Unanswered question of America’s place in the world
Much hyperbole and alarmist rhetoric accompanies Washington’s intent to disengage from traditional foreign policy positions. What the soundbites and headlines fail to mention is that there has never been a settled answer to what America wants to be to the world, and what the world would actually like.
On one hand, US economic, military and political dominance led to Washington’s outsize influence in global affairs, fostered by the partnerships, international organizations, and alliances safeguarding the post-1945 Pax Americana. Recently, however, the calls for unilateralism, non-intervention and realignments have only grown louder and may ultimately lead to America retiring from its many roles as the world’s judge, policeman, teacher, soldier, marketplace and much more.
Criticisms leveled at the current administration’s seeming disinterest are inconsistent with 243 years of America vacillating between isolation and dominating global affairs in pursuit of “enlightened self-interest.” For instance, it took 87 years after America’s independence for Washington to send delegates to an international conference.
The latest iteration merely focuses more on serving America First than being the shining city on a hill that not only welcomes immigrants, but obeys a moral obligation, born from vast wealth and privilege, to pursue democratic ideals across the planet. As a result, we are beginning to see what may evolve from 45 years of the Truman Doctrine that survived many Congresses and White House administrations. Its replacement will need to match or surpass it in terms of scale, complexity, influence and the pursuit of seemingly mutually beneficial outcomes, either to maintain the current world order or make it impossible for its enemies to thrive as they do now.
Unfortunately, America’s withdrawal from the global stage will be more challenging than its reversal of 1930s isolationism and subsequent global leadership from the latter half of the 20th century. Painful lessons from the Great Depression and the Second World War are hard to forget. There are reminders of what happens when America disengages instead of evolving.
Right now, America’s reach is wide and deep. Troops in the tens of thousands are stationed in military bases or on numerous naval vessels far from America’s shores. Washington maintains ties to just about every nation on the planet via its 271 diplomatic posts — more than any other country.
Washington’s evolving stance can be summarized as seeking a coalition of like-minded democracies that would better succeed its current role, particularly in matters of war and maintaining regional stability.
Hafed Al-Ghwell
Other examples are more financial, especially relating to the US dollar.A third of the world’s GDP comes from countries that peg their currencies to the dollar, which is also involved in 90 percent of all forex trading and comprises over 60 percent of central bank foreign exchange reserves. Nearly 40 percent of global debt is issued in dollars. The stagflation of the 1970s is a stark reminder of what happens when America abruptly reverses course on internationally settled principles, such as abandoning the gold standard in favor of the dollar. Now, the Federal Reserve acts as a de facto bank of the world; just 10 years ago, two thirds of $27 trillion debt held by foreign banks would have collapsed global financial systems without the Fed increasing the dollar swap line.
International stability mechanisms and institutions are either based in the US, depend on American financial support, are led by Americans or are heavily influenced by moves in Washington. It is therefore not surprising that foreign interests have spent over half a billion dollars to lobby the US government or influence public opinions in the past two years alone. After all, the world is keenly aware of the inevitable unchartered territory that will result from a more insular America seeking to square worsening domestic crises caused by gridlock and hyper-partisanship.
Parts of the Middle East and Africa are in the throes of hybrid warfare waged by terror groups and nefarious actors such as Daesh, Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabab that exploit weak governments and poor security infrastructure to establish bases, recruit and spread dangerous ideology. With America soon to become a net exporter of energy, there will be little incentive to maintain the current military posture in the Middle East. Some bases will probably be closed or transferred either to local authorities or a coalition. Leaning more on local partners for intelligence, security and counter-insurgency operations is not new and trends indicate this will accelerate regardless of who is in the White House.
In Asia, India has laid its heaviest hand on Kashmir yet. Beijing continues to build artificial islands in the South China Seas and deploy resource vessels searching for oil in waters belonging to nations allied with the US. North Korea’s new-found legitimacy has only emboldened Kim Jong Un to make a mockery of a more conciliatory Washington, seeking to draw down its presence just south of the 38th parallel, all the way to Yokosuka, Japan — home of the US 7thFleet.
In South and Central America, decades of US disinterest continue to exacerbate the crises that have sent thousands toward America’s southern border in search of safety and a better life. Billions of dollars in American aid may have netted some positive outcomes but systemic failures in some countries there have failed to address the chief goal — reducing immigration. It will not be surprising if new policy favored disbursing funding for enforcement initiatives at home instead of foreign aid that has so far failed to materialize appreciable gains.
Elsewhere, the global economy teeters on a knife edge as American self-interest has now crashed head first into complex multilateral entanglements that have proved difficult to replace with simpler bilateralism or outright protectionism. All of these just signal the turbulent times ahead as America goes full circle back to the isolationism and non-interventionist stance that its proponents believe would reward the nation with a stronger focus on domestic issues. Unfortunately, it would leave a massive vacuum on a global stage that would only beckon adversaries with grand ambitions that may necessitate erasing the gains made in nearly 75 years of international peace on America's watch.
Washington’s evolving stance can be summarized as seeking a coalition of like-minded democracies that would better succeed its current role, particularly in matters of war and maintaining regional stability. Others, however, have opted for the hyperbolic interpretation that the 243-year old nation is in decline. Whoever steps up will either re-shape the world in the same vein as the Bretton Woods Conference did in 1944, or we may finally have an answer to whether the world that emerged from it can survive without a chaperone.
- Hafed Al-Ghwell is a non-resident senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Institute at the John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He is also senior adviser at the international economic consultancy Maxwell Stamp and at the geopolitical risk advisory firm Oxford Analytica, a member of the Strategic Advisory Solutions International Group in Washington DC and a former adviser to the board of the World Bank Group. Twitter: @HafedAlGhwell
