Panelists ask, can the U.S. maintain its supremacy forever?

Friday's EPIIC panel "U.S. Empire: Pax or Pox Americana" tackled the issue of the United States' future in the modern world.

Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Joseph Nye warned that "we ought not to assume that the United States' supremacy will last forever."

Likening the might of the United States to the Roman Empire, he said that "the Roman Empire died the death of thousands of cuts from barbarians ... the new barbarians today could be seen as terrorists."

Nye said that many people are fooled into believing that an unparalleled United States military is the ultimate sign of supremacy in the world.

"People mistake military power as the only sign of an American empire, and they are very mistaken," he said. "There is a balance of power at the economic level."

He said that for the United States' dominance to continue, it will have to make use of "soft power." Soft power is defined as diplomatic and communication techniques that are equally as important as brute military strength.

"If we're going to win the war on terror, we must attract moderate Islamists so they aren't converted by extremists," Nye said.

Swedish Ambassador to the United Nations Pierre Schori said that military strength alone is often not an appropriate response. "Peacekeeping today involves so much more than a gun.... I think the United States in Iraq could learn from the peacekeeping mission in the Congo," he said. Multinational U.N. forces worked in the Congo to reduce violence there.

U.S. Ambassador Patrick Kennedy defended the actions of the United States in the wake of Sept. 11, noting that "any nation will act unilaterally if its interests are sufficiently threatened."

Kennedy said that the terrorist attacks against the United States deserved immediate action, which the U.N. was unwilling to support. "I don't believe the United States' powers were used in an unrestrained or excessive way," he said.

Thomas Donnelly, a fellow a Defense and National Security fellow at the American Enterprise Inistitute, describe himself as the "token neo-conservative of the panel." He made the case for "hard," or military, power in defense of United States interests. "Diplomacy is ineffectual without hard power," he said.

Donnelly said he saw no reason for the United States be apologetic for using its power to expand freedom throughout the world, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. "When we do exercise our power [for these purposes], we have an obligation to finish what we've started."

Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations Kishore Mahbubani focused on why the U.S. is perceived in an increasingly negative light throughout the world. "The pro-American tide turned at the head of the Cold War, when the U.S. felt it could start acting like any country, and didn't need to fulfill any obligations," he said.

That lack of responsibility aggravated many around the world who looked up to the United States as the most powerful nation. "The seeds for what we see today were planted ten to 13 years ago," Mahbubani said.

The final speaker, Fletcher professor of International Law and Politics Antonia Chayes, said that the unilateralist tendencies adopted by the United States have occurred "because we focus more on what multinational organizations cannot do rather than what they can do."

Oftentimes, she said, the United States has backed out of international treaties and conventions, such as the Kyoto Protocol, and then expressed surprise when other countries were less willing to side with the United States.

"Without understanding the consequences of lack of support of nations, it's very hard to understand that when we opt out [of multinational agreements], others might do the same," Chayes said.