Does Foreign Policy Exist?

What if there are only 193 people eating 193 people in the restaurant, instead of 193 countries in the world (number of UN member states)? They may have some nominal interactions with each other, but what each diner does is more or less unrelated to other 192 years.

If a person behind the restaurant physically attacks his neighbor, it doesn’t care particularly for the people in front of our restaurant, right? Our safety is still intact and we actually happen to be the largest and most powerful person in the restaurant.

So, are we just people eating in the restaurant, and our interactions are a series of unrelated events, actions and personal relationships, plus our preferences and biases?

Hard power and soft power

Also, is there a discipline like foreign policy that believes that there are rules and trends in state actions that explain how they behave? Therefore, the United States has an interest in a stable and publicly available foreign policy system – all of which are a suppression of conflict. International air travel, cross-border remittances, currency forex, and even emails around the world have experienced little or no friction—these systems have flourished due to U.S. leadership.

In addition to these public goods, there are alliances, treaties, deployments – all of which are deterrents to conflict. Soft power and rules can enhance the benefits of daily collaboration, while powerful forces strengthen the cost of violating international norms. This carrot and sticky approach sums up the views of the U.S. international leaders during the Cold War and ten to two years after the Soviet Union collapse.

Today is different. Neither carrot nor stick are particularly useful if foreign policy is present. Indeed, they are expensive and may even be harmful. Instead of international institutions, in which countries act is determined by common interests, rules and calculations, what should we do if we face a world where a country acts independently without considering others’ actions?

We don’t have an international system, but there are 193 countries somewhat loosely associated, maybe like 193 people eating in a restaurant, or 193 cars parked in the same parking lot, or choose any metaphor you like. Your ability to eat or park your car is also successful or rules-based when others are eating or trying to park your car. Your happiness will only be questioned in extreme cases, such as someone trying to rob a restaurant or a drunk driver destroying other parked cars. One person’s work in the restaurant had more or less no effect on the other 192 people. There is no system, only merge. Traditionalists will be seen as the fundamental pillar of trust and diplomacy, and there is not even a problem of friendship, kindness or mutual respect.

If one client in the restaurant starts physically attacking another client, then we don’t have to worry, even if every diner declares that they have the right to a neighbor’s seat or his food order, it’s not your problem – well, does this happen sometimes?

It takes the U.S. attention to every fight in a restaurant, but the U.S. is to say the least, attacking a companion’s clients instead of “Tango requires two” is a bad idea.

How did we get here?

Over the past 17 years, whether foreign policy exists and is mitigated under the leadership of Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. During the Obama era, China founded Putin in the South China Sea and captured Crimea, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used poison gas on civilians. Biden then appeared to restore traditional U.S. leadership by promoting four rounds of consulting mechanisms and aukus, but he also reduced U.S. defense commitments and unilaterally withdrew from Afghanistan. Trump’s first term is a sign of relative stability, but his current second term is defined by a desire for territorial danger, a deteriorating trade relations and a refusal to criticize Russia or China’s territorial ambitions.

Perhaps there is no foreign policy, at least as far as the last three presidents are concerned. Obama, Biden and Trump are neither eager for stability nor pushing against aggression or supporting rules-based systems, nor are they the American leaders’ sense of security for the United States.

Obama seems to have found value in modern transnational themes, such as resolutions on climate change and participation in international gatherings, but expansionist countries do not take his views on peace and deterrence seriously. Biden seems most interested in proving the independence of Afghanistan with Obama. Trump is driven by an obsession with geopolitics. Russia and China’s territorial claims are not an issue if Russia and China are at the expense of our friends and allies. Indeed, if you are unwilling to deal with these challenges, it is best to downplay these threats, even express admiration for the invaders and belittle the victims.

Can we return to foreign policy?

One problem with this world restaurant view is that China believes there is a foreign policy. It seeks opportunities to declare itself in the international system, because successful doing so can go beyond the impact of the original event. Therefore, the establishment of military facilities in the South China Sea is a statement of power forecasting areas, as is the case with the Philippine Coast Guard.

If the United States is largely indifferent to these actions and China takes on their actions with certain skills, it shows that China’s confidence in the near future has increased, and the United States may respond afterward.

We are ending an extraordinary period that may last at least twenty years, during which U.S. leadership and credibility gradually deteriorate and opportunist countries feel capable. We must acknowledge that such protracted fact, although potentially, has rotted in U.S. security. Maybe it’s time to leave the restaurant, facing the reality that ignoring foreign policy won’t make its consequences go away.

Post Views: 2