GDP Now Matters More Than Force
Author(s): Leslie H. Gelb
Source: Journal of Politics & Society, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 3-5
Published by: The Helvidius Group
Stable URL: http://www.helvidius.org/gelb
Your use of the Helvidius Group archive indicates your acceptance of the Helvidius Group’s Terms and
Conditions of Use, available at http://www.helvidius.org/termsandconditions. The Helvidius Group’s
Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that you may use content in the Helvidius Group’s archive
only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the Helvidius Group regarding any further use of this work. Contact information may be
obtained at http://www.helvidius.org/about/contact.
Each copy of any part of a Helvidius Group transmission must contain the same copyright notice that
appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
The Journal of Politics & Society is the premier undergraduate academic publication in the social sciences.
Founded in 1989, JPS is published twice a year by the Columbia University based Helvidius Group and
is available for purchase across the United States at Barnes & Noble and online at http://www.helvidius.
org/support.
Guest Essay
GDP NOW MATTERS MORE THAN FORCE
Leslie H. Gelb
M
ost nations today beat their foreign policy drums large-
ly to economic rhythms, but less so the United States.
Most nations define their interests largely in economic
terms and deal mostly in economic power, but less so the United
States. Washington still thinks of its security mainly in traditional
military terms and responds to threats mainly with force. The prin-
cipal challenge for Washington, then, is to recompose its foreign
policy with an economic theme, while countering threats in new
and creative ways. The goal is to redefine “security” to harmonize
with twenty-first-century realities.
Economics is now the principal coin of the international
realm, and gross domestic product now matters more than mili-
tary might. Any doubts about that should be erased by one simple
and overwhelming fact: China is the first global power in world
history that is not a global military power. China’s military punch
will be restricted to its border areas for years. Most nations worry
not about Chinese arms, but about its trade and investment deci-
sions. And though China’s GDP is just a little more than half of
America’s, Beijing’s power rivals Washington’s. World leaders see
China’s economy going up and America’s going down, largely be-
cause of Washington’s political incapacity to make hard decisions
about its domestic economy.
Emerging powers today are seen as emerging precisely be-
cause of their growing economies, not their muscled up armies.
Brazil, India, Turkey, and Indonesia are prime examples. Their key
preoccupations are not military attacks on their soil, but loss of
domestic support due to deteriorating economies. What they care
Leslie H. Gelb is President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations. He was a columnist for the New York Times and a senior official in the State and
Defense Departments. This essay was adapted by permission of FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
November/December 2010. Copyright 2011 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
4 Gelb • GDP Now Matters More Than Force
most about is attracting investments, expanding trade, improving
education, and managing other internal matters that affect global
competitiveness. The White House pays attention to these issues,
to be sure, but mostly worries about wars and threats.
The world is not safe, and because of terrorists and WMD,
arguably less safe than ever. But in one critical respect, it is safer—
the prospect of wars among major powers. Today, the likelihood of
armed conflict between great powers is far less than at any point in
modern history. It is hard to imagine an arena in which their vital
interests seriously clash. To be sure, great powers such as China
and Russia will tussle with America and others for advantages,
but they will stop well short of direct confrontation. They need
one another to grow their economies. Given the receding threat
of great-power wars, most world leaders have elevated economic
priorities as never before. To be sure, leaders throughout history
pursued economic strength as the foundation of state power, but
power itself was equated with military might. Today, the prevailing
idea is that economic strength should be applied primarily toward
achieving economic—not military—ends.
Yet, for all these novel characteristics of the present era, there
is one stunning constant: the national security strategy of the
United States. Whereas other countries have adjusted to the new
economics-based order, Washington has been tardy, even obtuse.
It’s not as if Americans have to go out and invent a basic strat-
egy for this new era; Washington has one staring it in the face—the
approach taken by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower during the
early Cold War. Its underlying principles were to make the Ameri-
can economy the top priority by holding back on military spending
and military interventions; to strengthen the economies of key al-
lies, especially in Western Europe and Japan, to lessen their vul-
nerability to Soviet pressure and increase common allied power;
and to fend off threats by means of containment, deterrence, and
military and economic aid plus military training. The key was to
help others fight for themselves.
Their strategy today would almost certainly revolutionize ba-
sic policy. For example, it would elevate Mexico far above Afghani-
Journal of Politics & Society 5
stan as a national priority. The fact is that Mexico could damage or
help the United States profoundly and inescapably—just consider
illegal immigration, drugs, crime, as well as the trade and invest-
ment potential. By contrast, even victory in Afghanistan would
leave terrorists threats rampant elsewhere.
Today, Truman and Eisenhower would focus on building
situations of strength with key allies and forming ad-hoc coalitions
with emerging powers. It is worth remembering that Truman did
not intervene with U.S. troops in Greece and Turkey to implement
his new containment doctrine; he gave them military and economic
aid along with rhetorically strong but not open-ended promises. It
is worth noting that Eisenhower quickly stopped the bloodshed in
Korea with a truce.
Without doubt, U.S. presidents need to preserve America’s
core role as the world’s military and diplomatic balancer and pro-
tector—for its own sake and also because it adds to U.S. power in
economic transactions. But economics has to be the main driver for
current policy. Washington can gain much more political bang for
its still considerable economic buck if American leaders put eco-
nomics at the center of U.S. foreign policy. But that is not enough.
To truly restore and advance U.S. international power, Amer-
ica’s economy has to be revitalized. That will take hard and risky
political decisions and time. American leaders forever swear their
allegiance to making these tough choices, but they never deliver.
Meanwhile, Americans of nearly every political stripe wait and
wonder whether their leaders will let the nation that saved the
world in the twentieth century sink into history in the twenty-first.
