Author: JORDAN BOLDS-LOCKWOOD

In this week’s class session discussion of the concept of sovereignty and the United States allegedly trying to regain its sovereignty during the Trump administration,  I could not stop thinking about another discussion of sovereignty that was the running rampant in a certain recent current international event that shook the realm of international affairs: Brexit, the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union.

In an article from the Atlantic entitled The Problem of Britain Taking Back Control, by Tom McTague, McTague outlines that while Britain may be looking at regaining the said sovereignty that it once had before their membership in the EU, the pursuit of reasserting such could mean that Britain may have to be on the losing end in terms of a strong economy.

As discussed in class, we went over how the concept of sovereignty is hijacked by the concepts of nationalism and populism, the prime reasons fueling the country to vote Leave four years ago was fueled by these concepts hijacking sovereignty. The specific arguments that fueled the decision to leave the EU consisted of arguments of Brussels’ overreaching power and expanding bureaucracy with in the EU, the free flow immigration from Europe that of course was unwanted, as well as the idea of being in the EU undermining the national identity and culture of the UK. The article speaks about Boris Johnson and how he sought to stick to the script of preaching about how it is vital that Britain takes back control and by delivering a Brexit based upon the idea of Leave Means Leave by advocating a “Brexit model that prioritized sovereignty and maximum freedom from the EU”, different from his predecessor Theresa May who attempted to deliver it and Johnson quit the government based on her Brexit plan bowing to the EU even after officially leaving.

While Boris Johnson is committed to deliver this script of sovereignty and freedom in all spectrum’s of the relationship between the UK and the EU, McTague argues that there could be a challenge in delivering that what Boris has sought out to do. The argument that McTague reveals is can Britain, who is definitely not a superpower or even remotely close to its past days, currently a midsize power, be able to execute this doctrine of taking back control without suffering an economic loss or loss of prosperity to the point that the whole campaign was utterly in vain. While Britain may be bent on achieving this, there are questions on whether Britain’s economy can endure this or face calamity as the EU still wants to have an economic free trade relationship with Britain still that benefits both however that sees the EU wanting the UK to a binding level playing field which sees Britain main certain standards such as the environment or state aid or social conditions.

If one were the UK, they would see this as a stumbling block to its sovereignty as the EU wants to bind them legally with the help of the EU legislation on their side, which clearly indicates that Brussels also wants to have control which sees this as a potential deadlock between two entities and their interests. To the Brexiteer like Johnson, this seems like playing by the rules of the EU still despite breaking from the EU, which is not what the intent was. Johnson wants the EU to accept the UK rules or instead go to the WTO to to its free trade. This is a test to see whether the Brexiteer rhetoric of Johnson and a Brexit government will be able to break through the EU red tape or as McTague concludes with “desire for national sovereignty bumps with raw economic power.” This certainly will be an interesting contest to see whether a independent UK looking for its sovereignty will be able to play by its own rules or be subject to EU regulations where its efforts will prove to be a failure. If this effort fails by Boris and the UK government, then people will look back on this and back to the historic decision back in 2016 and ask “was it worth it”? I for one am interested to see whether this is true superficial yearning of the said concept or will it just be in vain at at the same time losing economically that could hurt the country for years to come.

 

Richard Haass, who currently serves as President of the Council of Foreign Relations, wrote a piece for the Brookings Institution called Five Not-So-Easy Pieces: The Debates on American Foreign Policy, which details and goes in depth into five approaches that the United States can take in its foreign policy philosophy and also outlines what the pros and cons in these approaches and what is perhaps the best option for the United States. Despite the fact that the article is a little over 20 years old, when reading this I found that what is talks about in depth is still relevant to what we see today as well as what we discussed in the first class session this past Tuesday.

Haass opens up the piece by outlining five essential question sets of US foreign policy that needs to be addressed: the proper priorities of US Foreign policy, to what extent if any should the US should add other states and enlist them pursing these priorities whatever they may be, the instruments of foreign policy and how they should be used in the policy the US is pursing, the resources required and how they should be allocated, and finally how policy itself should be constructed and implemented. Haass goes on to say that the US has many directions in its foreign policy priorities some examples include encouraging democracy and markets, maintaining American primacy, avoiding foreign policy entanglements, and other directions. In addition, more than one direction can be adopted however, the emphasis should be that priorities must be established because “trade-offs and opportunity costs are often unavoidable.”

According to Haass, all five questions that are posed when constructing policy are important, however they are all at the same time they are often obscured or uncertainty arises over specific foreign issues, which I concur with what he says because when dealing with certain issues whether it be China, North Korea, Iran, or even another less urgent issue, it can be difficult to decide what decisions should one take on a certain issue and whether that decision will work or will it come back to haunt them on basis of far overreach or not doing enough on that specific issue. Ultimately, Haass reveals that out of the five sets of questions, the first two are the most important in comparison to the other three since the first two as they “reflect the purposes of the United States and its basic approach to the world.” Haass again in my opinion, makes a very reasonable point, in that the foundation of foreign policy of the United States must be formed before going to the other topics of instrumentality, implementation, and process.

In terms of the approach and orientation of US Foreign policy approach, Haass argues that the concept of realism should be at the core of policy instead of going to approaches such as neo-isolationism or a foreign policy based on trade and promotion of exports, or even a policy of defending American primacy is most likely not going to succeed. Haass’ defense of the realism concept is what has been touched on this past class session in stressing order among rather than within states, as well as military power is sparingly used as well as as nuclear arsenals are reduced, and trade is based and conducted by the rules and not results driven. He also clarifies that these areas are the most important that the US participates in and where its feasible to implement and protect these policies, as well as stating that its okay for the US to promote democracy and markets and to assist on other humanitarian issues when its clearly atrocious,  as long as it does not put vital interests at risk and other states are contributing as well as the US isn’t doing the heavy work all the time.

Haass’ further elaborates on three major approaches that the US can take in its foreign policy: unilateralism, relying heavily on international institutions, or materialism that is less formal/universal. The unilateral approach can be beneficial by deceasing the need for compromise and maximizing speed of acting and doing more on its own, this concept is actually impractical in theory and in practice as only few tasks can the US carry alone as well as using this concept would be costly fiscally as well as the fact that universal participation is required for certain topics such as nuclear proliferation. While leaning heavily on global institutions sounds like a attractive idea on paper seeing  global organizations helping the US to bring stability to the world as well as less fiscal operations for the US, this policy according to Haass “require a strong consensus to operate effectively, and in most arenas of international life such consensus is missing.” The idea that major world powers have their own ideas and solutions for certain issues makes this approach more difficult then one thinks, and this concept would require humility from major super powers (which is essentially non existent).

Haass does not directly favor an approach in this article, but it seems that the readers would guess he would be in favor of the third approach which is the multilateral approach that is less formal/universal. Haass informs the readers while alliances do have their role in the world, as time passes, what is more common is “informal coalitions of parties able and willing to work together on behalf of a common purpose.” These types of coalitions is not ordeal but Haass takes it further by saying “but they are consistent with a world where the willingness of governments to cooperate varies from crisis to crisis and situation to situation, where great power consensus is unreliable, and where U.S. resources, however great, are still limited.” In order for US foreign policy to work and produce results, according to Haass, the US has the power on a economic, political, and military scale for sure but what it it lacks is the influence to influence others to follow its lead. This leads to the point that the US must focus on relations between states than conditions and coalitions to promote multilateral action, which Haass points out the US most be willing to take counsel from others to shape a stable international society, as well as leading home is the US and figuring out what are the national interests of the US in what consists of American foreign policy before going out to implement the policy internationally.