Asia in Washington: Exploring the Penumbra of Transnational Power

Introduction: Toward a New Paradigm for International Relations

Introduction: Toward a New Paradigm for International Relations For three and a half centuries and more, international relations has been seen as a matter of ties among nation-states: France, China, Russia, Japan, and, preeminently over the past two decades, the United States of America. Yet in a globalizing system of rising complexity, that view has grown too simple. It is time for a new paradigm. To be sure, America has the strongest military in the world. Despite persistent U.S. domestic controversy over fiscal policy, the dollar continues to prevail as the global key currency. In many ways the United States still remains, as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright often selfconfidently put it in the late 1990s, the “indispensable nation.”1 Yet there is much that such rhetoric does not, in the early twentyfirst century, adequately explain about international affairs. Why does the “indispensable nation” acquiesce to trade and financial policies that blunt its growth, and why does it not work harder to configure the rules of the game? Why does it oscillate so strikingly over time in the dynamism of its response to the world? Why does it pay so much attention to some small countries, often not highly strategic, and ignore other large ones, some among the most consequential in the world? The Problem for Analysis Much, in the final analysis, proves obscure when the focus is only on nations. Instead, the conceptual net needs to be cast more widely, to encompass a broader range of international actors. On an ever more 1 00-2538-1 intro.indd 1 3/12/14 4:18 PM 2 Introduction complex global chessboard, leaders and their publics interact across protean dimensions. To comprehend that reality, and to foretell the future, those multiple dimensions of public affairs need to be grasped and their role in the complex interactions that now configure the world better conceptualized. Subnational actors, to be sure, have gotten significant attention in international relations theory for over two decades. They were a concern of classic works, such as Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s Power and Interdependence, in the late 1970s.2 Subnational analyses, however, have generally focused on transnational actors, such as multinational corporations and global religious organizations, rather than on geographically defined units such as cities. Yet cities are a crucial—perhaps the crucial—dimension of the subnational universe, which is growing ever more important in global affairs. Throughout the Middle Ages— indeed, until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648—cities were key actors in international relations. And they are becoming so once again, as the reality of global localism grows ever more salient.3 An extensive and useful literature has evolved concerning the notion of the global city.4 This notion has been applied, however, mainly in the economic realm. New York and London have been examined in detail, as quintessential expressions, with the notion being applied to Tokyo also.5 Surprisingly, however, the concept of the global city has rarely been applied to political affairs.6 For many years, that failure to include predominantly political towns within the rubric of global city was apt. These cities were, in truth, parochial, with little international dimension. Their overriding concern was domestic politics, with a focus on the local legislature. Washington, D.C., itself was dominated by parochial congressional politics throughout the first two-thirds (1800–1950 or so) of its existence (see chapter 1). Yet global politics is changing profoundly, and diplomats ignore that historic transformation at their peril. Telecommunications and transportation are much faster and more efficient than they have ever been before, while economic relations are more intimate and interactive, creating an increasingly tangible new global political-economic community. Global political cities, rising within this broader configuration, are distinguished not by their agglomeration of CEOs or their intensity of financial trading but rather by their remarkable influence (as sophisticated, yet often 00-2538-1 intro.indd 2 3/12/14 4:18 PM Toward a New Paradigm 3 nongovernmental, communities interactive with government) over policy decisions and by their amassing of strategic intelligence on topics that range from national policy trends to geopolitical risk. Why Asia in Washington? Washington is a particularly interesting focal point of research on global political cities for several reasons. Most important, of course, it is the geographical seat of the world’s most powerful national government. Almost as vital, however, it is one of the world’s...