US foreign policy is based on an inherent contradiction and fatal flaw. The aim of US foreign policy is a US-dominated world, in which the US writes the global trade and financial rules, controls advanced technologies, maintains militarily supremacy and dominates all potential competitors. Unless US foreign policy is changed to recognize the need for a multipolar world, it could lead to more wars and possibly World War III.
The inherent contradiction in US foreign policy is that it conflicts with the UN Charter, which commits the US — and all other UN member states — to a global system based on UN institutions in which no single country dominates.
The fatal flaw is that the US comprises just 4 percent of the world’s population, and lacks the economic, financial, military and technological capacities, much less the ethical and legal claims, to dominate the other 96 percent.
At the end of World War II, the US was far ahead of the rest of the world in economic, technological and military power. This is no longer the case, as many countries have built their economies and technological capacities.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke the truth when he said that the EU, although an ally, does not want to be a vassal of the US. He was widely attacked in the US and Europe for uttering this statement, because many mediocre politicians in Europe depend on US political support to stay in power.
In 2015, former US ambassador and deputy national security adviser Robert Blackwill described the US’ grand strategy with exceptional clarity.
“Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally,” he wrote.
“Preserving US primacy in the global system ought to remain the central objective of US grand strategy in the twenty-first century,” he added.
To sustain US primacy vis-a-vis China, Blackwill laid out a game plan that US President Joe Biden is following.
Among other measures, Blackwill called on the US to create “new preferential trading arrangements among US friends and allies to increase their mutual gains through instruments that consciously exclude China,” “a technology-control regime” to block China’s strategic capabilities, a buildup of “power-political capacities of US friends and allies on China’s periphery” and strengthened US military forces along the Asian rimlands despite Chinese opposition.
Most politicians in Australia, the EU, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, the UK and the US support the US’ aggressive approach. I do not. I view the US approach to China as contrary to the UN Charter and peace.
China has the right to prosperity and national security, free from US provocations around its borders. China’s remarkable economic accomplishments since the late 1970s are wonderful for China and the world.
During the century from 1839 to 1949, China was driven into extreme poverty in a period marked by European and Japanese invasions, and civil wars. Britain invaded in 1839 to force China to buy its addictive opium. Other powers piled on during the following century. China has finally recovered from that disastrous period, and has ended the poverty of about 1 billion people.
China’s new prosperity can be peaceful and productive for the world. Its successful technologies — ranging from vital cures for malaria to low-cost solar power and efficient 5G networks — can be a boon for the world.
China would only be a threat to the extent that the US makes China an enemy. US hostility to China, which mixes an arrogant US aim of dominance with long-standing anti-Chinese racism dating back to the 19th century, is creating that enemy.
The dangers of US foreign policy extend beyond China. The US goal to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, thereby surrounding Russia in the Black Sea, stoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Countless nations see the danger of this approach. Major nations from Brazil to India and beyond aim for a multipolar world. All UN member states should recommit to the UN Charter and oppose claims of dominance by any nation.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The views expressed in this column are his own.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS