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.
Origins of Containment
Containment emerged from an article written in 1947 by George Kennan, a diplomat who was stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. This strategy was designed to prevent (read: contain) the spread of the Soviet ideology of communism while limiting its political and military influence. Bolstered by alliances and institutions, massive military establishments, and thousands of nuclear weapons, containment was the basis for American foreign policy during the Cold War.
Containment rested on America’s commitment to prevent the Soviet Union, its client states, and later China from expanding their sphere of influence. It was designed to “contain” these states, manage relations between Washington and Moscow, and deter “hot wars.”
These states were the architects of a bipolar order during the second half of the twentieth century, which was notable for ideological hostility and geopolitical confrontation. At heart, deep ideological divisions between Washington and Moscow over political and economic power contributed to widely divergent geopolitical interests.
Why Containment was Practical Strategy
For decades, containment was a highly effective, practical, and positive strategy that balanced diplomacy while building stability and avoiding war. Leaders in Moscow rarely missed opportunities to fan the ideological flames. Moscow’s confrontational language, incessantly declaring that the United States was their implacable ideological foe, for decades helped policymakers in Washington mobilize and sustain public support for the strategy of containment.
After World War II, the Soviet Union’s massive conventional forces directly threatened Europe. While the U.S. had military forces deployed globally, those forces (with some rebalancing after being demobilized shortly after World War II) strengthened political alliances along the Soviet perimeter in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Roughly translated, our strategy was to surround and contain Moscow.
Initially, Washington relied on its atomic monopoly to deter war by counterbalancing the Soviet Union’s greater conventional military forces as the strategy for containing Moscow. Once the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb in 1949, containment shifted to strategies based on mutual annihilation to deter war. From the late 1940s onward, containment helped hold back the Soviet Union and avoid mutual annihilation.
Why Containment Eroded
Containment succeeded because the Soviet Union was an ideologically extreme, economically backward, and politically isolated state.
But when the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the U.S. foreign policy community failed to move beyond containment, which to be blunt, collapsed, although it had served America's purposes quite well.
The central problem facing policymakers is that containment no longer “fits” the present geostrategic order. The United States reaction was muted and slow to move beyond containment because its erosion was so gradual – it was practically imperceptible to practitioners attuned to the daily, tactical minutiae of foreign policy. By the early 1990s, containment made no strategic sense for Washington because its core principles were irrelevant once the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
Second, humans resist change, even when it is painfully necessary, because change is a powerful source of anxiety. Predictably, states, organizations, and individuals fail to recognize and implement dramatic change precisely because it creates discomfort and confusion. As familiar ideas fade away, societies struggle with how to make sense of the world and their place in it. So it was with the gradual erosion of containment.
Third, abandoning containment would be equivalent to declaring that American policy is not guided by a coherent strategy. Very little could be as unsettling for policymakers than to realize that their foreign policy is not guided by principles that help them make difficult and often painful choices about peace and security.
Fourth, containment worked so well for decades that even when it produced a stunning strategic success societies naturally resisted abandoning it. To this day, no scholar, policymaker, or journalist can claim to have anticipated the Soviet collapse or demise of the Cold War. Nonetheless, containment gets credit for relieving Washington of two enormous responsibilities: defending the world against totalitarianism and preventing nuclear annihilation.
Since what worked once cannot endure forever, the first step is to declare containment dead.
Why Containment is Failed Strategy
Today’s “arc of problems” exceeds what containment can handle. It makes no sense to talk about containing China as an ascendant state, containing Iran as a sponsor of terror and potential nuclear state, containing Russia as an authoritarian state that uses energy as a weapon, or containing Pakistan’s ability to spread nuclear weapons. By its very nature modern technology, through the telecommunications revolution and the rise of global markets as fundamental forces in international politics, renders containment an obsolete strategy.
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, collapsed for two critical reasons.
Political Collapse of Containment
The first reason is that while containment once provided useful guidance for dealing with an adversary guided by a political ideology hostile to freedom and democracy, this is no longer the case.
States today do not face ideological foes on any scale comparable to the Cold War. Without an ideological foe, the practitioners of containment cannot persuade states to organize their foreign policies to oppose others. In effect, states lack a compelling reason or the political will to coordinate their policies and actions. They view the world, not as a dangerous struggle against an expansionist ideology, but as a relatively benign contest between democratic and authoritarian states
The West’s geopolitical adversaries do not inspire awe or fear. Such run-of-the-mill authoritarian states, as Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, operate as members of an 'authoritarian axis.’ In addition to their reflexive opposition to democracy, modern authoritarian states reward their rulers, rather than their people, with great power and wealth. However, modern authoritarian states lack a common, unified, and systematic ideology, buttressed by a coherent philosophy, to guide their actions.
In contrast with the ideological chasm between Moscow and the West, which rested on philosophically absolute differences, modern authoritarian states are so much less consequential politically and historically. Rather than being the servants of a grand ideology, they are “in the game” principally to preserve their power and wealth. Where containment dealt with an ideologically implacable foe, the West deals with mere authoritarian states.
The problem for strategy is that we struggle with the rise of modern authoritarian states whose political ideology is so small-minded and opportunistic. The best the West can do against authoritarian states is to resist or restrain their authoritarian excesses. We also can express disdain for their primitive and corrupt governments, asserting that the “ideology” driving these states is no more than a mask for opportunism for governments whose leaders have no greater ambition than buttressing their own personal power and wealth.
Economic Collapse of Containment
The second reason why containment is meaningless is the rise of free markets. Global trade and commerce, the lifeblood of free market economies, operates on an unprecedented scale.
As the global flow of goods and services expanded dramatically over the last several decades as the Soviet Union disintegrated, it was foreordained how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to contain states in economic terms – what we can call “economic containment.” Global commerce thrives precisely because of the free flow of finance, trade, and commerce. The scale is massive — literally trillions of dollars of goods and services move around the globe daily. The existence of truly global companies and consumers who drive economic commerce utterly eviscerates containment as equally outdated and impractical.
The logic of containment was to prevent economic exchanges from strengthening the Soviet Union and its clients. To properly contain a state economically, we had to prevent, or at least limit, the flow of goods and services to and from it. Operating in an economically interdependent and interlocked world, however, makes it impossible in practical terms to contain the flow of goods and services on any meaningful scale.
When states pursue economic containment, the instrument of choice is economic sanctions. In theory, states must be confident that they can contain the flow of goods and services to and from targeted states, but sanctions are no longer an effective tool of diplomacy. In reality, modern commerce is not conducive to containing states using economic instruments. Such actions are largely a waste of time, effort, and credibility.
Economic forms of containment fail precisely because states routinely work in highly coordinated ways to evade or undermine sanctions against themselves or others. Containment is bound to fail when states band together to undermine the sanctions that are designed to deny access to global goods and services. With systematic, coordinated, and highly successful efforts to undermine and evade sanctions, containment cannot succeed, as several examples illustrate.
Reports this summer suggested that Russian banks could help Syria "evade U.S. and European sanctions on oil and financial transactions."
For years, China has provided North Korea with the energy and food needed to prevent its collapse. Despite the best efforts of the West to impose sanctions, Beijing helps Pyongyang evade such sanctions, thus guaranteeing that economic containment of North Korea will fail.
Iran is the cause célèbre for containment’s failure. For decades, Iran successfully evaded the West’s efforts to impose sanctions, which it imposes with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. However, as the New York Times reported, “harsh economic sanctions…have failed to slow Tehran’s nuclear program. If anything the program is speeding up.” Containment’s failure is evident as Iran marches inexorably toward developing nuclear weapons.
Containment no Longer “Fits”
No more than a slogan, “containment” generates headlines by perpetuating the illusion that states have a strategy or are simply “doing something.” However, it fails with embarrassing regularity.
The inescapable conclusion is that containment no longer fits our world. Where it once worked, containment no longer aligns with how the modern world is organized politically and economically. Simply put, it is no longer practical in a highly interconnected global economy in which states do not face a singular ideological threat.
States and individuals have unparalleled access to social media and technology, which provides total, absolute, and practically instantaneous connectedness. Such connectedness leads to levels of transparency that are historically unparalleled. Even extremist groups in states with a primitive infrastructure, such as Afghanistan, use cell phone networks to outmaneuver governments and evade efforts to restrain their activities.
Economic forces are so vastly more powerful than politics that we cannot contain states in a globalized “culture.” How precisely do we practice containment when modern states and individuals freely exchange the political ideas and economic goods and services that generate wealth and power?
Problems The International Community Cannot “Contain”: China, Iran, and Russia
Policymakers, scholars, and journalists continue to worship at the altar of containment, despite the fact that America faces foreign policy challenges that are beyond what we can “contain.” Several examples highlight this fundamental disconnect between containment and the modern world.
The first is China. With its economy now the second largest after the United States and growing military prowess, China is too deeply and tightly integrated into the global economy for containment to make any sense, much less succeed. While some U.S. policymakers talk about containing China – or to reassure China that we do not intend to contain it – its economic and military power are so significant that containment seems almost silly. Simply put, there is nothing about China in political or economic terms that is containable.
The second case is Iran. Its radical ideology, marked by extremist strains, is stridently and virulently hostile to the U.S. and Israel. Such reckless rhetoric, when combined with what many increasingly believe are its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, should make Iran a prime candidate for containment. However, Iran is so tightly enmeshed in an economic and technological web of global connectedness that containment is an obsolete strategy doomed to fail.
States cannot contain Iran’s economic power, derived largely from its oil and gas exports, because Russia and China work diligently to undermine U.N. efforts to impose sanctions. We cannot contain Iran’s nuclear program because Russia actively supports it. Sanctions, once an integral element of containment, continue to fail while Iran accelerates its nuclear program.
The third case is Russia. Under Putin, Moscow uses increasingly strident rhetoric against the West, employs energy as a foreign policy weapon, threatens to attack the West preemptively over missile defenses, dismantles its democracy and drifts toward authoritarianism, and supports such authoritarian regimes as Iran, Syria, and North Korea. If the strategy of containment still worked, Russia would be an ideal target.
Russia, lacking a politically coherent ideology, is governed by an authoritarian ethos. However, it does not pose a threat to the West principally because it is not a serious economic power, lacks significant military capabilities (other than nuclear weapons), and is so far behind the West in advanced technology that few states truly fear Russia militarily. States do worry about Moscow’s willingness to use energy as a foreign policy weapon. On several occasions, it withheld energy from states in Eastern Europe. These states depend so highly on Russian energy exports, which are so integral to the global economy, that containment of Russia in energy terms is not a meaningful or practical option.
Principles for Grand Strategy
When policymakers in the U.S. or the West refer to containment, their words admit, in effect, that they do not have, but should be desperately searching for, a strategy.
If we stipulate that the United States has failed to develop a coherent and modern strategy, our first step is to outline several organizing principles that provide a positive strategy for American foreign policy. As early thoughts on what will be developed in a subsequent essay, I believe that America’s grand strategy should be organized around three broad principles.
First, our world remains more dangerous and unstable than many observers anticipated. The list of dangers grows increasingly lengthy and ominous: nuclear proliferation, rising authoritarian states, fears in Asia that China’s ascent will threaten regional security, extremism and violent anti-Americanism in Egypt, the Middle East, and Asia, uncertainty as the global economy continues to suffer, and dependence on energy from authoritarian, often potentially unstable, states. The list goes on.
Since there is no shortage of serious risks and problems, the United States can no longer afford to define its foreign policy in terms of containment. This “old think,” as we have discovered, is worse than ineffectual. The imperative for Washington is to define its strategy not in terms of containing problems, but of restraining forces that contribute to instability, chaos, and war.
Second, we are well past the time when the United States must devote greater time, attention, and resources to rebuilding the domestic foundations of its national power. Beginning with World War II, the United States used its national power to engage globally on an unprecedented scale. Completing work begun in the 1930s, we rebuilt our world-class infrastructure – industry, roads, bridges, schools, energy, and so forth – during the decades after World War II.
For most observers, unfortunately, grand strategy is about foreign and defense policy. But the emphasis in grand strategy on rebuilding the domestic foundations of America’s national power, which dates back to the administration of George Washington, has been central to deliberations in virtually every administration since then. Grand strategy is about much more than foreign policy because its influence derives directly from the free market economic foundations of our national power.
In reshaping its grand strategy, the United States must have world-class roads, bridges, electric power grids, national broadband, and mass transit systems. To compete economically, these will be as important instruments of national power as armies, navies, and air forces are for defending our interests. Nor can we forget the importance of education, health care, and retirement systems as elements of ensuring broad opportunities for every American. Our grand strategy cannot be effective until we restore the infrastructure and social safety nets that assure all Americans of their opportunity to compete and succeed. All of this is as central to foreign policy as anything we do.
Third, the time has come, despite being mired in a painfully slow recovery from the "Great Recession", for the United States to exercise greater world leadership. Such problems as China, Russia, Iran, Syria – and now Egypt and the rest of the Middle East – demand more active and assertive leadership from Washington. However, this principle must be balanced with the realization that Americans do not have unlimited power – we cannot do everything, everywhere, all of the time, for the rest of the world.
Americans willingly carried the mantle of global leadership for decades –from winning in World War II and the Cold War to strengthening our security against extremism after 9/11. But they may be reluctant once again to carry that burden once again, especially considering current economic difficulties. The baby boom generation has been as active as its predecessor – and as generous in spirit when asked to help. This generation now faces the prospect of having to postpone retirement, care for aging parents, and support children who, facing high unemployment, increasingly live at home.
The two extremes – where America engages less as expressed by “leading from behind,” or where America takes the lead on all issues – are unacceptable. Now is the time for other states in the West to rise to the occasion and to share the burden of leadership than to criticize from the sidelines.
The United States must exercise greater leadership, while noting that we can passionately if politely debate how much of the burden we should bear. And we can hope for a new bipartisan consensus on foreign policy. But if Washington fails to lead, then it must be prepared for the consequences if other states, whose interests may be radically at odds with its own, take the lead. My instinct is that neither Americans nor their allies would find this world much to their liking.
In the end, the West cannot contain states and the problems they cause, but it is well within our capacity to limit or restrain their more dangerous and destabilizing policies rather than relying on the obsolete strategy of trying to contain these states.
Dr. William C. Martel is an Associate Professor of International Security Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is the recent author of “Victory in War: Foundations of Modern Strategy.” Follow him on Twitter: @BillMartel234.
Photo Credit: Office of the President: Iran
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.