Strengths and Weaknesses in American Foreign Policy: Options for Reversal

Introduction

Global power shifts have resulted in a situation where the United States is no longer exclusive super-power in all aspects of the foreign policy decision making and impact. It does not mean that the United States has lost capabilities it used to have. Changes in global power distribution can be explained with the fact that the rest has been rising faster than Western community.

Important changes occurred in the international system [in Vietnam, 1970s], associated with the relative decline of the U.S. hegemony: the achievement of nuclear parity by the Soviet Union, the economic resurgence of Europe and Japan; the success of OPEC together with the severe international economic dislocations that followed it.[1] 1991 marked the unipolar moment and decline of the last empire, leaving the United States and as the only dominant power in international system. 9/11 and invasion in Iraq changed the perception of international system. For the United States ability to engage unilaterally gave an opportunity to solve any kind of challenges but brought the risk to spoil its good image. 2008 was the year that tested the ability of every single economy to reform and adapt. From Vietnam till this day the world has become more interconnected, mobile, and accessible which is the new issue area every state should consider. Every time when international system changed, new challengers and new challenges appeared for the United States. Up till now, no one has succeeded or no challenge has been too hard to solve.

Today’s global system can be compared with market economy principles where all powers live in the harsh competition for more military and political power, increased economic impact and outcomes, willingness to improve country’s image and understanding all around the world.

BRIC and the derivatives (South Korea, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and Australia) have risen but preponderance of the United States was and still is unquestionable. Success of any country still depends on the ability to adapt to the changing international environment, new external foreign policy and security challenges, and ability to pursue economic interests and explain all the activities to the others.

While there are issue areas where no other country would dare to challenge the United States, changing international environment has brought to the table new foreign policy issues that even the ground for all the powers, no matter what political and military capabilities countries possess.

In my article I will analyze strengths and weaknesses of the United States compared to the rising rest. I will focus on four main spheres. Firstly, the poitical power sources for the United States. Secondly, the economic power sources and space for improvement for the United States. Thirdly, I will outline options to increase smart power by improving strategic influence and changing strategy to coalition building. Fourth, I will identify the United States allies – existing and potential partnerships.

The United States hard power: military and political aspects

The absence of serious threats to American security gives the United States wide latitude in making foreign policy choices.[2] Lack of direct military threat creates not only choices, but also gives opportunities for the global outreach. Many regional powers see the United States preponderance as stabilizing factor.  Support for the outreach ends with poor military capabilities, decreased number of allies, bad or poor coalitions, and lack of political influence for the United States.

No country in the world has capabilities to challenge the United States military. Military spending of the United States in 2012 is bigger that for the ten next most influential military powers like China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy, and Brazil combined.[3] This aspect is the reason for the United States to dominate militarily globally, keep international deployment at present level, and tackle international missions successfully.

The conventional wisdom among policymakers is that Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and other important regional actors such as Turkey and Brazil may grumble, but they will not stand in the way of U.S. military policies and will quickly seek to mend fences once the United States imposes its will by implementing these policies[4]. Pure military power is not the only aspect of political dominance. Most successful collective security system, the United States led NATO, and close bilateral ties with non-NATO but the EU member states, is a tool to increase political and military impact in the world in cooperation with E-34[5]. Even without NATO and the EU partners, the United States has capabilities to act successful and wage military operations unilaterally. It makes the United States not only the most influential NATO member state but also international political heavy weight.

Capabilities of the United States to dominate globally, using hard power tools, gives international agenda setter leverage. It is one of the reasons why the United States has been seen by the others as best geostrategic partner, especially in Asia, by India, for example, to balance regional powers and deal with rising security challenges. These indirect effects are especially pronounced for U.S. military adventures in the Middle East, which could stimulate a general rise in the level of global terrorism targeted at the European and other major states[6]. With involvement of the United States globally comes also risk of regional instability. Debated invasion in Syria to avoid the use of chemical weapons, for example, can create spill-over rebellion risk effect in other states. With wide range of military capabilities the United States has, all international missions will be better handled when acting together with grand coalition or coalition of the willing- the E-34.

Military power embodies two important aspects. First is the problem solving and stabilizing – moderating aspect. Second creates the risk of potential opposition in case of a unilateral act in interdependent, fragile regional conflicts.  Hard and soft power sometimes reinforces and sometimes interferes with each other. A country that courts popularity may be loath to exercise its hard power when it should, but a country that throws its weight around without regard to its effects on its power may find others placing obstacles in the way of its hard power.[7]

Presence and dominance of the United States in international organizations gives more options to build coalitions. It adds much more political weight to the United States foreign policy when compared to other rising powers. Control and presence in organizations with security and political impact like the UN, OSCE, and NATO or organizations with economic character like the OECD, IMF, World Bank, and WTO give the United States leverage over major political and economic affairs. Compared to other rising and post-imperial powers like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, the United States has more coalition building options than any other country to ensure grand coalition for most important international challenges, economic or political, whatsoever they might be.

Whatever the international foreign policy objectives for the United States are, high importance has to be paid to the internal political debate and agenda setting at home. Foreign policy for most of the countries is described as the mirror of domestic political debate. The United States is the only power in the world for which it is hard to draw the line between its domestic and foreign affairs if we consider its global outreach and regional presence. As for the democratic country, domestic decision making system can create challenges related to the necessary steps taken in conflict resolution. The United States two-party political system creates obstacles for the majority decision making procedures. “The British prime minister doesn’t need any support from the opposition party; he has a ruling majority by definition. The American system, by contrast, is one of shared power, overlapping functions, and checks and balances. Progress requires broad coalitions between the two parties and politicians who will cross the aisle.”[8] Recent 2013 September – October government shut-down projected potential threat to the global economic order. Due to internal political dialogue deadlock, the United States government was not able to decide internal economic and financial matters causing risk for the global economic and financial system stability. Size and complicated decision making structure create risks, especially when important decisions are needed to solve short term problems. Big states (tankers) are hard to reform or adjust to urgent domestic or external challenges while small states (speedboats) are easy to reform and decide.

Iraq mission and the inability to refute counter arguments about the fair war caused decrease of the United States credibility and good image abroad. There have been many unilateral actions and decisions made without consulting with the historic E-34 partners and other regional Western derivatives. Despite the significance of these issues, however, the long-term consequences of aggressive unilateralism and the Bush strategy as a whole are likely to be even more momentous[9]. In many regions anti American movements have appeared to be more visible. Especially in places with biased and different culture compared with the United States. Democratic benign ideals formerly promoted by the United States gone into the credibility crisis. It is much harder now to win wide coalitions and act with wide global support in a name of democracy alone. Historically, major powers have rarely balanced against the United States and not at all since the 1990s when it has been the sole super- power[10]. Despite nobody has tried to stand against the United States it is more important for the United States and also the rest to have wide and stable coalitions.

The United States soft power: economy and image

Territory size, mass, and GDP per capita characterize the weight of the state or region as economic power globally. The United States leads the world today in terms of kGDP per capita. See the comparison below between the USA, the EU, Japan and the BRIC countries.

Only Japan from 1989-1998 has been able to replace the United States as dominant economic power in terms of kGDP per capita since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are several exceptional countries that could match and even be better with the kGDP per capita output from the EU or NATO members but they could not match the territory and mass criteria with the United States. Only the EU and the United States, in terms of the territory, mass, and kGDP, could be described as approximately equal in terms of economic might. The United States population in 2012 of 313.9 million and the EU of 509.0 million; the GDP in 2012 of the United States of 15.68 USD trillion and the EU of 16.63 USD trillion place both historic allies in approximately equal economic positions[12].

The EU 2012 total trade balance with the BRIC countries in millions EUR accounted for 577,4 imports and 344,9 exports (total trade balance 922,3 million EUR)[13]. For every single letter in BRIC, main trading partner is the EU. Except for the Russian Federation, among top 3 biggest trading partners for the BRIC countries is the United States. Interdependence, trade volumes, and economic capabilities place the EU and the United States together place as main trading partners for BRIC as the whole or every single BRIC state seperately. See data in ”Key Trading Partners-BRIC Countries” table. There is a huge power leverage in hands of the EU and the United States to impact global economic affairs.

To discuss areas where the United States could improve its economic performance, we should look at the potential internal improvements. To find best economic model, there are two options the United States can choose from. One is liberal laissez faire option. Second is state funded and promoted economy by investing in strategic sectors (infrastructure and R&D). For the United States economy to reach its full potential, Washington should return to the policies that drove economic growth over the past two decades: lower federal spending and less onerous government regulation.[14] It would mean leaving economic growth and decisions for the private sector. Compared to the government initiatives, the private business has been described as more efficient but short term profit prone (multinational organizations are an exception with more long-term development strategies). Although some argue that the government can stimulate demand in the short run by borrowing and spending idle savings, this policy is ultimately self-defeating. Supporters of non-state economic intervention argue that “In the long run, deficit spending will permanently bloat the federal budget with additional interest expenses, and lawmakers will have to raise taxes to cover these costs”[15]. Such a policy would leave fewer options for the United States government to impact national economy. The role of government and possibilities to make strategic choices that could support the United States preponderance more would be decreased.

Second option is the stimulus from the government. I [Fareed Zakaria] believe that Washington needs to make significant investments in the U.S. economy, as it has done historically; the United States needs to invest in traffic controls system, larger ports, better roads and rails, more reliable energy, faster broadband and cellular infrastructure[16]. By investing in strategic projects for the United States economy, international trade and the economic performance would be promoted consequently. Government investments in the economic development can create better business opportunities for the entrepreneurs. It makes national economic sector more competitive, despite it is crucial to find the right tax balance and control over the production costs.

There are two choices the United States could take to reform its economy. We must remember that the Democrat President was re-elected which is the support indicator of the society for the existing economic model and reforms started. As the United States continues its slow but steady recovery from the depths of the financial crisis, nobody actually wants a massive austerity package to shock the economy back into recession, and so the odds have always been high that the game of budgetary chicken will stop short of disaster.[17] Society supports the economic stimulus model executed by the government. There just should be strategic choices made which sector or issue are could be supported to help the ecnomy grow. Crucial infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, traffic control systems, broadband and internet) stimulate exchange internationally while education and R&D keeps the economy competitive. Taxing and cutting could solve short-term budgetrary issues but to ensure long-term strategic impact, the government should focus on reforming and investing to support the economy. This approach looks more likely to be implemented from the perspective of political choices made by American citizens druing last Presidential election.

When choices should be made, it is important how credible the present government is and how much it is trusted by the society. According to American National Election Studies polls, in 1964, 76 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "You can trust the government in Washington to do what is right just about always or most of the time"; by the late 1970s, that number had dropped to the high 40s and in 2008, it was 30 percent, but in January 2010, it had fallen to 19 percent[18]. Creadibility of the govenment is an important aspect to let the national economy grow. In more complicated changing international system credibility of institutions matters as the mobility of capital has increased much. It is possible to switch the business to other regions with more competitive investment and doing business environment. National industries have to work in same accords as the government does and vice-versa. Economy, at large, is the backbone of all the services government provides at the end of the day.

The United States smart power: engagement and strategic influence

Since the Iraq war, the image of the United States has suffered drastically. In comparison, the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War were obsessed with the United States, especially in the field of ideas and culture. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there are many changes that made world more condensed, mobile, and dynamic. Those that could follow and adapt to changes in international, gained. Those that lagged behind suffered image degradation. In today’s communications environment, everyone has to know how to sell ideas, actions, policies to the others to make broader alliances and legitimate political action. The United States should improve its strategic influence by improving its smart power.

Advances in information technology and the proliferation of electronic media outlets leveled the ground between the U.S. and small powers, non-government organizations, and even individuals, who can undermine Washington’s carefully crafted messages rapidly and constantly, networking horizontally and virally, attacking in swarms and refuting, distorting and drawing out the American voice, and agitating increasingly shrill and even deadly opposition.[19] Information tools and dynamics of information have changed together with traditional concepts of media and impact of state on public space. No more amount of investment in critical areas is the decisive factor to increase strategic influence. Every single government that would like to support the United States engagement abroad must justify the actions of leading power (the United States) to the society. If the United States suffer credibility deficit, due to negative public image in general or in issue are, no government will be interested in risking to loose sympathy of potential voter when next election will take place. “When he met [Nicolas Sarkozy] Condoleezza Rice after his election as France’s President, in May 2007, she asked him, „What can I do for you?” His response was revealing. „Improve you image in the world,” he said. „It’s difficult when the country is the most powerful, the most successful-that is of necessity, the learned of our side – is one of the most popular countries in the world. It presents overwhelming problems for you and overwhelming problems for your allies. So do everything you can do to improve the way you’re perceived – that’s what you can do for me.”[20]

If we should justify the reasons for the image decline of the United States, we should look more carefully at military actions in Iraq when the image suffered. No grand strategy can exist apart from military strategy, and military strategy with weak information and influence component will fail in modern ideological warfare.[21] Not only the communication strategy plays important role in conflict regions, but also it is crucial to explain the activities to potential allies in coherent way. Especially when wide range of false propaganda by the United States, ability to refute, provide coherent and reliable information is a crucial aspect. To engage, not to entrench, is the key aspect to build wide coalitions.

Nick Gowing’s article “Skyful of Lies and Black Swans: the New Tyranny of Shifting Information and Power in Crises” explains changing media realities and the importance of justification of actions when even individuals broadcast material that harms the image of the power and threatens the unity of coalitions drastically. There is information that is available, there is the one that is wrong, but there are issue areas where the void must be filled. Within that gray area the U.S. and its allies would be expected to wage counterpropaganda and political warfare to substitute or augment the military.[22]  Stick to the traditional power tools might leave the United States as sole alone super-power. A small minority [among State Department experts] argues that the United States must make greater use of edgier information instruments such as propaganda, political action, and psychological warfare.[23]

We can even go further and argue that there should be new approach to engagement of allies and coalition building. Washington needs to understand that generating international public support for its world view is the core element of power, not merely an exercise in public relations.[24] Winning the hearts and minds not only in conflict zones but also among allies and potential allies can be among most important aspects of coalition building. Unilateral action can lead to the danger of entrenchment while the interest and advantage of the United States would be to have broader coalitions in international organizations or issue areas. Use of political influence is “defined as „the ability to get what you want through attraction rather coercion or payments”, soft power means „getting others to want outcomes that you want”[25]. It means there are lesser resources needed to acquire necessary objectives and results. It is the way to make any action more effective than it would be without strategic communication and influence.

The United States: prospects for new or closer cooperation

It is this blend of power and weakness that makes the EU an especially sound partner of the United States whose unparalleled hard power is completed by Europe’s “soft” capabilities, which the United States lacks or does not use well.[26] There is a strong military bond with E-34 in the form of the United States lead NATO. It is not rational interest that keeps the bond between the United States and Europe strong, it is compatibility or common sense of values and identity that make these both partners as the best fit for each other. Still, there is the space of improvement in the form of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – the biggest trade deal abroad as rightly compared by the European Commission. Independent research shows that TTIP could boost the EU's economy by €120 billion; the US economy by €90 billion; the rest of the world by €100 billion.[27] If the TTIP comes into the force, the EU and the United States will become unchallenged economic center and would reshape economic environment and trade. It would be great additiona to NATO and opportunity for the West to improve their economic credibility and performance. Remaining in place, though, there is a Western „package” that remains the best available set of economic, social, and political institutions and which „the Resterners” seek to emulate – as a goal that looks distant rather than the achievement some seem to make it already.[28]

Prospects to develop good relationships with the BRICS exist, but they can not be compared with the potential cooperation prospects with the E-34 for the United States. Lets start with China whose relations with the United States can be described as huge interdependence and little alternatives. The Chinese vision of its role remains rather passive – a critical follower more than a proactive leader – and there is little evidence of an impeding change.[29]

With changing Russia, the potential to improve relaitons is even more dim. We [Americans] have never been able to prioritize what exactly our core interests and concerns with Moscow are[30]. This is true because it is rather hard to find constructive fields of cooperation with the Russian Federation. Also, Moscow’s entrenchment strategy and efforts to keep the Old Union together and post-imperial centralization of power efforts do not provide positive ground for improvement. There is one important aspect that would improve Russia’s credibility globally and its cooperation with the United States. Politically it is the single country with a meaningful connection with all three states on George Bush’s “axis of evil”: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.[31]

India, at the same time, is growing and looks for recognition that could most likely come from the United States. Legitimizing India as the nuclear power, would serve country’s self-esteem and improvement of its position globally. For India, it is more important to tackle its internal political and structural challenges, maintain fast growth, and improve living standards. The United States, in cooperation with E-34, provides advice, model, and leadership that India is seeking.

Geostrategic troika: All three states [geostrategic troika consisting of Russia, India, and China] can only fake special partnerships between them: Russia is post imperial power that holds no „China card”, China is pre-imperial power with no „Russia card” to play against West, and India has little interest in playing any „card” with either state at the expense of the United States and Europe or the rest of the West[32]. There is little evidence than any of the BRIC countries could look for alternative alliances than the United States.

In South America, Brazil is showing impressive economic performance and leadership prospects. Geographically and strategically its closes ally will be the United States. Course of cooperation and engagement “a tricontinental enlargement of the North Atlantic area that includes Turkey in the EU and Brazil with the United States”[33]. Both, Turkey and Brazil are important for the Euro-Atlantic community. For Brazil and Turkey and for the West it is important to keep each other engaged.

Conclusion

The United States hold all the options to be the agenda setter and remain preponderant power welcomed by the rest of the world. Still, there is no power that could not turn its weaknesses to the strengths and improve the capabilities to unite, decide, engage, convince, moderate, and settle any kind of international relations and disputes in more efficient way. From the discussion about the United States power reversal options, we can draw following conclusions.

The United States is and will remain dominant global military power. Costs of every country’s military capacities and investment efficiency can be always debated. Financial investment transfer to military capabilities can always be improved. Still, if we compare closest competitors in terms of military might, there is no close follower to the United States. In 2012 even the twelve next mightiest powers together, could not match the United States military power.

At the same time, according to structural realists, the United States possesses unique tools to influence the international system through international organizations. The United States has been the founder of most influential international security and economic institutions. This bargaining tool can help to form necessary alliances, coalitions and lead to necessary outputs to most challenging security and economic issues.

In terms of economy, there are new challengers for the United States. While the West maintained steady growth, China, India, and Brazil, among others, grew at higher speed. Struggle for resources and interdependence of global markets have increased today together with the competition between the rising economic powers. Markets have become more dynamic and the ability to adapt to marked created challenges results in the increased competitiveness of market participants. The United States citizens have voted in last Presidential elections to keep government spending high. State should make strategic investments in crucial infrastructure (roads, ports, broadband internet, air traffic control systems) to intensify international trade and invest in education to remain competitive in R&D sector to maintain or improve its competitiveness in global markets. The United States with the E-34 are the biggest trading partners to every single BRIC state. Ability to negotiate and agree on TTIP would increase the United States and European countries ability to reform, adapt, compete, invent, create more jobs, stabilize financial markets, and control international markets as it serves best Western interests. It would be win-win for the West and the rest scenario.

The biggest weakness of the United States has been the inability to use its power responsibly or in a more sophisticated strategic manner – by engaging others in problem solving missions. Preponderance and practical ability to tackle international security challenges for the United States alone gave an opportunity for the rest to criticize and judge actions. Despite unilateral action is possible, broader coalitions and better crafted information campaigns about the United States intentions, aims, and tools used would not decrease the United States credibility and harm its image. Iraq case is a good example so the lessons learnt should be to broaden coalitions for the future missions. Britain tried to balance against rising and threatening great powers but otherwise kept a low profile on the European continent. Bismarck, by contrast, chose to engage with all the great powers[34]. Entrenchment has never been good choice for anyone who would like to increase its dominance. Even if Iraq was damaging to the United State image, there are challenges where it was possible to win broad coalitions where the United States shared common interests with its allies. The United States has been better at organizing „Coalitions of the willing” to promote democracy in the Middle East than to wage war there. This is particularly true of the Europeans, who have been generally supportive of American reform initiatives in the region and thereby largely undercut charges of American unilateralism or imperialism.[35] Engaging more countries and building broader coalitions would mean sharing of responsibilities, capabilities, and using available resources in a smarter way. Engagement instead of unilateral action or retrenchment should be the dominant aspect of the United States foreign policy strategy.

There are also new challenges the United States should consider that shape the international relations between state and non-state actors more than in the past. Communications, exchange of information and the extent to what the world is mobile and interdependent, has raised new challenges for anyone. Strategic influence through communication has leveled the ground between small and big, state and non-state actors. Simple, traditional financing approach does not solve the war of ideas problem. For any government to support the United States would be easier to justify the alliance if the respective society supports the engagement of the United States wherever it might take place. For the United States best partner is and would be the E-34 with huge soft power capital. The aggregate power of the West – the United States, the EU, and their derivatives – exceeds largely that of its main challengers, assessed one at a time, beginning with China, or as clusters of states like ASEAN (Association for South East Nations) or BRIC countries – with both of these groupings and their respective members still substantially open to American and European influence.[36] The United States global outreach is not the willingness of American people or government, but the initiative of regional powers internationally to see the United States presence.

Internationally, the E-34 has been and is the partner the United States could wish to have in the future. Also for the E-34, the United States is power not only in Europe but beyond its borders where common interests overlap for both allies.

Domestically, abilities to reform, and adjust strategic sectors to external challenges will show what will be the ability to deliver best outcomes.

With moderate ups and downs, new international challenges, issues areas where improvement is possible and necessary, the will to engage and ability to reform and adjust will result in even wider latitude of options for retrenchment, improvement, and impact politically, economically, and strategically for the United States. Broader coalitions will come with minor but important reforms. Minor change can lead to major increase of the number of options the United States could have to increase its international impact.

Bibliographic notes

1.      Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power, Basic Books, New York, 2012;

2.      Conrad, Edward; Zakaria, Fareed, in Foreign Affairs Vol 92, Number 3, May/June 2013, p. 160-166;

3.      Ed by Waller J., Michael, Strategic Influence: Public Diplomacy, Counterpropaganda, and Political Warfare, The Institute of World Politics Press, Washington, 2008;

4.      Edward Conrad, How to Fix America: Which tools Should Washington Use?, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2013, pp. 161-168

5.      Kenneth N. Waltz, Structural Realism after the Cold War, International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer, 2000), Published by the MIT Press

6.      Lisa L. Martin, Beth A. Simmons, International Institutions: An International Organization Reader, The MIT Press and the IO Foundation, Cambridge, Massachusets and London, England, 2001

7.      Nial Ferguson, Civilization: the west and the rest, New York, Penguin Press, 2012

8.      Serfaty, Simon, A World Recast: an American Moment in a Post-Western Order, Rowman and Littlefied Publichers, 2012

9.      Serfaty, Simon, in Policy Review No.174, August/September 2012, p. 35-48;

10.  Serfaty, Simon, The Vital Partnership: Power and Order, America and Europe Beyond Iraq, Rowman and Littlefied Publichers, 2005

11.  Stephen S. Rosenfeld,  in the EU and NATO Enlargement in the Baltic Sea Region edited by Atis Lejins, Conference proceedings, Riga: Latvian Institute of International Affairs, 2003

12.  Zakaria, Fareed, The Post-American World and the Rise of the Rest, Release 2.0-Updated and Expanded, Penguin, 2011

13.  Robert A. Pape, Soft Balancing against the United States, International Security, Published by the MIT Press Stable URL:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137457 (Accessed: 21/08/2012 20:51), Vol. 30, No. 1 (Summer, 2005)

Periodicals

1.      www.foreignaffairs.com

2.      www.jstor.org

3.      www.worldbank.org

4.      www.ec.europa.eu