The US place in the world
Much hyperbole and alarmist rhetoric accompanies Washington’s intent to disengage from traditional foreign policy positions. What the sound bites 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, nonintervention 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.
That would not be new: It took 87 years after America’s independence for Washington to send delegates to an international conference. However, the world is keenly aware of the inevitable unchartered territory that would result from a more insular America.
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. 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 newfound
legitimacy has only emboldened Kim Jong Un to make a mockery of a more conciliatory Washington.
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. 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 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.