The "American Century" is ending.
The United States is giving up global leadership. Amid talk of confronting China, we are turning the world over to them.
After World War One the United States failed to join the League of Nations. After World War Two we changed our minds. The United Nations was headquartered in New York City, with specialized agencies and programs for common action in agriculture, education, refugee health, trade negotiations, and weapons control. We led in establishing NATO, the Organization of American States and other regional alliances. The operating theory--adopted by both parties and all presidents since 1945-- was that the world that cooperated with each other might avoid yet another world war.
The US got many benefits out of this arrangement, but the economic globalism it facilitated (free trade and investment, plus open immigration policies) meant that manufacturing moved offshore, to the detriment of the non-college American worker. Everyone noticed it; Trump took political advantage of it, with a populist, anti-globalist message in the campaign, and in actual governance.
Jeffrey Laurenti |
We are experiencing what that means. Trump has been ineffective as a legislator, but very effective in changing the American role in the world in those areas where a President can act on his own.
Jeffrey Laurenti is a college classmate, did graduate work at Princeton, and then had a long career as a foreign policy expert, advising governments in his policy work with the United Nations Association of the United States, the United Nations Foundation, and the Century Foundation. I asked him to tell me what Trump's fight with China meant, expecting something about electoral politics. He answered with something about America's place in the world.
Guest Post by Jeffrey Laurenti
"China, public health, and the domino theory in 2020"
Protests and disorders across the United States this weekend have distracted Americans’ attention from the Covid-19 pandemic raging worldwide, much less the Trump administration’s latest salvo in its escalating conflict with China.
For those who have put it out of their minds, the issue most insistently demanding Washington’s attention last week was China’s move to subject Hong Kong to the same repressive “national security” discipline that the Communist Party has imposed on China for seven decades. Late Friday President Trump announced steps he would take to penalize Hong Kong’s economy when China’s law takes effect.
Puzzlingly, Trump simultaneously announced U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization. How this reinforces his punishment of China is not obvious, but what is clear is that derailing the only global health agency will not help the United States, Europe, Latin America, or the rest of the world end the coronavirus pandemic.
In early May, when he first trained his sights on the W.H.O. as a target of his wrath, Trump announced he had formed a review panel to report back in 60 to 90 days on problems at the Geneva-based agency. In his declaration about cutting all U.S. ties to W.H.O. a few weeks later, there was no mention of this review panel or any “work” it may have done to justify U.S. withdrawal. Nor was there any hint of what is to become of the American health experts who work at the agency once Washington walks away.
The W.H.O. has relied heavily on the medical and scientific expertise of America’s public health community in all its great campaigns, from eliminating smallpox to curtailing smoking to containing AIDS and Ebola virus. But after the abysmal failure of the United States in dealing with Covid-19 – despite months of public health warnings, it is now #1 in the world in infections, boasting over 30 percent of Covid deaths worldwide -- the rest of the world can only see the United States as a model to avoid.
Indeed, if the Trump administration’s concern is about contesting Chinese influence over the global health agenda, abandoning the U.N. agency that guides most nations' public health policies can only seal Beijing's dominance. But the president and his team seem oblivious to the role all the agencies of the United Nations play in forging common policies that nations seek to apply as best they can. Like flies trapped in amber, they seem frozen in the 1950s paranoia of the old John Birch Society that hallucinated about Soviet subjugation of America through the U.N. and international law.
So on Trump's watch the United States has so far withdrawn from UNESCO, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the W.H.O. It has abandoned the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, the Open Skies treaty, the Iran nuclear rollback pact, and (imminently) the New START nuclear arsenal caps. It has eliminated the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement machinery. And, of course, it has denounced the Paris climate accord.
That's a quite stunning record of achievement in just one term. Imagine the dominoes yet to fall to achieve the dream of restoring the world order of 1914.
3 comments:
“US Hegemony has Little to do with the UN”
American “retreat and decline”? The reality is just the opposite. The Trump administration is in an unnerving and escalating global power acquisition, not retreat.
I am delighted that after shucking the obligatory anti-Trump rhetoric Jeff still offers a compelling and only slightly Pollyannaish critique of global Trump power. The United Nations Association is kind of a think tank on U.S. potentials in the UN, and expectedly tilts toward the idealistic. In summary response to Jeff’s thesis, mine is this: The US could pull out of the UN tomorrow, expel its entire diplomatic corps from Manhattan, and the result would be a significant increase—not decrease-- in US global diplomatic, economic and military power. Trump is kicking to the curb, for now, the WHO and other UN bodies because China has so thoroughly corrupted and manipulated them that China’s power is diminished if we don’t let them wield our money and staff. We are the USA, we aren’t just another vote at the WHO. Our money talks bigtime at the UN, and our money is our main power there. American, Russian and Chinese “normative values”, or the fiction thereof, no longer hold any sway at the UN. Only money and threats of military adventurism do.
The UN consists of four parts: The security council reserved exclusively for superpowers, the Secretariat that runs the bureaucracy, the General Assembly that dances for, begs, borrows and steals the superpowers’ money, and the independent/quasi-independent organizations (“IOs”) like the World Health Organization, World Food Programme, International Civil Aviation Organization, UNICEF, UNESCO etc. On top of these UN bodies, there are the “banks” like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and regional “development banks” in Africa, Asia, Latin America, etc. These IOs and banks are where China, Russia and the US buy influence and soft power with deals and bribes. It is where we three manipulate data and censor reports on science, medicine, technology, and even historical accounts through cronyism and corrupt practices. We don’t need the WHO or other UN “health and welfare” agencies , nor does China. That’s why, as Jeff says, the WHO “has relied heavily on the medical and scientific expertise of America”. Every one of those IO’s and banks relies on America’s money and technical expertise.
I have handled whistleblower corruption cases and reform campaigns against most of those UN IOs and international banks. The UN is where superpowers surrender power and autonomy, not where they acquire it. It where most other nations from the teetering EU to the Democratic Republic of the Congo thereby get some power they otherwise wouldn’t have or would have lost even earlier. If Trump and the US want to run roughshod over the world, to literally do whatever we want to 90% of the world’s nations and resources, then that imperialism would advanced by disbanding the U.N. and carving the world up between the US, China and Russia.
So the US is “giving up global leadership” and “turning the world over to China”? Not a chance. We are offloading superfluous “moral leadership”, sham humanitarianism, and make-work jobs for the thousands of UN “diplomats”. Just as with his quest for authoritarianism at home, he now consolidates and expands his global power. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are now in their comfort zones. The UN is becoming one of their lesser stages.
Fascinating comment, Mr Guyer.
Interestingly, China, Russia, and the US, together with the UK, are the countries which have handled this pandemic the most poorly.
I’ve been convinced by Niall Ferguson that China and the US are engaged in Cold War 2.0. Is Russia the wild card?
Thad,
I totally agree with your comments about the United Nations. I have a vague feeling that I might be falling for some sort of satire or sarcasm, but you did a great job of expressing how I feel about the UN.
Post a Comment