Tag: China

2024 Election, China, Foreign Policy, Politics, Realist Theory

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index Speaking Softly

Bob Claude |

This is the third in a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2024 Elections” link under the heading “Politics” in the above menu.

Score

Harris -6 Trump +1.5

While Theodore Roosevelt was known to engage in bellicose rhetoric, his foreign policy as president was based on adroit diplomacy. Roosevelt knew that the world was in a transition where nations such as the United States, Germany and Japan were becoming powers as the British Empire was reaching its peak. He used diplomatic negotiation to prevent a German intervention in Venezuela and to stabilize great power rivalries in Europe and in Asia, thus increasing America’s soft power.

The Biden-Harris ticket campaigned on the slogan “a foreign policy for the middle class”. After the election, they implemented the exact opposite- a policy that desperately tried to maintain the American unipolar hegemony of the 1990’s and extended our scarce resources far from our limited national interests.  The only people served by such a policy were business and foreign elites.

The correct worldview is that we now live in a period of great power competition on its way to becoming a G0 world; that is, a world where there are only regional powers and no superpowers. In a G0 world, the US would be the preeminent power in the Western Hemisphere with the ability to influence other issues in the world primarily by diplomacy. In the meantime, the US must live and act in the current great power reality while planning for this future state. I advocated abandoning liberal interventionism in favor of a realist approach in my series “Nationalist Foreign Policy -a History” (see the Foreign Policy tab above). Trump and Harris have very different philosophies on these crucial issues.

National Security Strategy

Every new presidential administration produces a document called a National Security Strategy (“NSS”) that shapes American foreign policy as well as its perception overseas. Comparing those of the Biden and Trump Administrations reveals a marked difference in strategic emphasis and priorities.

The Biden NSS speaks repeatedly of addressing “shared challenges” that “are not secondary to geopolitics but are at the very core of security and should be treated as such.” This would be accomplished by a “rules-based international order” that would grow “the connective tissue” between the US and other nations to spread democracy and strengthen national security. In addition, it expressly seeks to use foreign policy to “spur reform and rejuvenation domestically”.  A more globalist, liberal interventionist policy could not be imagined.  The best that can be said is that it is a statement of how to achieve a G0 world, while trying to wish away the geopolitical realities of today’s world.

In contrast, the NSS of the Trump Administration leads with the statement the government’s first duty is to its citizens. It expressly rests on a “principled realism”.  The most fundamental duty of the President is to protect the homeland, our way of life and American interests overseas. It recognizes that we are in a great power rivalry with China and Russia.  Our allies and other countries can “magnify our power” but are expected to help us address threats.

We can assume that Vice President Harris and former President Trump would implement these past strategies of their respective administrations, though the details may differ. Harris maybe even more globalist if her administration includes more radical “progressive” globalists as this article suggests. Based on their record and this possibility, she deserves a  minus  2 score. Trump has often said he believes in a more “transactional” foreign policy, which is consistent with a realist approach. His running mate Sen. JD Vance also wants to reorient American foreign policy away from the Biden view to a more realist strategy (see this article). The Trump– Vance ticket thus earns a plus 1.5 score on this fundamental issue.

Ukraine and European Policy

The Russo – Ukraine war has now ground on for more than two years. The Ukrainians achieved a dramatic victory in preventing Russian forces from taking Kyiv. We now know that a peace could have been negotiated at that time, but the US and Britain encouraged Ukraine to continue the war to attempt to recover the Donbas region and Crimea (see this article from Foreign Affairs magazine– subscription required).  The West, particularly the United States, then begin shipping arms to Ukraine, but only to the extent it did not provoke Russia to escalate the war into NATO. The result has been another “forever war” with no clear strategy or achievable goal at the cost of thousands of Ukrainian lives.

The war has also proved to be a crucible of fire testing the strength of NATO and our European relationship. Eastern Europe stepped up to support Ukraine while Western Europe, in particular Germany, gave limited support. Some NATO members such as Hungary actually opposed aid and overtly sympathized with Russia. These divisions call into question whether it is in our interest to remain a NATO member, especially in light of Europe’s potential defense capability (see this past post on the issue).

The next administration needs to concentrate on bringing peace to this conflict.  Ukraine will have to accept the loss of the Donbas and Crimea and Russia will have to accept the sovereignty and, thus the loss, of Ukraine. At the same time, we should have no illusions about Vladimir Putin.  He is a ruthless dictator who, among other war crimes, orchestrated the kidnapping of hundreds of Ukrainian children to be placed with Russians. We cannot have normal relations with him. For example, we should immediately kick the Russians off of the International Space Station.  

However, the increasing importance of East Asia and our neglect of Latin America require a reassessment of our NATO commitment. Vice President Harris appears committed to continuing the war in Ukraine and our current NATO commitment despite these realities and so deserves a minus 2.  In contrast, Trump pushed Europe to increase its defense spending to counter Russia and criticized Germany for its reliance on Russian oil and gas. He has said he would settle the Ukraine War even before he takes office, though without specifying how. His past efforts and current attitude merits a plus 1 score in this area.

Israel and Middle East Policy

As of this writing, Iran has just launched a barrage of missiles at Israel in retaliation for its killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon. It is an escalation of a war that has extended far beyond the originally stated goal of freeing the hostages that were taken during the October 7 raid of Hamas. Instead, Israel has used the raid as an excuse to widen the conflict to attack Hezbollah as well as expand its control over the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords and international law. They call it “mowing the grass”; i.e., not eliminating the problem, but simply keeping it under control.

As I argued in this post, we have an interest in a stable Middle East, not one regularly wracked by war that threatens world stability. Israel is a critical pillar of this stability, but so is the Arab and Muslim world. The Biden Administration has endangered this balance by tethering American policy to Israel without imposing any real costs to its expansive goals that contradict our own stated policies in support of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, both Harris and Trump support this myopic policy, though Harris’s connections to pro-Palestinian groups in the Democratic Party make her more open to change. Trump successfully negotiated the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and some Arab states, but those are in tatters now. In light of these performances, Harris and Trump both receive a minus  2.

China and Asia

The vaunted “pivot to Asia” during the Obama Administration has become a circular pirouette during the Biden administration. Its concentration on Ukraine and Israel has led it to ignore crises in East Asia that directly threaten important Pacific Rim nations. China has effectively annexed the South China Sea in violation of international law and is now regularly challenging Philippine control of its seas. Meanwhile, Xi Jin-peng threatens Taiwan, which is only now starting to ramp up its defenses.  

A Chinese attempt to take over Taiwan would have severe economic and geopolitical consequences for the world.  Nevertheless, it would be impractical and possibly disastrous for the US to stop a military invasion. It is more likely that China would simply try to strangle the island with various levels of blockades.  The American people need to be prepared for the tariffs and other sacrifices that may be required to impress upon the Chinese leadership the costs to China of a forcible takeover.  We will need the support of East Asian nations in this effort. President Biden’s support of Israel has made this more difficult in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country that straddles key shipping lanes. Trump led the way in raising alarms about China’s rise during his administration while Harris’s approach is unknown. Thus, Trump receives a plus 1 on this issue and Harris gets a zero.

Conclusion

American foreign policy will succeed in the present and future multipolar world only if it is clear, flexible and based on realist international theory.  Donald Trump seems to understand the need to change our current unipolar and interventionist approach while Kamala Harris will likely continue it in some form.  It is time for an American president with Theodore Roosevelt’s courage and vision and who will lead the transition to a foreign policy that effectively serves the American people and, in the end, the rest of the world as well.    

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Ethnic Nationalism and the Gods of Blood and Soil

Bob Claude |

I am insisting on nationalism against internationalism.

Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Sen. Albert Beveridge

Theodore Roosevelt lived during the last great era of European nation-building of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He saw Germany and Italy transformed from small city-states and kingdoms into strong unified states, while the Austrian – Hungarian Empire was broken apart by ethnic tensions. These movements were driven by the most basic form of nationalism – the concept that peoples with the same ethnic heritage and common geography should constitute a distinct and separate nation-state within those geographic boundaries. He then saw how the resulting national unity created powerful and successful states, though sometimes with tragic consequences.

Ethnic nationalism continued to be a primary driver of international relations through the 20th century and past the millennium. The nations of the Global South freed from colonialism after World War II cherished their own past history and native lands and are committed to building their national sovereignty and economic power (see this previous post).  Russian expansionism is based on a combination of pan-Slavic identity, religious superiority, and a sense of victimhood. Chinese nationalism has always rested on the inherent superiority of the Han Chinese based on their millennia of history and now the ideological call of Maoist communism. In his book “When China Rules the World”, longtime China expert Martin Jacques described the myth of Han Chinese superiority and maintained that the Chinese may very well be the most racist people in the world. Even the vaunted European Union is beginning to fracture due to nationalist movements within its membership.

History has illustrated the benefits and dangers of ethnic nationalism. It prioritizes national unity and a sense of community over short- term efficiency, thus making those nations more resilient in the face of domestic and foreign challenges (see this post on the importance of resilience). Its call to community service promotes selflessness over personal economic equality. This sense of community, however, is often confined to the primary ethnic group and can quickly descend into claims of racial superiority. Excluded minorities often fall back on the own national histories, resulting in internal division, mass emigration, or civil war and thus destroying the solidarity nationalism is supposed to foster. Racial nationalism also can lead to fascist expansionism. The most notorious example is still that of Nazi Germany, whose call to “Blood and Soil” was used to justify some of the worst brutality in history.

Roosevelt’s American nationalism sprung from love of his land and the history of its people, tested by the Civil War and its call to save the Union. His love of the American landscape spurred his drive for conservation. The man who invited Booker T. Washington to dine with him at the White House, appointed the first Jewish cabinet member and fought for direct presidential primaries demonstrated by his actions that our history of democracy and human rights was his paramount value. Unfortunately, this love of America sometimes expressed itself in a belief in Anglo-Saxon or “English” racial superiority.  In his book “The Winning of the West”, he wrote that the pioneering of the American West was part of the triumphant spread of “the English-speaking peoples “and ranked it with the rise of Germanic and other races. This reflected a common belief among the elite of his time that racial characteristics shaped history, which itself may have been inspired by the nationalist movements of Europe.

Nevertheless, ethnic nationalism is the most common national ideology in the world and thus a reality Americans must deal with. The sense of community and national resilience it creates gives those nations real power that supports their sovereignty and unity. However, in a multi-ethnic nation like the US, this form of nationalism is more likely to be divisive than unifying.  TR knew this and became the champion of a nationalism tailored to our unique American history and values.

Next in the series: Progressive Nationalism and the Goals of Community and Opportunity

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Corporate Globalism and the God of Efficiency

Bob Claude |

We all have heard of Adam Smith and his theory of the invisible hand of the free market. Few know the name of David Ricardo, a nineteenth century British economist who developed the theory of comparative advantage that is the basis of the current system of international trade. It has since morphed from a mere economic theory to an ideology used to justify corporate and elitist power. It’s fixation on efficiency has shamelessly fueled inequality and ignores its own weaknesses in explaining the real world of today’s economy.

Ricardo’s theory posited that countries should specialize in producing goods in which they have a comparative advantage in either labor, capital or land costs. The classic example is a difference in labor costs. If a country could produce a good at a lower cost because of lower wages, then other countries should trade with that country for good and concentrate on producing others. When countries specialize based on comparative advantage, global production increases, leading to more efficient resource allocation and lower consumer prices.

Comparative advantage formed the basis of the growth of international trade over the last decades of the 20th century. However, it remained only an economic theory until New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman began championing the process in a series of books that quickly became the gospel of corporate globalism. In his book “The World is Flat”, Friedman regaled his readers with how Asians were lifting themselves out of poverty by performing low wage jobs in the new “flat” world of free trade. At the same time, he unwittingly demonstrated the dangers of this trend when he told the story of New London, Connecticut, and its transformation in the new world. An economy once based on shipbuilding and defense work declined to become a gambling mecca with a small elite pharmaceutical research center. Friedman celebrated this decline in an eerie echo of Ayn Rand when he wrote

Change is hardest on those caught by surprise. Change is hardest on those who have difficulty changing too. But change is natural; change is not new; change is important. Work gets done where it can be done most effectively and efficiently. That ultimately helps the New Londons, New Bedfords and New Yorks of this world even more than it helps the Bangalores and Shenzhens.

Here are the tenets of corporate globalism for all to see,  The American Dream, national strength, and family income security are all offered in sacrifice to the god of corporate efficiency and income. Indeed, Friedman said it should be a primary goal of public policy to foster this trend and improve the lives of everyone around the world, despite the impact on its own citizens and national security. 

In the process, Friedman and corporate globalists glossed over the real world weaknesses of this socioeconomic model. First, it assumes markets are in perfect competition and there are no trade barriers, a practical impossibility in a world distorted by the mercantilism of Chinese and other countries. Comparative advantage also assumes that externalities such as environmental pollution are confined to the country that elects to endure them. Carbon emissions know no such boundaries and so developing countries and China can power their economies with coal while exporting the climate costs to the rest of the world. 

A more recent economic theory highlights the real hypocrisy of corporate globalism.  Known as the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, it admits that comparative advantage increases national wealth and efficiency but shows that the benefits of this wealth flow mainly to holders of capital and land at the expense of labor, especially in developed countries.  Hence, corporate elites have an economic incentive to promote international trade at the expense of wage earners.  They then can exploit national differences in taxation and regulation to further enrich themselves.   

As Theodore Roosevelt pointed out, corporate greed and power can be as much of a threat to freedom as the government. In a world of multinational corporations often subsidized by foreign states, it is an even bigger threat.  National governments are often a more effective check on this power than the imperfect market of international trade. In the late nineteenth century, contemporaries of Ricardo (and Roosevelt) tried to address these problems with globalist methods that, in the end, failed and ended up creating new methods of exploitation instead.  

Next: Socialist globalism and the god of equality