Month: September 2020

While, in the midst of everything around the world aims to globalization, political issues between states held systems such as unilateralism vs multilateralism in international relationships, based on opposite premises, whereas unilateralism find its fundaments on individualism and sovereignty struggling to keep a country like a “great power”, disregarding and sometimes undermining other states’ interests. On the other hand multilateralism more kindly has found its fundaments in altruistic ideology, involving communities in highly cooperation in order to set up accords and international laws to promote solutions for troubles that are affecting to everybody around the world like global warming, nuclear weapons, trade war, tensions in the gulf or other humanitarian crisis.

For centuries mankind has been involved in several wars, where leaders of most of the countries have fought for sovereignty and power, countries such as Russia, China and the U.S has struggled to gain more and more power. Nevertheless, after Cold war Governments around the globe have realized that situation has brought poverty and dropped down their economies, throughout decades most of the governments have seen the importance to support to each other, and is the perfect timing when multilateralism plays an important and strong role in international relationships, bringing wide accomplishments in international trade, developing technology, investments then strengthens countries’ economies, encourages all states to the era of globalization.

Nowadays real world shows that multilateralism is under risk due to Trump’s government is taking advantage from unilateralism, exacerbating its policies in sovereignty and self-defense, argue policies like cooperating with other states could be hurt American jobs or the U.S. economy, putting away Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal, the trade war with China and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his actions could put under risk international security also bring negatives political changes for the country impacting economies’ issues, increasing costs, country’s investment, among other side effects, certainly is time to think if unilateralism is the correct way to lead a country even when that selfish ideology affecting other states, I was wondering what is going to happen when the U.S need support from others?

This week’s readings led me to revisit several pieces by Ambassador Bill Burns, former State Department official and current president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Though it was published over a month ago, Burns’ recent article in The Atlantic “The U.S. Needs a New Foreign Policy” dovetails nicely on some of the ideas he expressed in his Foreign Affairs piece we read for this week. That piece underscored the need for reinvestment, rebuilding, and reform in U.S. diplomacy and the State Department specifically.

In this newer piece, Burns discusses the future of U.S. foreign policy and describes three separate paths the United States might pursue in world affairs: retrenchment, restoration, and reinvention. Burns describes retrenchment as a less radical, more strategic take on the current administration’s foreign policy approach, which would mean “narrowing our concept of vital interests, sharply reducing global military deployments, shedding outdated alliances, and reining in our missionary zeal for democracy-building abroad.” Meanwhile, Burns describes restoration as a renewed commitment to robust U.S. global leadership in the post-Trump era, given that “it continues to have the world’s strongest military, most influential economy, most expansive alliance system, and most potent soft power.” But the strategy Burns ultimately recommends is reinvention in U.S. foreign policy.  He says this is the middle path that strikes “a balance between [U.S.] ambitions and limitations.”

Ultimately, Burns’ concept of reinvention sounds to me like smart retrenchment. Burns says reinvention will mean recommitting to multilateralism in acknowledgement that the era of the U.S. as lone global superpower has ended. It will mean thoughtfully managing our alliances and competition with rising global powers. Reinvention has a very nice ring to it (it’s a word he used an awful lot in his State Department piece) but I’m not sure I see how it is meaningfully different than retrenchment at the end of the day.

Burns also says that rebuilding the middle class in the United States will be key to the reinvention of U.S. foreign policy.  This discussion echoes some of the ideas in his Foreign Affairs piece in which he made the (very important) point that the State Department would do well to highlight the economic and commercial work it does overseas and focus on explaining how that work benefits workers and communities in the United States.  Connecting foreign policy objectives to prosperity at home is absolutely critical.