Search the archive.

One might quibble here or there with Yglesias' agenda, but the individual elements are defensible on their own terms. (Immigration reform and family policy are particularly welcome.) However, they also don't require a billion people to be worthwhile. No, the actual justification for that particular population mark is mainly nationalist. China is coming back into its own after two centuries of recovering from colonialist meddling, and "against China, we are the little dog: There are more than one billion of them to about 330 million of us," . "America should aspire to be the greatest nation on Earth."

I disagree. America's status as global hegemon has been devastating for both ourselves and the world. It is high time the U.S. accustomed itself to normal country status — a great power to be sure, but no longer drastically more powerful than any other. The rise of China as the first peer nation we have had in decades just possibly might remind America of the value of diplomacy, international institutions, and minding our own business.

Yet Spencer-Churchill’s argument is useful in that it draws out some important contradictions in the strategy of liberal hegemony that drives U.S. foreign policy, and the “rules-based international order” it supposedly upholds.

The piece begins with a brief recitation of the origins and importance of self-determination and state sovereignty to the international system. This is immediately followed by a claim on behalf of the “coalition of democracies” to a right to violate these principles more or less at will.

In the 1960s, French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing complained that the dominance of the U.S. dollar gave the United States an “exorbitant privilege” to borrow cheaply from the rest of the world and live beyond its means. U.S. allies and adversaries alike have often echoed the gripe since. But the exorbitant privilege also entails exorbitant burdens that weigh on U.S. trade competitiveness and employment and that are likely to grow heavier and more destabilizing as the United States’ share of the global economy shrinks. The benefits of dollar primacy accrue mainly to financial institutions and big businesses, but the costs are generally borne by workers. For this reason, continued dollar hegemony threatens to deepen inequality as well as political polarization in the United States.

Dollar hegemony isn’t foreordained. For years, analysts have warned that China and other powers might decide to abandon the dollar and diversify their currency reserves for economic or strategic reasons. To date, there is little reason to think that global demand for dollars is drying up. But there is another way the United States could lose its status as issuer of the world’s dominant reserve currency: it could voluntarily abandon dollar hegemony because the domestic economic and political costs have grown too high.

A major war in the Indo-Pacific is probably more likely now than at any other time since World War II.

The most probable spark is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. President Xi Jinping of China has said unifying Taiwan with mainland China “must be achieved.” His Communist Party regime has become sufficiently strong — militarily, economically and industrially — to take Taiwan and directly challenge the United States for regional supremacy.

Dozens of versions of the above war-game scenario have been enacted over the last few years, most recently in April by the House Select Committee on competition with China. And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not always clear — the U.S. does better in some than others — the cost is. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground. In every exercise the U.S. is not engaged in an abstract push-button war from 30,000 feet up like the ones Americans have come to expect since the end of the Cold War, but a horrifically bloody one.

[IMAGE OMITTED]

The People's Republic of China has used force when measures short of war have proven inadequate to secure its borders or strategic interests (as in Korea, India, and Vietnam), but, by marked contrast with India in Goa or Indonesia in Timor-Leste, it gave diplomacy the decades needed to resolve the Hong Kong and Macau issues without bloodshed. Beijing has shown a similar preference for negotiations rather than the use of force to settle the Taiwan issue. Cross-strait tensions are lessening. It should be encouraging that China has insisted on United Nations authorization for its military activities abroad, which are directed at peacekeeping and against piracy.

Still, China is modernizing its military at a peculiar moment of history. The United States inherited worldwide military superiority from the collapse of its Soviet rival. Without much discussion, it has embraced the neo-conservative agenda of sustaining this superiority at all costs. But rising Chinese defense capabilities erode American supremacy. China's new anti-carrier weapons endanger U.S. force projection capabilities in the Western Pacific; its anti-satellite programs imperil U.S. global surveillance and communication capabilities; its growing operations in cyberspace menace U.S. government operations and the economy of the American homeland alike. These are serious challenges not just to American hegemony but to core U.S. interests. They have begun to draw a response.

"Let the gull'd fool the toils of war pursue, where bleed the many to enrich the few," wrote the 18th-century English poet William Shenstone.  That is what is exactly happening during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Whether it's the people of war-torn Ukraine, sanction-ridden Russia, or insecurity-ingrained Europe, all have suffered greatly. The US, the culprit of the Ukraine crisis, has been constantly taking advantage of others' misfortune to maintain its hegemony. Every why has a wherefore. Edward Carr, a leading British scholar of international relations, reminded people more than 80 years ago that the US was a master in using kindness to disguise selfishness. Boasting abundant resources, strong industry and geographical advantage, Ukraine could have achieved development. While the country pursued a relatively balanced policy in the early years of its independence, the US supported and incited the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Square Revolution in 2014 to push for a pro-Western agenda, splitting Ukraine politically from within and geopolitically between Russia and Europe. It is really thought-provoking that the "Gateway to Europe" has become one of the poorest countries in Europe, the frontline of NATO's eastward expansion, and the fault line of "color revolutions" and conflicts.  In 2014 when the crisis broke out in eastern Ukraine, while Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine held several rounds of consultations and signed two Minsk Agreements to cool down the situation, the US took an opposite direction to fan the flame by inciting the anti-Russian and pro-Western forces in Ukraine to escalate the conflicts on the ground. In the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, the US is reaping the benefits without getting itself involved militarily. It never intended to come to Ukraine's rescue, the idea used as a political tool by the US to trap Russia in a seemingly endless conflict.  We might need to go a bit further back into history to conclude how the US hegemony had created all the security trouble for Europe, Russia and Ukraine. It is well known that the US became a global superpower after the two world wars which plunged Europe into chaos and destruction and led to its dependence on the US military hegemony and NATO. Looking for a pathway to common security, Europe and the US signed the Helsinki Accords with the Soviet Union in 1975, which saw the establishment of the Organization for Security and Cooperation as well as the indivisible, cooperative and comprehensive approach to security. However, after the Cold War, the US overturned the European security agenda and rejected Russia's bid to join NATO four times. The aim was to make Russia the imaginary foe to justify US hegemony. Since 1999, the US launched five major NATO expansions, pushing its borders eastward by more than 1,000 kilometers to include a large number of Eastern European countries, splitting Europe further. It also promised Ukraine, Georgia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) NATO membership, posing a realistic threat at the doorstep of Russia.  Due to the hegemonic mentality and actions by the US, the vision of indivisible common security broke into pieces, and Russia, Ukraine and Europe were left in a security dilemma and constant conflicts. Former US congressman Tulsi Gabbard stated in a recent interview that President Joe Biden could have ended the crisis by promising not to admit Ukraine to NATO. But he didn't, because the US is seeking an excuse to impose sanctions on Russia, and it could profit from war for the American military-industrial complex.  Ukraine has become another victim in a series of global security crises instigated by the US, just like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Now the hegemonic power is pushing for an Asian version of NATO expansion via its Indo-Pacific Strategy, aiming to contain China.  Hegemony is the source of evil and chaos, while the common security is the only correct option to avoid and end crises. Whether it is Europe or Asia, the rationales of security are the same: Security cannot be enjoyed exclusively, but only shared; It is not a zero-sum game, but win-win cooperation. History may prove again that, the one who makes a fool of others will eventually make a fool of himself. 

In late February, as his invasion of Ukraine became bogged down, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s nuclear forces had been put on ‘special alert’. This posturing is familiar in wargame scenarios. It frequently ends with nuclear weapons being launched.

So, how did we get back to believing that nuclear war is possible? Why didn’t ‘nuclear deterrence’ stop this from happening? And what comes next?

Outlining his foreign policy objectives in 2020 in the magazine Foreign Affairs, then presidential candidate Joe Biden asserted that “it is past time to end the forever wars.” Indeed, as president, he withdrew all troops in a frenzied retreat from Afghanistan and reduced troop levels in Iraq by more than half. Ending the “forever wars” has been only a part of Biden’s longer-term strategy for the Middle East, however. Instead, his objective, like that of his two predecessors, is to downgrade the importance of the Middle East in American strategy.

Barack Obama began the trend of reducing America’s military presence in the region, and by December 31, 2011, all American troops had left Iraq. Obama also began the larger process of subtly altering Washington’s relationships with states that heretofore were its closest regional allies. Obama’s overtures to Iran and the American-inspired negotiations with Tehran that led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) angered America’s allies, notably Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who felt that their views had not been taken sufficiently into consideration, that they had not been fully briefed on the state of the talks, and that the agreement gave too much away to Iran.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared the United States does not support Taiwanese independence during a press conference held in Beijing on Monday.

Status quo on Taiwan: While Blinken mentioned China’s escalating aggression towards Taiwan, he assured the Chinese government that the US opposes any change in the country’s current stance, emphasizing the various agreements and acts that support the “One-China” policy.

The Institute has primarily hired left-leaning senior staff.  President Andrew Bacevich is Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University. A retired U.S. Army Colonel, he was a vocal critic of the Iraq War. His son died in the Iraq conflict in 2007. 

Amid the shifting political winds, a growing chorus of voices in the policy community, from the left and the right, is calling for a strategy of global retrenchment, whereby the United States would withdraw its forces from around the world and reduce its security commitments. Leading scholars and policy experts, such as Barry Posen and Ian Bremmer, have called on the United States to significantly reduce its role in Europe and Asia, including withdrawing from NATO. In 2019, a new think tank, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, set up shop, with funding from the conservative Charles Koch Foundation and the liberal philanthropist George Soros. Its mission, in its own words, is to advocate “a new foreign policy centered on diplomatic engagement and military restraint.”

On December 21, China officially opened its first consulate general in Bandar Abbas, Iran’s most important southern sea transportation hub. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Iran both praised the move as a step towards further  bilateral ties. The Chinese ambassador to Iran  the move as a landmark moment in China-Iran relations, while Iran’s former ambassador to China said that he  Beijing to play a leading role in developing Iran’s southern coastal regions.

Why Does the Consulate Matter?

The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was held in October. The CPC has thus started on a new journey, and so has China’s development. The thinking of Chinese Communists, as stated at this Party Congress, not only determines China’s direction but also has a sure impact on the world’s future.

Just as people’s worldviews fundamentally shape the ways they choose to engage with the world, the same holds true for countries and political parties. It has been reaffirmed at the Party Congress that China is committed to its foreign policy goals of upholding world peace and promoting common development, and it remains dedicated to building a community with a shared future for [mankind] humankind. Such an official, open declaration of the CPC’s worldview sheds light on the way it engages with the world.

Eight of the top 10 think tanks in the world all report funding from nuclear–weapons makers or maintainers.

A 2020 Center for International Policy report, “U.S. Government and Defense Contractor Funding of America’s Top 50 Think Tanks,” which I authored, found that 84 percent of the top U.S. think tanks accepted funding from defense contractors.18 The report also found widely divergent levels of donor transparency at the top think tanks in the United States, with 12 of the top 50 not disclosing any donor information. As discussed below, some think tanks still refuse to disclose their donors, or only disclose very limited donor information. To build upon these previous analyses, this brief provides an updated accounting of defense contractor funding of the top foreign policy think tanks in the U.S.19 Those think tanks are shown in Table 1 below.20

Multiple signs point to a crisis in global order. The uncoordinated international response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the resulting economic downturns, the resurgence of nationalist politics, and the hardening of state borders all seem to herald the emergence of a less cooperative and more fragile international system. According to many observers, these developments underscore the dangers of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America first” policies and his retreat from global leadership.

Even before the pandemic, Trump routinely criticized the value of alliances and institutions such as NATO, supported the breakup of the European Union, withdrew from a host of international agreements and organizations, and pandered to autocrats such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. He has questioned the merits of placing liberal values such as democracy and human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Trump’s clear preference for zero-sum, transactional politics further supports the notion that the United States is abandoning its commitment to promoting a liberal international order.

Some geopolitical analysts and much of Australian media devoted thousands of words and chunks of air time to highlighting the significance of the recent three-day meeting in the Kremlin between the indicted war criminal, Russian president Vladimir Putin, and China’s president Xi Jinping. It was hailed by some as China’s bold attempt to broker a peace deal to end the Ukraine war, an encore to Beijing’s clever diplomacy which persuaded Iran and Saudi Arabia to end to their long and bitter feud only a month earlier. They cannot have read the communiqué with due attention: the terms China offered were unacceptable to either side.

Other commentators suggested that the meeting signalled the start of a new Cold War with China and Russia on one side and the United States and much of the West on the other. What nonsense! It cannot be in the interests of any one of these three world powers to do so. In Washington DC these days, it is widely accepted that the US and China will be at war within two or three years – a proposition often stated as fact. A US Army general made just this prediction in Australia recently. And at the time of submitting this article, a flash on my screen reports Foreign Affairs magazine as quoting Xi as telling the Peoples’ Congress he too is preparing for war.

Yet if hegemony means the capacity to get other countries to comply with one’s demands, the United States is far from being a global hegemon. In a long series of wars from Korea and Vietnam in the latter half of the 20th century to Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st, the United States has demonstrated the capacity for massive destruction but it has won no more than Pyrrhic victories. The cost to the United States has included not only lives lost but also erosion of confidence at home and abroad.

What, then, to make of the war in Ukraine?

In an op-ed posted on The Daily Reckoning on Tuesday, former CIA and Department of Defense advisor and investment banker James Rickards predicted that August 22 will be the day the U.S. dollar’s status, as the world reserve currency and medium for exchange will formally collapse.

Many factors are worth considering, including the weaponization of the dollar against Russia’s economy amid the conflict in Ukraine, the U.S.’ own national debt of $31 trillion, and recent talks on the part of the BRICS+ group to create an alternative trade and reserve currency that would rival the dollar.

With Russia out of the superpower game, the United States will be faced instead with the challenge of standing up to China. To many Americans, this will be construed as a battle of values. And in that battle, the thinking goes, the U.S. will be sure to prevail. American superiority is defined not only in moral terms. American values have also been associated with superior performance characteristics, ensuring that America will remain ahead of the competition.

These propositions have become hardwired into American self-imagery, and the imagery of America in many other countries. In his January 11, 1989, farewell speech, President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) exulted in America as a beacon of freedom for all. Democracy promoters have since been hard at work seeking to spread American values worldwide.