely venue for a case against Saleh is London, which has become a favored location for the exercise of universal jurisdiction. In 1999 a London court gave a life sentence to Belorussian Nazi collaborator Anthony Sawoniuk on charges of genocide, and a July 2005 trial ended with a 20-year jail sentence for Afghan warlord Faryadi Sarwar Zardad, who was found guilty of torture and hostage-taking. Arrest warrants have also been issued against former Bosnian President Ejup Ganic and ex-Israeli officials, amongst others.

Dina El Mamoun, who covers Yemen for Amnesty International, says that an investigation against President Saleh can be opened by law enforcement authorities or by an individual. "Whether a charge is made or not depends on whether there is sufficient admissible evidence," she says. "So far, no conclusive evidence has come to light because there has never been any credible investigation into Saleh's conduct. No criminal procedure has been followed."

But Sareta Ashraph, a British lawyer who was worked on cases involving conflicts in Libya, Gaza, and Sierra Leone, says that universal jurisdiction offers "a lower bar" for starting proceedings against Saleh. Ashraph notes that reports from groups such as Amnesty International, though lacking the rigor of full-fledged legal investigations, "would be enough to potentially contribute to the issuing of an arrest warrant."

Yemeni activists are determined to prevent Saleh from escaping justice. "No regime that is willing to openly kill its own citizens who are peacefully protesting can also be expected to investigate its own crimes," says Qatabi. "Saleh is in charge of the security forces and the army. He has the obligation and the responsibility to protect his own people -- this is enshrined in the Yemeni constitution. The abuse and the killings are documented. This is something that cannot be disputed."

In addition to universal jurisdiction, Letta Taylor of Human Rights Watch points out that there are two other paths toward possible prosecution: Either a Yemeni citizen could challenge the immunity deal in Yemeni courts, or Yemen's incoming government could acknowledge the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over crimes committed under Saleh's rule. Given that Saleh's family continues to dominate the Yemeni government, both options appear unlikely.

Maktari, of the London-based Yemeni group, is not deterred. He says that his organization's aim is to show the Yemeni officials that they are not immune. "The mere fact that we are working on this, [that we] have formed a legal committee, is already achieving something. We want the Yemeni officials looking over their shoulders."

MOHAMMED HUWAIS/AFP/Getty Images