U.S. Foreign Policy Reform
U.S. foreign policy is driven by a professional class, who see a world shaped through a Cold War mentality and influenced by the rise of China as an emerging super power. These experts, and their associated political affiliates, view the geopolitical landscape through these biased eyes instead of taking account of current reality.
Instead of drawing on the past, U.S. foreign policy needs to be re-calibrated, centered on a transparent and tangible strategy with defined and achievable objectives driven by national security interests. And rather than a reliance on military power, U.S. foreign policy extend other elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, and economic) not only to our allies but to strategic neutrals, such as India and Vietnam, or even select adversaries, like Iran.
So what are the current geopolitical realities which will influence U.S. foreign policy into the future?
So how should current geopolitical reality shape U.S. foreign policy?
Probably the most significant change, from what we have seen in the last two to three decades, is to limit U.S. military intervention. Foreign policy experts and the politicians they influence, are cavalier to send troops into harms way, so we need to upend the mindset. Within the political class, Congress needs to re-insert themselves when to commit U.S. forces into a conflict - be it open warfare or something less than warfare. The checks and balances which were meant to be addressed in the War Powers Act of 1973, must be enforced and a repeal the "war on terror" legislation, which has been a catch all for military intervention over the past decade and half. Next, politicians need to step up and give a damn about foreign policy before there is some sort of incident. Foreign policy and domestic policy compete with each other for scarce resources, so having greater cognizant of current foreign policy issues will allow politicians to prioritize resources to ensure the most pressing international and domestic issues are being adequately addressed.
A more complicated area for reform is the professional foreign policy class. The most influential experts and think tanks are still wedded to a Cold War mentality where the U.S. is the indispensable global policeman who should maintain the liberal order and promote liberal, democratic values through regime change and humanitarian intervention.
The next generation of foreign policy experts need to look at the world as it currently is rather than the prevailing group-think. Controversial and unpopular viewpoints need to be taken more seriously and deliberated instead of debating at the margins - ex. how many troops are needed to be surged to turn the tide of the conflict, or what is the timetable for withdrawal. Instead, we need look at: what is the strategic imperative which requires direct action; what are the second and third orders of impact of the intervention; are there allies or non-aligned countries/organizations who may be better suited to address the conflict from a regional perspective and who may be able to provide support services to, i.e. intelligence or a logistic capability; is there an adversary who may have the similar objective and we could partner with under a limited agreement; what are the domestic priorities which are being neglected?
It is going to take a different mindset, open to multiple possibilities, and not tied to our current foreign policy posture which will serve the U.S.' best interest in the future. But without a hard look at how we are doing business and reform minded individuals who go against the establishment, the U.S. will continue to muddle along, bumping into foreign intervention hazardously, and spending billions of dollars without clear and positive results.
Instead of drawing on the past, U.S. foreign policy needs to be re-calibrated, centered on a transparent and tangible strategy with defined and achievable objectives driven by national security interests. And rather than a reliance on military power, U.S. foreign policy extend other elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, and economic) not only to our allies but to strategic neutrals, such as India and Vietnam, or even select adversaries, like Iran.
So what are the current geopolitical realities which will influence U.S. foreign policy into the future?
- Technology will continue to be a major economic disruptor. Technological advances has changed the workforce. Segments of the population have lost their jobs without suitable replacement jobs. Politicians continue to pander to these disadvantaged workers, promising them a return to the "good old days" or "they should learn to code" mentality but in reality their issues are addressed only during an election cycle. Add social media echo chambers into the mix, which adds to their disillusionment, and an undertone of outrage and social unrest exists, which manifests in protectionist and nationalistic ideologies.
- Military technological advances provides politicians with the ability to conduct non-kinetic and low grade kinetic conflicts with minimal human causalities. Cyber and space warfare are the new conflict frontiers. Now the political establishment can call on cyber warriors to degrade an adversaries' military and economic infrastructure and maintain deniability of a nation's involvement. Drone technology and artificial intelligence may provide a means for kinetic warfare with minimal human loss, thus allowing the political establishment to maintain an interventionist mindset.
- Non-Western nations are tired of being lectured on the benefits of western liberalism: the political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law and being vilified for perceived non-liberal philosophies. Generations of colonialism and internal meddling skews non-western nations to seek non-western power-brokers who will not berate nor condemn alternatives to western liberalism. We see this play out in China's Belt and Road initiative and infrastructure development in Africa.
- The rise of sectarianism and tribalism. In many countries, the social order is breaking down along lines of religious affiliation, ideological sectors, and/or urban-rural fault lines. The loyalty to the "tribe" has greater meaning than loyalty to the nation-state, especially when the view is that the leaders are colluding with industry or an "establishment" to fleece the common person, to the benefit of the establishment. Even in the U.S. we are seeing the creation of "tribal" affiliations. An example of this tribalism is between the coastal urban centers versus the fly-over rural heartland. The urban areas driving a more cosmopolitan and global agenda, whereas rural communities seek a more nationalistic and isolationist policy. But what has become dis-concerting in this "tribal" struggle is the demonization of the "other." This mindset entrenches tribal allegiances and, as we see in U.S. politics, sows discord and a breakdown of social norms.
- The center of economic and rising military power is moving from the Trans-Atlantic region to the Indo-Pacific region. Europe is fractured. Nationalism has pushed European nations to greater autonomy rather than to the collective organizations found in the aftermath of World War II. China is on the ascent and is projected by the mid-2020s to be the largest economic power in the world and to have the necessary offensive and defensive military capabilities to cause a stalemate with U.S. for control of the Pacific. India is economically on the rise with the creation of a robust middle class.
- U.S. domestic politics is driving a new narrative which shuns internationalism, free trade agreements, or involvement in collective action. Instead there is a call to let the world solve its own problems, to limit military and economic aid to allies and those who we want to influence, and instead to focus on internal problems which many see as being unaddressed for decades.
- Non-state and sub-national actors are becoming driving forces within nation-states. These actors may or may not have an allegiance to the nation-state or, as we are seeing more of, their goals are independent of the nation-state. These non-state actors are not obliged to follow any international treaties and are not governed by the post-World War II United Nations structure.
- The UN is a World War II relic. The new center of gravity is the Indo-Pacific region rather than Europe and North America. Regions which have been largely ignored - Africa, the Middle East, South America, and Asia - are pushing for greater inclusion and a voice in international affairs. They no longer want to have decisions, which directly affect them, directed by the staid Security Council but instead want permanent representation with an equal voice. UN reform is inevitable which will dilute the current power structure, causing more raucous deliberations and decisions which may not be in U.S. self interest.
So how should current geopolitical reality shape U.S. foreign policy?
Probably the most significant change, from what we have seen in the last two to three decades, is to limit U.S. military intervention. Foreign policy experts and the politicians they influence, are cavalier to send troops into harms way, so we need to upend the mindset. Within the political class, Congress needs to re-insert themselves when to commit U.S. forces into a conflict - be it open warfare or something less than warfare. The checks and balances which were meant to be addressed in the War Powers Act of 1973, must be enforced and a repeal the "war on terror" legislation, which has been a catch all for military intervention over the past decade and half. Next, politicians need to step up and give a damn about foreign policy before there is some sort of incident. Foreign policy and domestic policy compete with each other for scarce resources, so having greater cognizant of current foreign policy issues will allow politicians to prioritize resources to ensure the most pressing international and domestic issues are being adequately addressed.
A more complicated area for reform is the professional foreign policy class. The most influential experts and think tanks are still wedded to a Cold War mentality where the U.S. is the indispensable global policeman who should maintain the liberal order and promote liberal, democratic values through regime change and humanitarian intervention.
The next generation of foreign policy experts need to look at the world as it currently is rather than the prevailing group-think. Controversial and unpopular viewpoints need to be taken more seriously and deliberated instead of debating at the margins - ex. how many troops are needed to be surged to turn the tide of the conflict, or what is the timetable for withdrawal. Instead, we need look at: what is the strategic imperative which requires direct action; what are the second and third orders of impact of the intervention; are there allies or non-aligned countries/organizations who may be better suited to address the conflict from a regional perspective and who may be able to provide support services to, i.e. intelligence or a logistic capability; is there an adversary who may have the similar objective and we could partner with under a limited agreement; what are the domestic priorities which are being neglected?
It is going to take a different mindset, open to multiple possibilities, and not tied to our current foreign policy posture which will serve the U.S.' best interest in the future. But without a hard look at how we are doing business and reform minded individuals who go against the establishment, the U.S. will continue to muddle along, bumping into foreign intervention hazardously, and spending billions of dollars without clear and positive results.
Comments
Post a Comment