Beyond Hegemony and a Liberal International Order

Tattered flags (Megan Kester)

by Gordon Adams

America’s place in the world is experiencing an historic turning point. All the mumbo-jumbo about being the “exceptional” and “indispensable” nation, the natural “leader” of something called the “West,” the guarantor of some kind of international system of “rules” is finally being cast into the dustbin of history.

This moment is not just about leaving the Iran nuclear agreement, or even the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate agreement. It is not simply attributable to the unpredictable, childish impulses of the current president. Nor is it the result of Obama’s failure to enforce a red line in Syria, or “leading from behind” in Libya. It is not even about Bush’s invasion of Iraq with the goal of regime change, setting in motion the destruction of what little political stability existed in the Middle East.

Of course, it is about all these decisions. But in every case, those decisions, and even the critics of those decisions, have failed to realize how they have played into, helped cause, and now accelerate a fundamental shift in global realities—the centrifugal redistribution of power and influence in the international system that has brought to an end the “American century.” The United States has become just another power in a system for which it no longer sets or enforces the rules, if it ever really did.

Both political parties fail to cope with this reality. Democrats and liberals insist that Trump’s foreign-policy decisions threaten the “rules-based” international order America built and dominated. A simple change in leadership, they believe, can restore order and America’s primacy. Republicans demand bellicose American assertiveness, believing that force and military strength guarantee that the world will behave. Columnists bewail America’s declining status, arguing that greater iinvestment in allies and diplomacy, combined with military engagement might reverse the tide. Think tanks scurry to define new national security and military policies that can put America back on top.

This debate is a circular firing squad. Both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are struggling to recreate a myth: that the US dominates the world by dint of power, values, wisdom, even God’s decisions. America, and only America, can bring order and security to the world. Any other option spells chaos.

Power Shifts

The latest foreign policy whim—withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran—is the most recent nail in the coffin lid in which the myth is buried. Rather than restore leadership, withdrawing from the agreement simply accelerates the global rebalancing already underway, a tectonic shift that began with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The signs are everywhere.

In the Middle East, the power shift is palpable. The United States has treated Iran as a pariah since 1979, trying to stuff the ayatollahs back into some imaginary bottle, hoping that they will go away or be overthrown. This approach has failed, and the withdrawal from the nuclear deal will only make that failure more evident. Iran is a regional power, defending its interests, engaging other powers and movements inside and outside the region, such as Russia. US regime change in Iraq not only destabilized the region but helped usher the Iranians into this active regional role. The other influential countries in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia and Israel, will have to deal with this reality.

In addition to these three countries, Russia is also key to regional stability and instability. There’s no way of pushing the Russians out, short of direct conflict. Nor can Turkey be forced to comply with American policy. It is clearly asserting its own interests and influence in three directions at the same time: Central Asia and Russia, Europe, and the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq may have helped open this Pandora’s box. The US is rapidly becoming a marginal player in the chaotic security environment of the Middle East.

In Asia, decades of US condemnation and containment of China have failed. How dare China rise? How dare China steal intellectual property, stifle democracy, arm its artificial islands in the South China Sea, develop a powerful military, mess in Africa (complete with a military base in Djibouti), and intrude into Latin America? And yet, to paraphrase Galileo, “they move.” There is a new, global, competitive player in the system, a reality the United States can not contain or reverse. That player is disrupting that lovely system of rules, acting without U.S. permission or approval. It is even creating new international institutions—an infrastructure development bank and a global trading infrastructure programs (the Belt and Road initiative) to which the US is not even a party. The balance has changed, permanently, and the rules are being rewritten, whether the United States likes it or not.

At the end of the Cold War, American power surrounded Russia, coopting its former satellites, provoking a Russian reaction. Today, the Russian government is, poisoning its citizens overseas, arming Assad, intruding on elections globally, stifling dissent and killing dissenters, and rebuilding its military. Confront Russia, condemn Putin, pretend that they are isolated, treat them with contempt and moral judgment, but Putin does not go away. He is asserting his view of Russia’s interests and Russia’s role in the world, like any great power is likely to do. No amount of US pressure, sanctions, or policy is likely to change that reality. Russia is consciously and actively rebalancing the United States, with some success.

American bullying and presidential rhetoric may have played a role in the apparent, but uncertain, willingness of the North Korean regime to put its nuclear program on the table. But if that program disappears, the putative Nobel Peace Prize may actually belong to President Moon Jae-in of South Korea and even Kim Jong Un, for seizing an opportunity. Even that regional balance and the key players are shifting.

Reckoning with the Shift

America has not been able to use its dominant military to prevent this evolution or restore order. Where it has been deployed in large numbers—Iraq and Afghanistan—U.S. military force has failed. War grinds on in Afghanistan with no light suddenly appearing at the end of the tunnel, despite the promises of generations of officers. Rousting the Islamic State from Iraq has not solved the internal problems of that unhappy country, which is still recovering from a US occupation. Special Operations forces in dozens of countries whack at terrorist moles only to find others arising in their place, stimulated by the confrontation. Order is not restored; the American rules are not being obeyed.

If the US fails to read global rebalancing accurately and tries either to bully the rest of the world or to “restore” the liberal international order, the entire world will find itself at an even more dangerous moment. Bullying will only accelerate the centrifugal trend. Asserting the superiority of an American “order” and American “rules” will no longer persuade other rising powers.

The rules will change with the rebalancing. Eliminating the Trump presidency will not restore the previous order. His actions are not an aberration, but an accelerant, spreading the fires that were already under way.

The challenge is to completely redesign US foreign and national security policy to fit with a world where America is just another power, competing and cooperating for influence. The United States must learn to play well with others in the global sandbox.

 

Gordon Adams

Gordon Adams is Professor Emeritus at the School of International Service, American University and, since 2008, a Distinguished Fellow (non-resident) at the Stimson Center both in Washington, DC. He taught at American University and George Washington University from 1999-2015. From 1993-97 he was Associate Director for National Security Programs at the Office of Management and Budget, the senior Clinton White House official for national security and foreign policy budgets. He is the co-editor of Mission Creep: The Militarization of US Foreign Policy (Georgetown, 2014), co-author of Buying National Security: How America Plans and Pays for Its Global Role and Safety at Home (Routledge, 2010), and author of The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting (Transaction Press 1981). He was founder and Director of the Defense Budget Project from 1983-93. He has a Ph.D from Columbia University. He writes frequently on foreign policy and national security issues for a wide variety of publications. He is also a working professional actor.

SHOW 13 COMMENTS

13 Comments

  1. @ Ali Mostofi

    Mr Mostofi, ‘freedom’ has rarely been given, it has always been taken: by force, by daring to risk your life, not by living in your comfort zone!

    Soon after the Revolution millions of Iranians left Iran but kept propagating and hoping Western Powers would give soon them back their nostalgic freedom. As Aristotle rightly said it centuries ago: “those who cannot bravely face danger are the slaves of their attackers”. If you and millions of expatriate Iranians truly care about us and having a free and just society, the best solution is first to step out of your comfort zones, instead of pleading to criminal powers to bomb us or invade us or impose more crippling sanctions that in practice target the most vulnerable and underprivileged sectors of the very society that ‘caring’ Iranians such as you and ruthless criminals such as Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and Netanyahu, and the detested baseless renegades as well as the ruthless deposed family (who emptied Iran’s treasury when they fled Iran for America) have for decades been shedding crocodile tears for.

  2. @Khosrow, well said! It’s not to say or justify one bad regime for the worse ones before them! But the escapees who escaped with their wealth because they couldn’t face the general public are now like dying dinosaurs! They have left no one behind so they no longer have any emotional connections to the people! As the saying goes “camels dream of the cotton seeds”!

  3. More aircraft carriers would have stopped Crimea from re-joining Russia and more cruisers circling Chinese atolls in the South China Sea and shaking their fists at them would have stopped the Chinese. At least this is what the Pentagon says as they tell us that $700B is just a ‘down payment’, perhaps it will ramp up to $1T, eh, it’s just a fraction of global GDP.

  4. “The author obviously thinks the Ayatollahs are good for Iran and the region. Very strange.” Ali Mostofi

    It’s not all that obvious to me, Mr Mostofi. Indeed, the author says nothing of “good” or “bad” with respect to the Ayatollahs. He merely points out that Ayatollahs are what Iran has at the moment, so, America, get used to it. Obama did—perhaps prodded by Trita Parsi’s 2012 book-length critique of the president’s weak excuse for diplomacy and his lazy preference for sanctions against Iran.

    At any rate, the eventual signing of the JCPOA was not only a triumph, given the number and diversity of partners on one side of the table and the “death to the infidel!” reputation of those on the other side. Indeed, some of the worst stereotypes of Iran’s rulers fell away as a result, and their scrupulous adherence to the deal improved their reputation internationally.

    Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement could turn out to be an important turning point in that America’s five co-signers of the JCPOA—especially the Europeans—are seriously pisst-off with him. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for a palace revolt, as the Europeans have always been too comfortable in the role of Washington vassals—“the poodle parade,” as Pepe Escobar used to call them. But there is definitely something different in their tone this time—less of a whine or a whimper, and more of a bark.

  5. A very good article overall but the comments about Russia poising its citizens overseas & arming Assad need to be addressed.

    The Skripal case of the alleged poisoning in London has been debunked widely for obvious reasons. The discrepancies in the reporting of how this happened are alarming enough to suggest that the British Govt flew another false flag. A Google search will inform plus the MSM have gone completely silent.

    As for Russia arming Assad – that is a sad reflection on the Author. If he had done any research he would understand that Russia has been a friend of Syria for a very long time & has a Navel base there. Also Russia is there in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian Govt. The USA is there illegally and against UN rules of engagement. The USA has also moved IBM missiles right up to Russia’s borders breaking promises made when the Soviet Union with.
    drew from all of Eastern Europe. The USA also is on the record of spending $50B dollars in overthrowing the Ukraine Govt and installing a regime it can control. Google it.

    By the way I’m an Australian citizen living in Australia & not proud of our role in support of USAs crimes against humanity

Comments are closed.