China’s rise in recent years clearly challenges the current international system. As the leader of this system, it is the United States’ duty to meet this challenge and ensure the survival of democratic institutions worldwide. That being said, we can’t possibly do it alone. The United States’ international presence, impressive as it may be, simply isn’t enough to contain the CCP. Our success in the coming years will in part depend on our ability to retool our own foreign policy, so as to empower our global network of allies.
America’s Role in the International System
The United States’ position in the international system changed dramatically following WWII. The consequences of American policy were now far-reaching, and no longer affected only United States citizens. Much of this newfound influence was derived from the rise of the US dollar, which supplanted the British pound as the go-to international currency. America would also become the world’s leading exporter of goods in the years following the war, giving it a vast amount of leverage within international politics. Our global influence would only grow with the creation of democratic institutions like the IMF and UN, in which the United States occupied a leading role— one that continues to this day (5).
The Truman Doctrine is largely responsible for the United States’ current status as a global police force. As we fought to contain the spread of communism during the Cold War era, we became permanently entrenched in global affairs, abandoning our long history of isolationism. Our intervention in the Greek Civil War established a precedent for how the US would engage with potential international allies going forward: the provision of military and financial support, in exchange for adherence to international democratic norms (6).
This is a policy which remains largely unchanged to this day. Our globe-spanning network of military installations has been relied upon to maintain security in Europe and the Indo-Pacific— a model which would likely prove unsuccessful in the face of military escalation by the CCP. In order to maintain security in these two “theaters”, the US must commit to reprioritizing the sovereignty of its international allies by allowing them to become more regionally independent (1).
Policy in Europe
Though there is considerable distance between Europe and China, nations like France, Germany, Poland, and even the United Kingdom are allies that would offer an immense strategic advantage against the CCP in the event of military escalation. During the Cold War, central and eastern Europe were the first lines of defense against Soviet expansionism. Today, they have a similar role in regard to China: deter aggressive military action by the CCP in Europe and the Middle East (1).
The primary objective of our foreign policy going forward should be to foster the growth of these nations into independent regional powers. Of course, this is a broad proposition which would impact Europe economically, militarily, and even culturally. However, a reasonable starting point would be the development of viable deterrence and self-defense capabilities in the region. A cohesive system of information-sharing and military cooperation would allow eastern Europe to defend itself independently with only modest aid from the United States (1).
A reconceptualization of the trans-Atlantic alliance with Europe also seems necessary. NATO’s survival into the 21st Century allowed the US to maintain primary control over the European security network. However, this dependency on Washington has been punished in the past, with Europe’s failure to prevent genocide in Yugoslavia during the 90s being a reminder of this fact. A fundamental retooling of NATOs current operational model would transition it from a vehicle for the US to dominate European security, to a vehicle for the US to assist European-led defense networks (1).
Map of NATO membership in Europe
So, what does this mean for US foreign policy?
Personal politics, values, and opinions aside— the Trump administration damaged our relationship with some of our closest allies in Europe. The Biden administration, despite continuously facing political gridlock in Washington, has been working to restore European faith in American stability. Our re-admittance into the Paris Climate Accord is a positive step towards restoring the cooperative relationship between Europe and America, but more must be done if we are to regain the confidence of our overseas allies (7).
The Biden administration has a unique opportunity to rethink the trans-Atlantic alliance and the role of NATO in European security. Though it may be an initially unpopular decision, the United States must concede some level of influence over the European security network to the EU and take a more supporting role. This shift would allow NATO to become a vessel through which countries like Germany, France, Poland, and the UK could become independent regional powers, capable of policing Europe and the Middle East in the event of escalation by the CCP (7).
Policy in the Indo-Pacific
Like their European counterparts, the Indo-Pacific nations must also be a focal point of US foreign policy in the fight to contain China. Unlike Europe, however, the region lacks an overarching command and control platform which could be used to coordinate its efforts (1). America’s primary objective in the Pacific should be to create a coordinated trade and defense platform through which it can support or facilitate interactions between countries like Japan, South Korea, India, and Australia (9).
In reality, this is not the cooperative nightmare it may initially seem to be. In fact, such a system was devised and successfully implemented during the mid-20th Century. SEATO, or the Southern Asia Treaty Organization, acted as the Indo-Pacific equivalent to NATO, playing a vital but often overlooked role in the Vietnam War. The revival of SEATO or the creation of a similar charter-based organization would allow the United States to coordinate economically and militarily with its allies in the Indo-Pacific, establishing a formidable security network surrounding China (9).
Map of former SEATO member states
Another major challenge of the Indo-Pacific theater is the absence of a sophisticated information-sharing apparatus on the interstate level. Currently, the United States belongs to an international intelligence network known as FVEY, or “the Five Eyes”— its other members being the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (8). By including nations like Japan or South Korea in this network, the United States would vastly enhance its ability to coordinate within the Pacific and South Asia, giving us a significant advantage over China (1).
Catalog of Sources:
(1) Brookings: Retooling America’s Alliances
(2) Washington Examiner: Threat Posed by China
(3) USIP: America’s Role in the World
(4) Wiki: Global US Military Bases
(5) WWII Museum: United States
(6) Independent: The World’s Police
Foreign policy between presidential regimes in the United States is always so interesting to me, and I was fascinated by the section where you spoke about the difference in treatment of allies between the Biden and Trump administrations. It seems as though each administration tries its best to absolutely screw over the next president. Especially when it comes to a superpower like China, I would like to see some more unity between presidents, at least on foreign fronts.
Hi Justin! This was a really great post and I especially liked how you demonstrated the U.S.’s ability to potentially help more by supporting and connecting with other independently-led countries. Almost of all our blogs thus far have discussed U.S. interventionism and not in very positive ways. It’s interesting to see how we might be able to do good by supporting assistance-based foreign policy and creating communication networks that don’t exclude countries potentially in need of that kind of assistance.
The tension between the United States and China is like the irresistible force paradox: one being an unstoppable force and the other being an immovable object. It seems like a conflict that’s only starting and will follow for many years. I found very interesting your two hypothetical theatres on how to contrast the CCP and ensure the continuity of the current international system.
I find your discussion about reconceptualizing NATO to be super interesting, especially as you discuss the United States being re-joining the Paris Accord and conceding some influence. I think you’re right about the initial negative public reaction and I wonder if that will prevent such policies from ever going through.
First of all, awesome in-depth explanation of some very involved international relationships. I found it really interesting how you discuss building up other states, especially those in Europe, to stand the best chance of suppressing potential conflict. It’s a bit nerve wracking to see how one presidential administration can shake up relationships between states, but reassuring that the Biden administration is working to rebuild those ties.