Idealism? Realism? Where is US Foreign Policy Going?
To Peaceful Decline or Violent Confrontation?
Where Are We Going?
In every other country around the world, the vision of the nation’s foreign policy is always clear. Among Western European nations, the clear objective is to spread democracy and advocate for human rights. Likewise, in developing and emerging countries like Russia and China, their primary foreign policy goal is to facilitate their steady rise in the international community. For the United States, however, the same thing cannot be said. Often described as a balancing act of different priorities, the American foreign policy is unclear, convoluted, and ever changing. The problem is, America can’t decide between the overarching visions of pragmatism, idealism, or liberalism, which has spawned a sort of identity crisis, of late, in the State Department and White House. Just like past administrations such as Clinton’s and Obama’s, Trump has done little to quell these uncertainties, but what will an American foreign policy look like in the years beyond? Say, 50 years in the future, or what about 100? In a future of dwindling American influence on the world stage, will the US seek to emulate the the old European powers in focusing more on human rights and scaling back their presence abroad? Or will the United States seek to resist their decline to the bitter end, making pragmatic “un-holy alliances” with former enemies just to stay in the game? There surely isn’t a clear cut answer, but there could be a few possible outcomes one should anticipate.
First, where is the United States right now? After becoming a global superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has yet to make up its mind of what general philosophy underpins their foreign policy. For many outsiders to American politics, many find it strange how, in the same sentence, an American president can go from espousing soaring platitudes of defending liberty and freedom to announcing a pragmatic arms deal with Saudi Arabia. After all, shouldn’t these two be mutually exclusive of each other? Aren’t Saudi values a complete rejection of American standards of personal liberty, equality, and democracy? Yet, the US still maintains their relationship with the Saudis because they’re an “important partner” in the region. Cough cough,*THEY HAVE OIL.* Yes, the partnership is clearly more deeper than that, but it still doesn’t explain how the US singles out governments for human rights abuses while they enable the Saudi’s to carpet bomb Yemen with our planes, our fuel, and with our permission. The truth is, America is still in their teenage years of discovering which foreign policy direction they want to go, and haven’t made up their mind of being a moral or pragmatic power. Looking forward, the present can be an indication of where the United States may be going in the future, but nothing is for sure.
One possible route America could go down would be in the same vein as the declining European empires in the 20th century. For countries like the UK and France, their interactions abroad scaled down significantly following the loss of their colonial possessions and the stagnation of their economies. Subsequently, their political platform in international politics also shifted, as many of those countries took up the platform of enhancing democracy and human rights, which was certainly a departure to their former agendas of dictating global politics and establishing world order. As a weaker power, said European countries were allowed to take a back seat on the world’s stage while leaving the United States in charge to dictate most of global policy. In this era, however, it’s rather unlikely the US would be willing to take the back seat given the alternatives of who’d be in charge. After all, the US certainly wouldn’t be in favor of a world order run by Russia and China, so it seems pretty farfetched seeing the United States voluntarily conceding it’s power to an authoritarian state. When the transition of power occurred between the UK and the United States in the 20th century, it was a voluntary transaction among allies. But with relations with China and Russia only worsening in recent years, the likelihood of the US just sitting back in a Chinese or Russian led world appears very improbable.
Of course, the alternative to that would be actively resisting a Chinese or Russian world order, but that option is not without its flaws, as well. First, this is going on the premise that America can no longer dominate the international scene on its own, and will thus have to make some form of a pragmatic new partnership with another powerful country. Think, for example, when the Americans reached out to the Chinese in the 1970s in order to unite with the PRC against a common Soviet enemy. The obvious question here would be who would the US be able to form an alliance with, as it’s not like the US would partner with either Russia or China given the current souring of relations. One possible partner could be found in India. Although India currently lags far behind the Russians and Chinese in terms of military, technological infrastructure, and economy, a partnership between India and the US could be possible, albeit a little strained. The question here would be whether the US would be willing to compromise with India on certain foreign policy objectives, as a rising India would be more likely to posture its strength in the Asia-Pacific region, meaning a diminishing presence of the United States in that area. Another possible problem with that would be the financial burden placed on the American economy, as choosing to resist China or Russia would inevitably trigger an arms race, or perhaps war. This would be an even increased strain on an already debt ridden American economy. With current political trends in the US calling for larger government programs like a single payer healthcare or free university, it may become economically unsustainable to run an arms race against China or Russia while maintaining robust social services at the same time. Thus, rendering it impossible to compete with said countries of Russia and China.
All in all, there’s no clear cut answer to this problem of direction for American foreign policy, but American lawmakers should start making up their minds pretty quick because America’s decline of power won’t slow anytime soon. Whether going with the first or second option, or perhaps something in between, American lawmakers will have to set priorities in what things they will fight to keep and what things they intend to sacrifice for the greater good of American interests. One possible option would be to sacrifice America’s role as a global superpower for the bonus of maintaining their principles and strong economy. Another idea would be sacrificing morals and possibly their economy, but the retention of their superpower title. But with the Trump White House still failing to pick a foreign policy vision of either idealism, liberalism, or realism, it doesn’t look like this issue of direction will be solved anytime soon.
Sources Consulted
Kissinger, Henry. World Order. New York, Penguin, 2014.
Overy, Richard. 20th Century: Visual Guide To Events That Shaped The World. London, Dorling Kindersley, 2012.
Snyder, Jack. “One World, Rival Theories” Essential Readings In World Politics, Mingst, Snyder, Sixth Edition, Norton, 2017, 117.
Warren, Elizabeth. “A Foreign Policy For All” Foreign Affairs, vol. 1, no. 98, Jan.-Feb. 2019, pp. 50–54.
Walt, M. Stephen. “One World Many Theories” Foreign Policy no. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 29–32, 34–46.
Walt, M. Stephen. “Has Trump Become A Realist?” Foreign Policy 17 April 2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/17/has-trump-become-a-realist/. Accessed 30 August, 2018.
Wilson, Peter. “Idealism” Oxford Bibliographies, 26 August 2014. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0089.xml Accessed 21 February, 2019.
