The Case for American Engagement in the World

Transcription

1 The Case for American Engagement in the World J. Michael Greig Department of Political Science University of North Texas 1

2 What is the Liberal Order? Three 3 pillars: International security order allies; U.S. security guarantor Liberal economic order trade Liberal political order democracy Rules based order Required cooperation Centered on American military commitment Cold War era 2 parallel orders 2

3 Thoughts on Security & the Liberal Order One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis It is critical to our national security and the security of our allies in Europe that the United States remain engaged and play an active role in NATO. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R FL) the values at the foundation of our NATO alliance are worth fighting for: free markets, free and fair elections, representative government, rule of law. These are the values that protect our citizens from the encroachment of tyranny. U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D NY) 3

4 Views of the American Public 4

5 Views of the American Public 5

6 Views of the American Public 6

7 Views of the American Public 7

8 Young Americans & Foreign Policy 8

9 Young Americans & Foreign Policy 9

10 10

11 Take aways Increasingly, Americans question U.S. involvement in the world: Question the benefits to the U.S. Question the costs paid by the U.S. Wish to refocus on domestic issues over international ones What is at the root of this public opinion? 11

12 State of U.S. Commitments 12

13 U.S. Collective Defense Agreements NATO (1949) Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom Rio Treaty (1947) Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela Southeast Asia Treaty (1954) Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom Australia & New Zealand (1951) Philippines (1951) South Korea (1953) Japan (1960) 13

14 Evolution of U.S. Treaty Obligations Among many others, the U.S. is obligated by treaty to defend an attack against: Canada (1949) West Germany (1955) Japan (1960) Estonia (2004) Albania (2009) Montenegro (2017) 14

15 15

16 Congressional Oversight & Foreign Policy October 4, 2017: 4 U.S. servicemen and 5 Nigerien troops killed in Niger during an ISISbacked ambush near Tongo Tongo "I didn't know there was 1,000 troops in Niger Senator Lindsay Graham (R SC) "No, I did not. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D NY) 16

17 Locations of Active U.S. Ground Combat Syria Tunisia Libya Mali Mauritania Cameroon Central African Republic Niger Kenya Somalia Yemen Afghanistan Iraq Saudi Arabia 17

18 18

19 How Did We Get Here? Sources of Growth of U.S. Security Commitments Mission & values America s unipolar moment Emphasis on reputation & resolve Withdrawal anywhere risks withdrawal everywhere Sunk costs U.S. Domestic politics Nature of international threats 19

20 Criticisms of U.S. Global Involvement U.S. should look after its own narrow interests, rather than those of a global community Emphasize a more transactional view of foreign policy U.S. has been exploited by allies Trade Security U.S. accounts for 73% of NATO spending 20

21 Why Now? 21

22 Distribution of Power The way in which power (military & economic) is divided among leading states has implications for global affairs This distribution is changing in ways with important implications for American security & strategy 22

23 Cold War A Bipolar World 23

24 Pre World War 1 Multipolar World 24

25 Pre World War 1 Multipolar World 25

26 Pre World War 1 Multipolar World 26

27 Post Cold War 27

28 Tomorrow? 28

29 Tomorrow? 29

30 Tomorrow? 30

31 Potential U.S. Foreign Policy Strategies 31

32 Proposed Retrenchment Paths Isolationism Redux Fortress America Few genuine proponents of full isolationism U.S. global economic interests Offshore Balancing strategic engagement 32

33 Basis of Critics of American Engagement U.S. is relatively safe given its geography, nuclear arsenal, & hegemonic challenge Greatest threat to U.S. comes from overseas commitments & interventions: Expensive Trap U.S. in unnecessary wars Alienate other countries needlessly Encourage free riding by U.S. allies 33

34 U.S. abandons efforts at democracy promotion Maintain dominance in the Western Hemisphere Encourage regional powers to fill U.S. gap Tenets of Offshore Balancing Act, when necessary, to counter rising hegemons in strategically vital regions 34

35 Geography provides the U.S. with a substantial margin for error Expectations of Offshore Balancing Strategically vital regions: Europe Northeast Asia Persian Gulf Aim: Maintain sufficient regional balance sufficient to prevent any one state from becoming dominant in region Prevents threat to Western Hemisphere 35

36 How Would Offshore Balancing Work? U.S. would cease forward deployment of forces unless a regional power arose threatening dominance If a regional power develops, U.S. would rely on regional allies as counter If regional allies fail to check threat, U.S. would seek to provide balance Goal: Remain offshore as long as possible, conserve U.S. power & resources 36

37 End of U.S. military presence in Europe NATO converted into a European endeavor Characteristics of Offshore Balancing Withdraw American forces from the Middle East Rising China Requires continued U.S. presence in Asia ISIS is a problem for regional powers, not the U.S. Better coordinate action with regional allies 37

38 Reduce Reduce resources U.S. might devote to defense Purported Benefits of Offshore Balancing Limit Stop Reduce Limit American personnel at risk Stop allies from free riding on American protection Reduce risk of terrorism Prolong Prolong U.S. dominance by narrowing American strategic goals 38

39 Problems with Offshore Balancing as a Strategy Assumes regional power share U.S. interests & have the will to stabilize region Ignores potential for acquiescence or bandwagoning Requires realpolitik, morally corrupt regimes Undermines both human rights & long term stability Risk of nuclear proliferation Assumes easy U.S. regional access in time of crisis Made more difficult by abandonment of forward bases, ports, & airfields Discounts costs of maintaining capacity to rapidly move large number of troops into theater Offshore is easy, balancing is hard 39

40 Will U.S. leaders be able to identify and respond to the rise of challengers? Assumes that global economic growth & freetrade that accompanied decline in great power conflict would continue to occur Problems of Offshore Balancing (cont d.) Would be seen as U.S. retreat and weaken American credibility 40

41 Previous Failures of Offshore Balancing Europe, 1920s & 1930s Cost 400,000 American lives lost, war costs $4T Korea U.S. withdrawal from South Korea in 1949 Cost North Korea invades South Korea, 36,000 U.S. troops killed, $320B Middle East , Gulf War U.S. invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan 41

42 So, Where Does this Leave Us? 42

43 The Basis for a Liberal Order Secretary of State Dean Acheson after WW2 American security required creating an environment of freedom in the world Required both an economic peace and a military peace Historically, great powers conceptualized national interest as defense of their immediate physical and economic security World War 1 peace yielded World War 2 43

44 Post World War 2 Challenges Regional responses to German and Japanese economic recovery American security guarantee reassured neighbors, transformed Western Europe and East Asia No arms races Formed strategic alliances No economic spheres of influence No security dilemma U.S. onshore presence meant neighbors did not have to worry about keeping up with neighbors 44

45 Three 3 pillars: What is the Liberal Order? Liberal economic order Open markets Liberal political order emphasized democracy Rules based order Strategic order prevented great power conflicts Required cooperation American military commitment 45

46 Requirements for the Success of the Postwar Order U.S. could not be seen as exploiting system for its own long term economic advantage Non zero sum gain The liberal order not only reassured states about protection from one another, but also placed constraints on American power Liberal order required voluntary acceptance by members Shift from competition of all against all to a rules based community 46

47 Why A Liberal International Order? Bonds created by a commitment to democratic capitalism & respect for individual rights were a powerful unifying force Understanding & trust among states made easier Promoted greater forms of tolerance Limited extreme forms of nationalism Liberal norms became self reinforcing As liberal norms evolve, liberal states were pressured to live up to them Success of liberal institutions encouraged others to liberalize NATO European prosperity 47

48 Consequences of a Collapse of the Liberal Order States resort to actions to protect their security and economic advantage at the expense of others Great power return to spheres of influence Increased potential for great power conflict Increased potential for beggar thy neighbor economic policies 48

49 President Trump s Criticisms of NATO "Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO, and the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany. "They want (us) to protect against Russia, and yet they pay billions of dollars to Russia, and we're the schmucks paying for the whole thing." Tucker Carlson: Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack? President Trump: I understand what you re saying. I ve asked the same question. 49

50 50

51 American Opinion & NATO 51

52 American Opinion & NATO 52

53 American Opinion & NATO 53

54 October 2018 TRIP Survey of IR Scholars 54

55 October 2018 TRIP Survey of IR Scholars 55

56 Thinking About a World Without NATO View from Estonia View from Germany View from Russia View from Poland 56

57 Europe Centered Benefits of NATO Signals U.S. commitment and provides a deterrent to Russia Promotes stability in Europe economic interests If the risk of war in Europe increases, what effect does this have on U.S. economic interests? 57

58 Broader U.S. Benefits From NATO Force multiplier 1.8M regular forces, 1.2 M reservists Interoperability 28 U.S. bases Lily pads enhance U.S. force projection capabilities NATO peace & security missions across the globe Iraq, Libya, Balkans Article V Afghanistan 1,100 non U.S. NATO deaths Two in the U.S. Counter terrorism & intelligence sharing 58

59 Examples of Cost Sharing & U.S. Foreign Bases Europe NATO allies pay 34% of cost of U.S. bases Japan pays 75% of cost of U.S. bases South Korea pays 40% of costs of U.S. bases Persian Gulf allies pay 60% of costs of U.S. bases 59

60 Historically, NATO largely reliant on Five Eyes intelligence sharing U.S. played a key role in this intelligence sharing process NATO & Intelligence Sharing Rising global terrorist threat changed NATO thinking 2006 Intelligence Fusion Centre established Aimed to jointly develop, fuse, and share information 2017 establishment of the Joint Intelligence and Security Division Created to improve NATO s ability to use intelligence & enhance situational awareness 60

61 NATO & Cybersecurity Cyber attack can trigger Article V declaration 2012 establishment of NATO Cyber Rapid Reaction teams Cyber Defense Pledge in July 2016 NATO research, training, and educational facilities 2018 agreement to establish a Cyberspace Operations Centre Improved cyber defense coordination with the European Union 61

62 Pros/Cons of Questioning NATO s Value Argument: Questioning the value of NATO for the U.S. pressures European allies to do more for their defense & lesson the U.S. burden Counter argument: Consequences may be more fundamental & long lasting Uncertainty European response: hedging Russian response Potential for miscalculation 62

63 NATO faces 4 key problems that undermine the alliance and threaten its ability Fixing NATO Credibility and commitment Clarity of purpose Spending targets Democratic backsliding 63

64 NATO has established spending targets for allies of 2% of GDP Addressing the Defense Spending Issue Only 5 members are the GDP target Encourage more commitment to meeting targets Rationalize components of targets Not all contributions are equally valuable to the alliance 64

65 The Democratic Backsliding Problem The liberal character of NATO allies is at least as important as their defense spending Authoritarianism tends to foster corruption Democracy targets are key components of entry into the alliance NATO currently imposes no penalty for democratic backsliding Significant democratic backsliding in Turkey, Hungary, and Poland 65

66 Problem: Major alliance decisions require consensus Addressing the Backsliding Problem Prevents dealing with democratic failure Transition to something similar to a qualified majority European Union model Double majority, 55% of member states, 65% of population Creates vehicle to credibly threaten to revoke membership 66

67 Diminishing consensus on the strategic goals of American foreign policy The U.S. Problem Causes Lack of discussion of rationale for American foreign policy strategy Public disconnect from American grand strategy Limited public involvement in America s contemporary wars Volunteer force War funding 67

68 Source: Boston University Cost of War project How We Fund Our Wars 68

69 Wrap Up In American foreign policy: what needs change is old, but not everything that is old needs change Questioning forever wars vs. abandoning multilateralism Policy change should reflect the correct reference point 69