Why global commerce, modern telecommunications, social media and modern international politics have conspired to put to rest a faded strategy.
When we consider the array of problems in our world, no one can say that we don’t live in interesting times.
Asia worries about China’s ascent, Russia is dismantling its democracy, and Iran everyday gets closer to possessing a nuclear weapons capability.
Recently, the Middle East was wracked by violent protests against American embassies in Egypt and Libya – with as many as twenty countries experiencing turmoil.
Facing mounting evidence of an increasingly chaotic and unstable world, it is immensely dangerous for societies to hang on to old and familiar policies.
What is missing, as I wrote on these pages in the summer, is a coherent grand strategy for the United States. But you ask: doesn't America have a grand strategy? It's a good question. The answer may be equally surprising.
Some would argue that the United States still follows a strategy of containment. When some policy analysts conclude America is trying to contain China with its "pivot" or "rebalance” to the Asia-Pacific, or when economic sanctions crafted to "contain" Iran's nuclear aspirations, one could see why containment is still on people's minds.
Not to be the bearer of bad news, but containment died more than twenty years ago. While once an immensely successful policy, sticking with containment promises certain foreign policy failure.
Why, then, do states adhere to containment?
The answer is simple: policymakers and societies find comfort in following familiar policies that once produced results. Even when they no longer make sense, familiar, well-established ideas are reassuring to the public, particularly in unsettling times.
Containment was a highly effective strategy for decades, but its irrelevance was foreordained when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Today, containment is intellectually bankrupt, but it endures as the jargon, the 'gold standard', for American grand strategy. Strangely, many continue to embrace a strategy totally unsuited to dealing with the modern world.
This essay asks what containment was and why it emerged, why it eroded and cannot work, and briefly outlines several principles to guide foreign policy in the modern world.
Photo Credit: Office of the President: Iran
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Leonard R.
@John Chan: "1. Neither Guam nor Puerto Rico is part of the USA."
—-
JC: can you clarify what you mean by that?
Is Beijing claiming Puerto Rico & Guam now too?
Kanes
Guam and Puerto Rico are not parts of USA.
That doesn't mean they are part of China! They are 2 independent countries.
Inability to overcome the either-you-are-with-us-or-you-are-with-them mentality bogs down the old empire. 21st century is about finding common ground and working together whenever possible. Respecting the differences at other times.
This is where China wins and USA loses.
Leonard R.
@Kanes: "They are 2 independent countries."
—-
I didn't know Guam & Puerto Rico were independent countries. I think there are a few administrative obstacles to that at present. So does China intend to liberate the Guamanians & Puerto Ricans from America?
mike china
Asia worries about China's ascent should be US worries about China's rise. The Chinese aint going to take over all of Asia. Stop misleading the public and other Asians. Of course China does have island disputes with Vietnam,Philippines and Japan.If the former two countries intend to set up bases for US forces to attack China under the guise. of defending them,think again.
The Chinese like the US wants to have a say on what is going on in their own backyard.Recalll Cuba 1962.The Us has the Monroe doctrine. Why can't China have something similar?If not they will build up the military forces to make sure there is a balance of power or the gap is not too wide.
This is 2012. Get real.If the US wants to stop from increasing its military power now is the time .
Kanes
Military power grows in proportion to economic power. There is no need for any country to get into US's good books. Just because they have it different, USA cannot cripple their economic growth. That is counter productive. Look at Iran. India, China and Japan still buy Iranian oil.
Population growth is another matter. Persons who don't share US values as a proportion of the world population is growing fast. Actually persons who share the US value system are contracting in real numbers. It was the opposite during Cold War. Two decades back globalization was defined as Americanization by Thomas Friedman. He has to eat his own words today. Globalization is actually the dissemination of divergent views.
To invest in US productivity as in 1950-1970, USA must reallocate resources from defense to productivity (or borrow which is unthinkable). That means US enemies will be more competitive. There is a reason why US productivity stalled. That is because it had to play global policeman which costs trillions of dollars. What will happen if the global policeman cuts down his operations? Rogue states will thrive!
When will USA stop outsourcing IT and other high productive jobs abroad? Until that happens, USA cannot improve its productivity indigenously.
Natural disasters of global scale (e.g. the long overdue earthquake in Tokyo, Yellowstone) can have a tremendous impact on US economic power. Given competitors are closely behind, these events can change the global outlook overnight.
So whatever way you look at it, the US Empire too must end.
Kanes
Every empire falls. It is foolhardy to believe the US empire to last forever or to fight the inevitable.
Let it happen. Let a new empire emerge simple because it is the world order right throughout human civilization.
Can the US confront Russia and/or China because containment failed? No. Can Iran or any other extremist regime be prevented forever from acquiring nuclear weapons? No.
More important is to learn to live in a multipolar world of democracies, dictators and anyother.
Bankotsu
"The USA would have a significantly lower level of hesitation at allowing that nation to take over its own sphere of influence. "
Your statement shows that you have no clue whatsoever about U.S grand strategy. I find your naiveity about the real aims of the U.S shocking.
You know nothing about U.S global politics.
NATO fears resurgent Germany, Russia
http://rt.com/politics/nato-germany-russia-rogozin-693/
President Nixon: Because
the Japanese as a people have drive and a history of expansionism; if
they are left alone as an economic giant and a military pygmy the inevitable
result, I think, will be at this point to make them susceptible
to the demands of the militarists.
If, on the other hand, we in the United States can continue a close
relationship with them, providing their defense—because they cannot
have a nuclear defense—we believe this can restrain Japan from following
a course which the Prime Minister correctly pointed out could
happen, of economic expansion being followed by military expansion.
Our policy is, to the extent possible, to restrain the Japanese from going
from economic expansion to military expansion. But we can only
do that if we have a close relationship with them. If we don’t have
http://static.history.state.gov/frus/frus1969-76v17/pdf/frus1969-76v17.pdf
As long as a country is a major industrial power, the U.S will see it as a threat. Democracy has nothing do with it.
That is the real U.S policy.
John Chan
The US is fiercely nationalist – its acclaimed exceptionalism part of an ardent faith, its Globalism a way of asserting its power, its proclaimed universalism a mask for a pervasive provincialism. It uses power to create its own justification.
USA considers nationalism is its monopoly, all other’s nationalism is harmful and must be suppressed and demonized.
Bankotsu
The U.S unipolar system must be destroyed and Asia must get rid of the U.S military presence.
This is what I support. U.s militarism must be checked before more innocent people are killed like the Iraqis.
ACT
@bankotsu
well researched source for your second link. good job. however, your first link markets you as the kind of conspiracy theorist who believes that the US government is out to get everybody. you know, the kind of people who sit in a wooden shack in the desert and live off the grid, touting states rights, because what they really want is to force their concepts of morality onto others and not pay taxes. Regardless, do you really think, based upon the behavior of the PRC in the last 60 years, that it would be ANY better than the US? I can't wait to see your face when the US does leave asia and the PRC starts moving in to fill the hegemon vacuum, and you realize precisely what PRC rule over its neighbors in that area entails; you certainly won't be able to get sources from the US state department anymore, that's for sure.
Derek
There's this pervasive narrative throughout the article which attempts to frame the global ideological spectrum on the basis of a country's similarity to the United States.
This by proxy frames everything on the side of the United States as on the path of righteousness whilst framing everything else as a threat not to America, but to the 'free world', almost as if America is representative of everything that is good in the world. A paragon, if you will.
It conveniently ignores authoritarian countries that are allied to the United States, presumably because they are not perceived threats, because such nations are in an acceptable position in relation to America's position in the world, unlike the axis of evil.
The only conclusion I can draw from the article is that the United States sees rival influences as inherently destablising, regardless of its true effect because it tears up the 'old' world order as inherited by the United States for the last two decades.
Conceding power to a point, not confrontation over perceived loss of power should be key to the global strategy for an United States that should face reality and accept that the world has shifted beyond what it can control. It must also accept any power it concedes to a rival or a friendly nation should never be dictated under terms and that each country should look after its own self-interests first.
Like the decolonization period, America should learn the mistakes of the colonial powers that fought tooth and nail for their holdings.
The writer is definitely an adherent of American exceptionalism. There's nothing wrong with that, but it clouds judgment in a world which ceased to be black and white, but very close shades of gray.
ImperiumVita
The issue at its root is whether a state that challenges USA predominance is democratic or not. If A truly democratic country that the USA had confidence in to be a stakeholder for global free expression and expanded trade, which does not have a system of nationalist propaganda in schools, state controlled media, and a tendency to lock up, beat, or kill its own citizens for speaking out with opposing views, The USA would have a significantly lower level of hesitation at allowing that nation to take over its own sphere of influence.
You mention USA support of certain dictatorships, but I see those as significantly different as those cases contribute directly to the stability of the world energy system (oil), and to preventing a middle eastern war with Israel. Those dictatorships are the price for peace and prosperity. The authoritarianism of a country like China contributes nothing to global peace, and has recently been demonstrated to be an active cause in disrupting that peace.
Bankotsu
You know nothing of U.S global politics. That much is clear from your posts.
ACT
@Bankotsu
and you do? i invite you to take a US foreign policy course, or a History of the Cold War course, and see how that changes your mind; for all its folly, the US has been rather smart in its dealings throughout the cold war; dictators were allied with precisely because they would trade with the US, and counter moves by communism; they were also steady partners in alliances, which is why the US continued to support such governments in egypt, etc. Over all, the US is a foreign policy pragmatist, since it places its survival, and its needs first, while fostering a global network that also benefits its allies. Aside from that, however, the US is no tyrant; both you and John Chan are victims of PRC propaganda, if indeed you live there. If not, well i have a whole other argument for you.
John Chan
@ImperiumVita,
There are serious fallacies in your comment.
1. USA is a police state since it passed the Patriot Act, and it is a global tyrant maintaining its dominance via violence.
2. Democracy rules by consensus, not by decree in the name of the world or international community like the USA. USA is behaving as an autocratic regressive church in the dark age of Europe, it is proclaiming divine legitimacy and suppressing all other expressions. It is not up to the USA to decide who is democracy or not, and which ideology or faith is legitimate or not.
3. Manufactured consent is a mirage, without brutal enforcement, nobody will assent to it despite the pervasive artwork from the Hollywood.
4. Doublethink indeed is prominent in your mind, denouncing authoritarian on one hand and praising dictatorship on the other hand in the same space.
Max
Why is this mag called "The Diplomat"? Shouldn't that be "American Diplomat"? American extortion, er I mean, diplomacy. Did I say "extortion", hehe, I meant "Diplomacy", is all that's on offer here.
dareen
Actually an australian paper founded by three australians, two of them asian, one vietnamese-australian. Paper is based in tokyo. So no surprise the paper is pro-us. Nonetheless in this case Australia, vietnam and japan have more to lose than the u.s if there is a china u.s cold war.
Josh Rogers
Great article, Professor. Agree that economic strategy underlies security strategy at present. Think it could be argued that during 1945-late 1980s U.S. policy prevented direct confrontation (proxy wars aside) and nuclear war via its policy of containment, but that it WON the cold war on the back of its national economic prowess–which you highlight in the last section of this piece. Also, some cross-over here with the themes Richard Haass discussed at commencement.
On the defensive side, you make a great point about the need to revitalize critical systems/institutions (infrastructure, education, hardened comms etc.). Like you say, it's nearly impossible to "contain" actors such as Russia/China/Iran in a global free market, however I think a distinction could be drawn between containment of their governments and containment of their people…..not to imply that the U.S. could or should pursue a policy of social containment–ethics here certainly come into play–but if private U.S. companies can increase and expand upon sales of high profile products (apple, microsoft, google, commercial/military aircraft, the next big thing etc.,) then, to an extent, the people that authoritarian governments are governing will remain linked on positive terms with underying U.S. policy.
Btw, here's a link to an article I contributed to on GigaOM re: venture capital investments in clean-tech and optimized management structures: http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-secret-formula-for-a-great-cleantech-team/
hope things are well!
Bankotsu
"Such run-of-the-mill authoritarian states, as Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, operate as members of an 'authoritarian axis.’"
Tell that to Jimmy Carter.
Former US President Carter: Venezuelan Electoral System “Best in the World”
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7272
Leonard R.
@Professor Martel:
"Containment offers no practical or effective responses for dealing with modern challenges precisely because the world has grown far beyond the conditions that existed decades ago. More than ever, containment which is more akin to a slogan used by policymakers, scholars, and journalists rather than a strategy…"
—-
Correct. 'Containment' is a dog whistle word that starts the dogs barking.
China cannot be contained but it can be confronted. The US can do this by telling Beijing its 9 dotted map will never be recognized by the US – absent a ruling from the World Court. So Beijing will understand its choice. Take it to court or go to war.
Japan also needs to draw clear lines & re-arm. At Manila's request – the US needs to draw a line on the west coast of the Philippines and let China know that line stands for World War III. That's not containment. It's effective communication.
Along with 'containment', the US needs to drop 'neutrality'. It can't be neutral given that Guam is a short flight away from Beijng's grand neo-colonial plan.
Neocon Talks
Really, Leotard? And what is Guam now? Not a colony of the U.S.? Where did you learn your detestable neocon doublespeak? Does the U.S. have any business in East Asia, save being a jailhouse guard for Japan the war criminal? In fact, why pretend any longer japan is nothing more than a colony of the U.S.? If so, China should pulverize it if it tries to be funny. This is the east. The U.S. should go back to its California or Pacific coats, or perhaps all the way back to good ole England? And you may join them.
ACT
@Neocon Talks
if you want to have an effective argument, i would suggest not lambasting a person who has perfectly valid points, judging by an outside view of the recent actions the PRC has taken. Rather, i suggest disproving his argument with solid facts and data. Is Guam a US territory? aye, as is Puerto Rico. Japan isn't, despite the presence of US forces (a legacy of the Cold War). Furthermore, the US doesn't go around committing deliberate cultural genocide and it certainly doesn't actively attempt to control the thoughts of people in those areas, which is what the PRC does in both Tibet and Xinjiang Semi-Autonomous Region. Furthermore, the US certainly does not incite its citizens to hunt down and assault citizens of other nationalities, no matter what their history is.
John Chan
@ACT,
Here are the factual errors in your comment.
1. Neither Guam nor Puerto Rico is part of the USA.
2. USA does go around bombing and killing non-stop since WWII, there are demonstrations around the world protesting USA’s brutality. The list of the nations that have been devastated by the USA is long and has been posted on this site numerous times.
3. USA is a military occupation force in Japan since WWII because it defeated the Fascist Japan in the WWII. USA occupies Japan as a military victor.
4. USA is the maestro of manufacturing consent; you are the typical product of thought-controlled zombie that does not see the inequality back home but meddling other nation’s business with silliness.
5. Tibet and Xingjing are autonomous regions, not semi-autonomous regions.
6. USA insists hunting down and assault citizens of other nationalities since 9/11, and calls the victims as terrorists to gloss up its rogue behaviour.
U.S. Declining Mass Medias’ Credibility
The lies from Washington-paid neocon dogs never cease. Don't talk about valid arguments. Misinformation, disinformation, slanders and insults are your standard. With b*st*rds trolls like you 24/7 on the internet, is it any wonder more than 53% of Americans don't even believe in their own news medias now?
ImperiumVita
In response to John Chan: The Doublethink is strong with this one.
John Chan
@ImperiumVita,
Those are material facts, no thinking involved.
JohnX
Neocon wrote: "In fact, why pretend any longer japan is nothing more than a colony of the U.S.? If so, China should pulverize it if it tries to be funny.".
I hope that you are being sarcastic.
Otherwise, please explain to the other nations why we should accept China as a friendly nation in Asia?
ACT
@John Chan
i'm not going to bother arguing with you on this, as you plainly don't know how to construct a solid argument based upon well researched facts; calling me a thought-controlled zombie is like the pot calling the kettle black: as a university student, i have more access to more information than you ever will, all of it published by authors who were not forced to consent to a certain government's narration of events that whitewashes the brutality involved with autocratic governance. So, before you dare call me that again, i would suggest that you take a flight to the united states, take a look around, go into any good bookstore, and go to the history section….you might find something illuminating as to history that has not been manufactured by your government.
Bankotsu
If U.S wants it that way, then maybe it's time for China to stop lending billions of dollars to the U.S and start to dump those U.S treasury bonds.
China remains largest foreign US creditor
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2012-05/16/content_15309067.htm
Leonard R.
@bankotsu:
"maybe it's time for China to stop lending billions of dollars to the U.S and start to dump those U.S treasury bonds."
—
Yes! I think it is time for that. Spread the word.
John Chan
@Leonard R,
If China cannot be contained, how can China be confronted? Is it an Indian logic, run before crawl?
Leonard R.
Indians are the masters of logic J.C. Nothing can touch the Vedas for subtle reasoning.