August 23, 2007

Globalisation calls for tactful Foreign Policy measures

Global homogeny as fashioned through globalization is diluting American diplomatic influence and power.

The United States presently exerts global power on an unprecedented scale and whilst Americans assume that their position of dominance is largely unchallenged, other nation states are progressively more concerned about U.S. hegemony and openly defiant of Washington’s foreign policy initiatives.

Americans and their leaders generally see their country as a positive force in the world. Harvard University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, for example says, U.S. primacy is central, “to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies and international order…”, whilst neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer says of U.S. predominance, “the landmine between barbarism and civilization”. I have affirmed my position before but it is worth restating, “… if the day were to come that the U.S. does collapse economically, financially, politically and strategically, not completely but enough to cause major shifts … then the world may be faced with a global situation of startling instability and great risk. A global shift in power of which the end product cannot be accurately guessed at, nor can it be forecast with any exactitude's”.

Conditions are shifting, albeit slowly and progressively, whereas the world today does not commonly appreciate U.S. dominance in the same light as it once did. However, it is one-dimensional to suggest the sole reason is due to the actions of the current administration in particular, the Bush/Cheney doctrine. The effects of a new global world is cited as a further basis for diminishing America’s capacity to harbour international support and build coalitions centered on Washington’s needs. Through Globalisation, national borders are consistently eroding, raw materials and knowledge travel rapidly across nations and continents and supply channels have accelerated like never before enabling developing nations to draw near industrialised nations through increased employment and technological advances. For all that is positive about this it presents new challenges that U.S. policy makers are only now beginning to grapple with. As the forces of globalization continue to take hold, benefiting, as it will people and societies, we shall witness a world of greater uniformity or sameness consistent with America. A development that is gradually eroding America’s distinction, perceived or otherwise, accordingly global homogeny as fashioned through globalization is diluting American diplomatic influence and power.

To arrest this, The United States should adopt a foreign policy that is welcomed by other states as based on a degree of consensus. This is not a call for a weakened America but precisely the reverse whereby it consolidates power by empowering other nation’s thorough collective consensus driven international relations with Washington at the helm. A return to traditional methods of building alliances and assembling international institutions as centered on a robust conservative foreign policy platform and importantly, underpinned by great military supremacy.

Valid disagreements are part and parcel of world politics, a reality that sometimes makes diplomatic arguments viciously blunt. The U.S. cannot afford to appear arrogant and ostentatious toward other nations as was, on occasion, former Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, and even past Secretary of State Madeleine Albright whatever the short-term gains as ultimately, legitimacy is undermined. 1

I am drawn to Theodore Roosevelt’s counselling, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick”.

1. Secretary Albright irritated her foreign counterparts when she declared that the United States was the “indispensable nation" … that “stands taller and hence sees further than other nations", and Secretary Rumsfeld annoying NATO allies by drawing an offensive distinction between “old Europe” (did not support Iraqi war) and “new Europe” (more supportive).

Share and recommend: Digg it

10 comments:

Brooke said...

TR's counsel could be applied to many problems with our gov't these days! Anymore, it seems that we just speak softly...

Bar Kochba said...

The US truly does 'stand taller' than other nations in many regards- Europe continues to deny the Islamification of the continenet.

American Interests said...

Brooke: Thanks for coming by. about TR's counsel, I would add but carry a "very" big stick.

Bar kochba: Thanks. It is fundamentally important that the U.S. continues to to stand high enough to protect our interests. All indications are that it shall.

Debbie said...

Interesting article. We see more nations adopting American styles and standards. Some are having trouble keeping up with American standards, like China. Everything's a work in progress I suppose.

Yes, we need to continue carrying a VERY big stick.

WomanHonorThyself said...

...is diluting American diplomatic influence and power.
..ah yes exactly what the socialists libs want! great read!

American Interests said...

Debbie: Am glad you can see the need, for the stick, and don't worry it will be big. U.S. military spending for 2007 is over $439 billion which is more than the next fourteen biggest nation spenders combined. Seem excessive? It's not,defense spending as a percentage of GDP is sustainable.

WomanHThyself: Yes precisely, lefties would applaud that. To what end I cannot know. Glad you came by...

Incognito said...

Interesting commentary and right on..diplomacy has always been important, at least with those civilized enough to understand its worth.

but the big stick is definitely a necessity.

American Interests said...

Incog: Ah yes the importance of Diplomacy, the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage, the art and practice of negotiations between civilized, refined representatives of States. Not all, as you say make the grade...

Donald Douglas said...

Hi Ottavio: This is a good post. I think you raise important issues.

American Interests said...

Thanks Donald, kind of you to visit...