The Fourth Power

THE EUROPEAN

FUTURES

OBSERVATORY

THE FOURTH POWER

Gary Hart

ISBN 0-19-517683-9

This book is one of the most important books that I have read in recent years. Additionally, for those whose aims are to supplant the US in global geopolitics, this is an extraordinarily dangerous book. Gary Hart has simply re-stated the fundamentals that made America a great power. In doing so, he has breathed life into the concept of what it is to be American.

I first came across this book in Washington in 2004. At the same time, I saw Senator Hart’s presentation to the National Press Council, which spurred me on to pay much closer attention to the work. This was further reinforced by seeing Senator Hart take part in a debate on the usefulness of a pre-emptive foreign policy in London late in 2004. I have to admit to reading the book twice before undertaking this review. The first time was reading for pure pleasure, the second time was to examine more closely the content of the book.

The book starts by looking at the idea of grand strategy and the world in which that grand strategy needs to be deployed. It is Senator Hart’s view that America has lost sight of its grand strategy in the world, its larger purpose in the world, and that if the US wishes to retain its global pre-eminence, then it will need to restate what that purpose is.

The modern world is described as one in which four revolutions are currently under way. The impact of a growing interdependence throughout the world has led to growing levels of globalisation. This has been facilitated by the development of communications technology in the information revolution. The twin impact of the information revolution and globalisation has led to a changing role for the nation-state. Finally, this changing role of the nation-state has led to a fundamental change in the nature of warfare and international conflict. It is Senator Hart’s view hat current American policy has not fully accounted for these four revolutions.

Current US policy relies upon three traditional instruments of foreign policy – the use of economic power, political influence, and the use of military might. Senator Hart argues for the more widespread use of what he calls “the Fourth Power” – American Principles. It is argued that the basic principles upon which the American Republic was built (liberal democracy, the respect of property, the export of freedom) are a potent instrument of foreign policy that has been neglected of late. Senator Hart advocates the export of “the American Dream” in what we would term as the use of “soft power”.

To what purpose, we might ask, ought this power to be put? Senator Hart argues that there are three larger purposes that need to inform US foreign policy in the early decades of the twenty first century. First, foreign policy needs to provide physical security for the American people from external and internal aggression. Secondly, US foreign policy needs to expand opportunity both at home and abroad. Finally, US foreign policy needs to promote the spread of liberal democracy throughout the world.

Providing security will entail the exercise of economic, political, and military power as they assume new forms. Globalisation and information technology are changing the nature of economic power. The demise of the nation-state will change the nature of political power. The transformation of warfare will require new military strategies. US foreign policy will need to account for these new realities in the international environment.

Great powers only maintain their status when they have a defined national purpose, to which they dedicate the means to achieving. The globalisation revolution, the information revolution, the change in the nature of sovereignty, and the change in the nature of warfare all require bold policy initiatives.

When the nature of conflict changes, the means used to assure security must also change. The new forms of violence resemble war, but are more akin to criminality. It is neither war nor criminal activity. There has been an increasing trend towards low intensity conflict. War conflict is now characterised by non-state actors (tribes, gangs, and clans), non-arrayed enemies (i.e. without military formation), in conditions of asymmetrical warfare. The massive military might of the US has not protected it from the new form of warfare.

One response has been the pre-emptive path against “terrorists” and “failed and rogue nations”. However, we must look at the roots of these groupings. Why are they alienated to the US? There is no clear cut ideological boundary. Much of the world resents the US, if only because the US consumes and wastes so much of world resources. The US is seen as rich, arrogant, arbitrary, and wholly self-interested. The “War On Terrorism” needs to focus on stemming the supply of manpower to the terrorist groups.

The military still has an important role at the centre of national security. Legitimate uses of force will continue to arise from time to time. The US military might be placing a very high reliance upon high tech solutions that are vulnerable to human error. There is likely to be a continued need for rapid reaction forces to act within a peacekeeping role. Military engagements depend critically upon the popular support of the American public. An honest assessment of the costs of an engagement is critical to ensuring this public trust.

The US will sacrifice its character as a Republic if it aspires to Empire. There are serious questions over whether the US can afford to become an Empire (in financial terms). The US cannot be relied upon to exercise its powers in a benign way to defend its national interests. The current federal deficits show that an imperial adventure will be paid for through the health and education of Americans and at the price of foreign indebtedness. The creation of an American Empire would entail changes to the American political culture because an American Empire would coerce those who are capable of coercion, install puppet regimes to tow the line laid down by the US, target the security of supply of key raw materials (e.g. oil) and operate by bypassing the democratic means of Congress.

An American Republic still sees security as a central issue – it merely wishes to achieve it using different means. Empires, by definition, are hegemonic and seek to impose their will. Not all subjugation is benign and achieved willingly. This means that all empires eventually become militaristic. Republics are at a direct variable to this. Republics stress civic virtue and citizen duty, the centrality of popular sovereignty, the resistance to corruption, and a sense of commonwealth.

This discussion is important in the US, as it is assumed that the American Destiny is to become an Empire. The majority of US allies frowned upon the invasion of Iraq. The war on terror does not justify an American Empire. To cast it as a crusade would be to threaten the American Republic with a form of neo-conservative theocracy. The main thesis of the book is the preservation of the American Republic.

America as a principled Republic is central to the thesis of the book. America is a Democracy of rights and a Republic of duties. The ideal of the Republic is founded upon civic virtue. The spirit of citizen duty and participation is central to the core of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty does not allow corruption to take root. When the citizenry do not undertake their civil duties, they are less likely to carry out their most important duty – the defence of the Republic.

The revolutions of the twentieth century are making a special call upon civic duties. Economic security needs to be found through productivity rather than consumption, international security needs to be found through principled engagement, and national security needs to be found through new approaches to military defence.

This is quite a powerful call to action. I have to admit to being quite seduced by the arguments of the book. Whether is achieves any resonance in political life is another matter. I rather fear that the message of the book is simply one that America does not want to hear at the moment. We can question the willingness of the US to move from being an economy of consumption to being an economy of production. We can question the willingness of the American public to base their actions upon sacrifice.

This may well cause great problems for the US in the international arena in the medium to long term. Eventually, those nations financing the Federal and Household Deficits will want to be repaid. Eventually, as the oil resources in the world become scarcer, the US may be forced into more uncertain military ventures to secure the supply of oil. Eventually, the US may be unable to resist an Imperial Destiny in order to protect its key national interests. If Senator Hart is to be believed, this would be the undoing of the American Republic. Only time will tell whether or not he is right. In the meantime, all we can do is to speculate.

I really enjoyed this book. It is well written, the argument flows very well, and, although the topics are quite difficult at points, it is an easy read. The book is not too long, and does not dwell on points, which helps it to avoid being long winded. We can thoroughly recommend the book as it covers an important topic in an informed way, with a style that helps the reader to understand the points being made. It is one of those books that you simply ought not to ignore.

Stephen Aguilar-Millan

stephena@eufo.org

EUFO Limited is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, incorporated in England.

Reg Number 4947883.

Registered office; 6 Greenways Close, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 3RB, United Kingdom.