American foreign policy today is in a reactionary death spiral
Never has a new “national security” policy paradigm been so desperately needed, yet there is not even a glimmer of salvation on the horizon – everywhere you look you find policies that talk about the past and offer little hope for a viable global future.
The paradigm that enslaved American diplomacy took hold some 75 years ago after World War II and the Cold War. These catastrophic events have shaped a sustained American national security state, characterised by unlimited global interference, the cultivation of an ever-growing ‘military-industrial complex’, the endless and often racial identification of enemies, followed by highly destructive but ultimately losing wars rife with devastating consequences for the ‘homeland’.
A new, cooperative foreign policy paradigm is urgently needed, focused on combating climate change, controlling populations, combating infectious diseases, investing to effectively address poverty and global migration, dramatically demilitarising and abandoning weapons, and human trafficking. The United States must take the lead in revitalising and strengthening the United Nations so that it can better fulfil its mission to promote global security, anti-racism and universal human rights.
Sound like idealistic liberal nonsense? How about what the “realist” foreign policy paradigm has brought – an endless series of perpetual wars, a totally inept response to the existential threat of climate change, the rampant destruction of animal and plant species, the continued militarisation of the planet against a background of poverty, disease epidemics and little prospect of genuine national, much less international, security.
Still in the grip of the Cold War paradigm, the Biden administration is as committed to confrontation with China and Russia as Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and every other administration since 1945. The pure arrogance underlying American national identity – commonly referred to as American exceptionalism – cannot tolerate the existence of other great powers.
The one thin thread of Biden’s diplomatic accomplishments that can be credited to John Kerry rather than the clumsy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken was an agreement with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on joint action, albeit weak, on climate change. We have no choice but to work with other countries, especially China and India, and to do so immediately. There is only one clear vision on the global horizon, and that is the ever-growing tidal wave of climate change, fuelled by decades of US-led global oil dependency, which was another staple of the post-war paradigm.
US policy towards Russia has been irrational since 1945. At the time, a truly “realistic” foreign policy would have recognised the inevitability of expanding Soviet influence thanks to the sacrifices made by the USSR in the war and tried to mitigate it. For every American killed in the conflict, there were more than 50 Soviet soldiers, as the USSR deserved the lion’s share of the credit – which, of course, it did not get from Washington or Hollywood – for defeating the Nazis.
Instead of realistically confronting Soviet might, the United States declared and unleashed an ideological holy war that created militarised nightmares around the world and, in particular, in Indochina. While childishly trumpeting its “victory” in the Cold War in 1991, the United States did what Russian experts, notably George F. Kennan, warned would ensure a continuation of the Cold War – it expanded NATO, a hostile anti-Russian military alliance, into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics.
Today, Vladimir Putin has drawn a line in eastern Ukraine, where millions of Russians live (they make up nearly two-thirds of the majority in Crimea, which Putin has already secured for himself) and where the Russian language is widely spoken. Instead of showing realism and recognising Russian national interests along the western border and finding common ground on climate change and possibly non-interference in each other’s domestic politics, the United States chooses confrontation with the risk of escalating military conflict.
Finally, the post-war US foreign policy in the Middle East, based on supporting reactionary regimes throughout the region – especially Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia – has been an unmitigated disaster, rife with perpetual wars, horrific backlash and perpetual instability. The only ‘success’ in the region has been keeping the oil flowing, which has led to the existential crisis we now face.
Counter Punch