By 2016 “America was formally committed to defending more foreign countries than at any time in the nation’s history.” Clinton, Bush, and Obama’s 24 years, “set about using American power to topple dictators,…sanction so-called rogue states, and bring as many countries as possible into security institutions led by the United States...The public has every reason to reject an approach to the world that has repeatedly failed, and to demand a better alternative. Some voters mistakenly believed they would get it from Trump, but he hasn’t delivered and almost certainly won’t. The question remains: what-and whom-will it take before the American people get the more restrained foreign policy they want and deserve?”…
12/10/2018, “The Death of Global Order Was Caused by Clinton, Bush, and Obama,” Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt
Image: 12/5/2018, “President
Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, former President Barack Obama,
former first lady Michelle Obama, former President Bill Clinton and
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listen during state funeral for former President George H. W. Bush at Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC,” getty
“America’s post-Cold War presidents could have taken a road that didn’t end at Donald Trump.”
“A recurring theme of foreign-policy commentary since 2016 has been
the prior status and
uncertain future of the so-called liberal order.
Some writers question whether a liberal order ever existed or challenge its alleged virtues, while others are quick to defend its past achievements
and bemoan its potential demise.
If there is a consensus among these various commentators, however, it is that U.S. President Donald Trump
the U.S.-led, rules-based order that has supposedly
If only Hillary Clinton had become president, some believe, the United States would have remained the “indispensable nation” guiding the world toward a more benign future, and the familiar elements of
a rules-based order would be thriving (or at least intact)….
But it is a mistake to see him [Trump] as the sole–or even the most important–cause of
the travails now convulsing
the U.S.-led order.
Indeed, the seeds of our present troubles were sown long before Trump entered the political arena,
and are in good part due to foreign-policy decisions made by the administrations of former Presidents
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
Think back…to the beginning of the “unipolar moment.”
Having [allegedly] triumphed over the Soviet Union, the United States could have given itself a high-five, taken a victory lap,
and adopted a grand strategy better suited
to a world without a superpower rival.
Rejecting isolationism, Washington could nonetheless have gradually disengaged from those
areas that no longer needed significant American protection
and reduced its global military footprint,
while remaining ready to act in a few key areas should it become absolutely necessary.
These moves would have forced our wealthiest allies to take on greater responsibility for local problems
while the United States addressed pressing domestic needs.
Making the “American dream” more real here at home [42 million Americans live in poverty]
would also have shown other nations why the values of liberty, democracy, open markets, and the rule of law
were worth emulating.
This sensible alternative was barely discussed in official circles, however.
Instead, both Democrats and Republicans quickly united behind an
ambitious strategy of “liberal hegemony,”
which sought to spread liberal values far and wide.
Convinced that the winds of progress were at their back and
enamored of an image of America as the world’s “indispensable nation,”
they set about using American power to topple dictators, spread democracy,
sanction so-called rogue states,
and bring as many countries as possible
into security institutions led by the United States.
By 2016, in fact, America [meaning US taxpayers] was formally committed
to defending more foreign countries
than at any time in the nation’s history.
America’s leaders may have had the best of intentions, but
the strategy they pursued was mostly a failure.
Relations with Russia and China today are worse than at any time since the Cold War….The Middle East is as divided as it has ever been. North Korea, India, and Pakistan have all tested nuclear weapons and expanded their nuclear stockpiles….Violent extremists are active in more places, the European Union is wobbling,
and the uneven benefits of globalization have produced a powerful backlash against the
liberal economic order that the United States had actively promoted.
All of these trends were well underway long before Trump became president. But many of them would have been
less likely or less pronounced
had the United States chosen a different path.
In Europe, the United States could have resisted the siren song of NATO expansion and
stuck with the original “Partnership for Peace,” a set of security arrangements
Over time, it could have gradually
drawn down its military presence
and turned European security back over to the Europeans.
Russia’s leaders would not have felt as threatened....A wiser United States would have let
Iraq and Iran check each other
instead of attempting “dual containment” in the Persian Gulf,
eliminating the need to keep thousands of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia
With no 9/11, we almost surely would not have had invaded and occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, thereby
saving several trillion dollars and thousands of U.S. and foreign lives. The Islamic State would never have emerged,
and the refugee crisis and terrorist attacks…in Europe would have been far less significant.
A United States less distracted by wars in the Middle East could have moved more swiftly to counter China’s growing ambitions, and it would have had more resources available to accomplish this essential task.
Instead of naively assuming that a rising China
would eventually become democratic
and willingly abide by existing
international norms,
the United States could also have made
Beijing’s [2001] entry into the World Trade Organization contingent
on it first abandoning its predatory trade practices
and establishing more effective legal institutions at home, including protections for intellectual property.”…
[May 25, 2000, Pres. Bill Clinton: “Today the House of Representatives has taken an historic step toward continued prosperity in America, reform in China and peace in the world. If the Senate votes as the House has just done, to extend permanent normal trade relations with China, it will open new doors of trade for America and new hope for change in China.“…“China did not conform to democracy in the way the United States had hoped. In fact, its vast economic gains have only legitimized the Chinese CommunistParty (CCP), which President Xi Jinping believes is central to maintaining economic stability and enabling China to dominate technology-driven industries….Why did [Bill] Clinton and others believe the WTO would rein China in? The WTO is an offshoot of a post-World War II trade agreement that countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom created to encourage...a world of international institutions that all promoted similar values. The WTO rules were not written with China…in mind. China has elements of a capitalist system, but is still run by a communist government. There are many influential government-owned companies (China’s oil and gas giant, Sinopec, took in more money in 2019 than any other company in the world, other than Walmart)….Instead of conforming, China is using the WTO to its advantage….The bulk of allegations against China say that China promotes its exports while remaining largely closed to foreign goods."]
(continuing): “Moreover, greater attention to how the benefits of globalization were distributed
would also have reduced inequality in the United States
and tempered the polarization that is ripping the country apart today. And as Rosella Zielinski argues in a recent article in Foreign Affairs,
financing foreign wars by borrowing money (instead of by raising taxes)
lets the wealthiest Americans off easy
and even allows them to earn interest lending to the federal government,
exacerbating existing economic disparities. In this way,
an overly ambitious grand strategy helped make economic inequality worse.
Finally, a more restrained grand strategy would not have tempted U.S. leaders to use torture, extraordinary rendition, targeted killings, unwarranted electronic surveillance, and other betrayals of core U.S. values. It would also have freed up trillions of dollars that could have been spent strengthening our armed forces, providing better health care for U.S. citizens, rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure, investing in early childhood education, or reducing persistent deficits….
When one looks back on what the pursuit of “liberal hegemony” has wrought, there can be little doubt that a different approach would have left the United States (and many other countries) in much better shape today. And the liberal order that many are now desperate to save would be in much better shape.
Nor is it implausible to imagine one additional benefit: Trump would not be president.
Back in 2016, when he called U.S. foreign policy a “complete and total disaster,”
a lot of Americans nodded in agreement and cast their votes for him.
Unfortunately, his erratic, incompetent, and needlessly combative handling of foreign affairs has succeeded only in making America less popular and influential,
without reducing any of its global burdens.
The United States is still “nation building,” still waging wars in far-flung locales,
still spending more on defense than the eight next largest militaries combined,
and still subsidizing numerous wealthy allies.
Defenders of our past follies now bemoan
Americans’ reluctance to support
the same overweening global strategy that produced
But the public has every reason to reject an approach to the world that has repeatedly failed,
and to demand a better alternative.
Some voters mistakenly believed they would get it from Trump,
but he hasn’t delivered and almost certainly won’t.
The question remains: what-and whom-will it take
before the American people get the more restrained foreign policy
………………………..