Category: Uncategorized

American diplomacy was curated to extend its global dominance in hopes it can shape world order, it quickly became jeopardized once America was forced to implement coercive diplomacy. Post the Cold War, America has struggled to maintain its hegemonic global status. Events such as 9/11 and other terrorist attacks have forced America to have a strong depency on miltary powers. This results in harmful relations with the international community. Although previous president have attempted to decrease America from being coercive it seems like there was little success in doing so.

Burns explained Obama had attempted in reversing some damage brought on by coercion diplomacy by opening Cuba, signing the Iranian nuclear deal, TPP, and the Paris climate accord. However, through Trump’s administration the agreements were abandoned. Trump has not only created a clear division throughout the nation but also, in the global community. His inability to understand foreign agreements as emphasized on Daalders readings raised concerned to governmental advisors and powerful world leaders.

The concern the global community is facing right now is the uncertainty of Trumps future, whether he would be reelected to another term in office or if he would end up in prison. Trumps radical “MAGA” outlook has caused a stirrup on how the nation should handle global stratergy. Although he his future is uncertain, he already announced his plans to purge and politicize the civil service. According to Brands (Trump’s Possible Win Is Shaping Policies of China, Russia, Japan, EU – Bloomberg) “Top aides such as Bolton believe he might have withdrawn from NATO had he won a second term in 2020”. If The US were to back away from NATO it can greatly disrupt international relations.

https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/07/competition-china-us-should-double-down-multilateralism

According to a United States Institute of Peace publication, “minilateralism” is the current trend in international politics. It says, minilateralism is a foreign policy strategy between bilateralism and multilateralism that reflects the growing trend of middle powers preferring a multilateral world instead of choosing between the U.S.-China rivalry. QUAD, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, G7, etc. are examples of minilateralism, which seeks to reduce the complexity of multilateralism and pursue practical solutions. Therefore, in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry, the United States should not force other countries to choose between the United States and China. Also, the United States should carefully evaluate it and not overly rely on small blocs that may alienate non-aligned countries.

As the author says, multilateralism, which has been the mainstay of the world order, is being increasingly questioned for its effectiveness. This is because Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed the lack of ability of international organizations to resolve international disputes such as maritime sovereignty and trade, and to manage global issues such as environmental protection and epidemics, while the rise of middle powers has increased the ability of regional organizations to solve practical problems. In addition, the international outlook, where the United States was the sole global leader, has changed significantly due to China’s substantial challenges, and U.S. allies are increasing their own military capabilities in response to China’s security threats, and Southeast Asian countries such as Singapore are increasing their military cooperation with China. As a result, the United States has lost some of its geopolitical weight, and the Biden administration, which declared that it would restore multilateralism, eventually adopted region-centered multilateralism and economic protectionism for national interests. 

But whether this is a failure of multilateralism and a return to unilateralism, I am skeptical. There are more and more issues that require international cooperation, and the moment the United States chooses unilateralism and isolationism, China will step into the gap and try to seize international influence. If China works with other countries to set international standards that are unfavorable to the U.S., it will pose a major threat to the U.S. in all areas, including military and economic. Therefore, at least as long as the Chinese threat persists, the U.S. will have no choice but to pursue multilateralism, and what it lacks in multilateralism it will make up for in pragmatic, informal cooperation, as large organizations are nearly impossible to reform. However, regional and issue-oriented cooperation is an alternative to multilateralism, not a comprehensive and fundamental solution.

Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism

While the US has been a key figure in global politics over decades, we have seen a decline in their influence. One example of this is by the Trump Administration as they held a meeting with North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong Un, but failed to stop them from firing missiles over South Korea and Japan. Under unilateralism, we saw the rise of other countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China in the forefront of global leadership. The Trump Administrations’ America First policy was more them allying themselves with countries that could threaten them. Under this policy, we were now in the shoes of countries that allied with us, in exchange for protection. We didn’t attempt to be proactive and use our new “friendship” with Russia and Saudi Arabia help build relations with countries they were allied with. We just gave them what they wanted, a one-sided relationship with these countries.(Daalder and Lindsay 7) We turned our backs on our close allies, and aimed to become close with the new global powers, all while touting we were putting America first.

The readings for this week emphasized that the US’ lack of using diplomacy, specifically under the previous administration, was cause for the US losing its significant role in global affairs. We didn’t use diplomacy in guiding our alliances, we used a winner-loser system, where Russia and North Korea were seen as winners that we needed to cling onto. We left unilateralism by ruining our previous relationships and being undermined by our relationships with the new global powers. These new relationships did nothing for us, and disrupted the entire chain of international relations. Now that we have returned to multilateralism, we must fix all the disruption we caused to it.

The only way the US can defeat China and Russia’s political strongholds in Africa and Asia, is by reestablishing our diplomatic relations with these countries. Russia and China have been throwing money into these regions and helping their development, while the US has deserted these countries. During the Monroe Doctrine, we saw the US politically interfere with European colonization in the Western Hemisphere. While the US promised not to intervene in the newly founded countries, and still did, this type of multilateralism is what we need; stopping our rivals from intervening in countries that we have relations with. When we have China and Russia’s neo-colonization of Africa and South Asia, which has weakened America’s diplomatic relations in the region, we must double down on multilateralism. America has obviously ruined their own legacy in these countries by turning their backs on them under the previous administration, and our meddling in elections and propping political leaders we supported instead of those chosen by the people. But if we are able to rebuild our relationships with more transparency, and adapting to a world where we need to rebuild our global leadership position, we can return to our “throne.”

In chapter 9 of Patrick, Stewart, The Sovereignty Wars: Reconciling America with the World, Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2018, he talks about the United States being at a crossroad on multilateralism. On one side Americans are still leaning toward having respect for international institutions and it meaning the United States is not giving up its sovereignty. On the other side, Americans feel they need to preserve the United States’ sovereignty and withdraw or limit the order of the international institutions. They seek an American mostly interest while still participating in international institutions.

The way Stewart describes the United States multilateralism currently is he states the a la carte approach christened by Richard N. Haass. Depending on the situation the United States interests it uses it in different ways. An aspect he explains is the U.S.’s growing reliance on flexible, often purpose-built coalitions of the interested, capable, or like-minded. An example is during the Obama years experts debated whether we live in a G-2 (United States-China), G-8, G-20, or even G-zero world. In reality, ours is G-x world in which the identity and number of parties at the head table, which is x, varies by issue area and situation. The second aspect he states is the preference for voluntary codes of conduct over binding conventions. One such example of this is the Nuclear Security Summit where there will be more American reliance on other countries for voluntary commitments to lock down the world’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons and fissile materials. The third aspect he noted is the search for piecemeal rather than comprehensive approaches to international challenges. An example of this is the U.S. and other governments breaking complex problems down into their component parts such as climate change, in other words, “global governance in pieces” instead of all at once.

In this regard, it means the U.S. uses multilateralism as a means for comfort and convenience. It uses multilateralism for seeking and protecting its own interests and every other government should follow. Then the U.S. uses unilaterism without regard for the international institutions when it is for its own interests and disregarding multilaterism in such instances. An example of this is the invasion of Iraq which France and Germany, both NATO members, both land neighbors Canada and Mexico, and China a permanent member of the UN Security Council and other countries opposed the invasion.

Peter Bainart wrote an interesting essay for today’s (August 31st) edition of the New York Times, entitled “Republicans Are Neither Internationalist nor Isolationist. They’re Asia First,” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/opinion/republican-candidates-china-russia.html. The basic contention of the article is that Trump’s foreign policy, rather than an isolationist retrenchment, represents a radical pivot of US foreign policy, that would henceforth majorly focus on China, the only true adversary of the country on the world stage. That same interpretation of American international priorities could be observed, according to the author, among all participants in the recent Republican presidential debate.
Beinart identifies the origins of this word view in the 19th century, drawing from the book “Asia First: China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism,” by the historian Joyce Mao. According to Mao, American conservatives, especially after China’s communist revolution, view “China as a civilizational pupil turned civilizational threat”. This world view would help explain way so many conservatives downplay the threat represented by Christian Russia, and highlight the dangers posed by communist (and atheist) China and the reason behind Trump’s dismissal of NATO – a perspective that is pervaded by racial undertones.
I do not think this interpretation fully explains Tump’s, or the other Republican candidates’, foreign policy positions. But, then again, I do not believe in simple or single-issue explanations for complex foreign policy decisions. Bainart’s essay offers, however, another lens through which we can interpret Trump’s foreign policy and its enduring appeal to conservative voters. It might also help explain, to some extent, China’s positions vis-à-vis the US (for this same kind of interpretation of US policy might be adopted by Chinese policy makers).