Last time we noted the obvious: America is the center of the world, but the gravity that maintains that eminence is slipping by the day. It seems that every moments the bastions of anti-American hegemony increase in strength, in ardor, in fury, and in loudness. The causes of this are many but most revolve around the various kinds of self-imposed degeneracy and delusion that has permeated the culture and poisoned the ruling elite. Having recognized that American hegemony, as it is now, is on its way out let’s look approach an alternative, beginning with the lay of the land.
For starters we must recognize that an America whose hegemony is broken does not cease to be America. Even a hypothetically divided America remains a geopolitical powerhouse. It will dominate the Mississippi River and remain the de facto premier trade partner for the Caribbean, Canada, and Mexico. Even if, hypothetically, America was divided into its constituent states, certain states will retain their own enormous power and economic capability. We can talk about the world after American hegemony, but we cannot talk about a world absent of American power. Any new American foreign policy must take this into account.
Second, we must realize that a principle force eroding America’s geopolitical power is its cultural degeneracy. American universalism remains the single most powerful culture the world has ever seen but it must be cured of its many deficiencies before the foreign policy can be effectively aligned with its geopolitical objectives.
This takes us to the third point: What does a healthier American foreign policy look like? How does it act?
A new American foreign policy must completely shift its frame. The current frame is that of domination or destruction. What we can control, we maintain and support, though we also stymie its growth. What eludes our control or threatens our dominance we destroy, utterly and without mercy. No challengers can be had. America must maintain the monopoly on power via interventionism and economic warfare. And all this is calculated from the framework of zero-sum gains and losses. We either win it all, or lose it all, and act accordingly.
The results in foreign nations of this frame are self-evident. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Serbia, the Ukraine. All these countries are in ruins, either physical or institutional. Even the subservient nations acquired successful by American policy, like Croatia, Poland, the Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, and Panama are hardly worthy allies, but vassals dominated from afar, carefully kept economically undeveloped (Poland, Mexico, Croatia) or left mired in political instability (Thailand, Mexico, the Philippines). The few American allies that have grown have succeeded in spite of American support, not because of it, like we see South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. And all of them are tossed aside as soon as the gains of supporting them outweigh the overt costs (as we see in the betrayal of the Kuomintang of China by America during the Chinese civil war).
It doesn’t have to be this way. America is a uniquely productive nation, combining settler ruggedness and an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if the American spirit has died among the great mass of the population all the foundation remains. A shift in frame could easily recapture the spark that propelled America towards amazing economic growth. Such a cultural shift would be used doubly: To put America back on the path towards economic growth and entrepreneurship while offering mutually beneficial commercial opportunities in the Western hemisphere. The reality of the situation is that no country can produce economic growth in Cuba, in Mexico, in Colombia, or in Venezuela like America can. They need only change their frame and purge their destructive behaviors and ambitions in order to attain entry into a market that could be theirs. The Western Hemisphere is eagerly awaiting a more benevolent America, if only it would step up to the mantle and claim its place as the rightful economic leaders of the New World.
Nor would a healthy American foreign policy deny the world at large. Denying Neoconservative interventionism does not, after all, mean embracing Ron Paul Libertarianism. A multipolar world would be characterized by its own immense difficulties. A rising China is bound to be pushier and more aggressive in the South China Sea. Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, and Japan are none to eager to join a China dominated Pacific. America has a role to play a mediator and bastion around which a Pacific alliance of non-Chinese intent forms. This is a natural role for America to take and can allow the country to maintain strength, though not hegemony, without needing to police the whole of the Pacific. The Australian, Indonesian, and Japanese navies are more than capable on their own, and American assistance can serve as benevolent supplementary force rather than cruel overlord in the area. Each of these major Pacific nations have already expressed interest in allying with America specifically for this purpose if only America would loosen its grip and universalism. It is strange to see, but a Communist Vietnam welcomes American influence as long as America promises not to destroy Vietnam once again.
In Europe too there are opportunities for American influence but not dominance. America has steadily estranged itself from France, Spain, Greece, and Germany through aggressive anti-Russian measures in the Ukraine. The Germans, economically and politically dominant in Europe, know the intent of American measures and find themselves increasingly unwilling to pay the price. By all accounts America’s strategy of sucking Russia into an aggressive, boots-on-the-ground war in the Ukraine has failed. This means that, so far, the American attempt to lock Europe into its sphere through a revival of NATO and an increase in military spending has failed also, but none of these measures have failed to force a high price on Europe. Consider ‘freedom apples’ in Poland. Nor are American allies in Europe particularly worthy. The Poles, though graciously accepting and encouraging American support now, have not forgotten the betrayals of erstwhile ‘allies’ in the past, nor have the Lithuanians who have been reduced to a shadow of their historical selves. These are hardly trustworthy long term allies especially against a Russia against whom they cannot protect.
Yet all of these European nations would welcome the enormous power of American foreign investment and restrained military support from a distance. That of course requires America to give up hegemony, to give up dictations in law and treaty, and to embrace partnership and construction rather than domination and destruction.
The Middle East is shaped by similar considerations. Turkey and Iran both jockey for power, amidst controversial Israel in the West and a pale Saudi Arabia in the south. While it is beneficial for American dominance to have these nations jockeying amongst themselves, it is not an effective long term strategy. After all, America cannot forever support the enormous cost that comes with forcing hundreds of millions of people to compete according to their whims. And the Middle East is changing. Iran is slowly but surely attaching themselves to the Eurasianist camp. Turkey senses shifting winds and have moved to embrace the Turk Stream pipeline. Both Syria and Armenia are already aligned with Russia, with Armenia being a member of the EEU and Syria seeking future membership. Meanwhile Iraq will attach itself diplomatically to Iran should ISIS be eliminated. There is already a de facto stabilization occurring, one country at a time. If America insists on bleeding its coffers in the hot sun of the Middle East it can do so but will attain increasingly less success.
Even American allies there are turning aside. As Israel becomes increasingly polarized so too does AIPAC. Egypt without Mubarak is not a dependable American ally, as we see with its consorting with Russia. And Saudi Arabia, having seen how their American ‘friends’ abandoned Mubarak to his fate, are none too happy about the path the Middle East is set upon. Time is against them. Even if America could maintain their dominating power in the region they would be faced with diminishing returns and a tide dead set against them.
Every major region is experiencing a pushback against American domination and by extension American culture. It doesn’t have to be this way. If America were to take a more restrained approach it could reap enormous benefits. America could carefully pullback from Japan, encouraging a more assertive and nationalistic Japanese state to counter China. Shinzo Abe has certainly shown himself willing to take up that mantle. Absent of American influence Germany’s strength over Europe would begin to slip and America could pursue greater dealings with each one individually. Construction investment in Cyprus will do more to counter Russian influence than subordination to the EU would over the long term.
America can maintain itself as the worlds eminent power, but only by changing its frame. Today America is being poisoned internally by a dying, hedonistic culture and externally challenged by rising powers. These powers have been enabled by America’s foreign policy overreaches and frightening use of intervention. A retraction of this policy would drive half the world into America’s open arms. After all, would you rather work with ultra-alien Chinese, or the pleasant and industrious American? The answer is obvious. A new American foreign policy must embrace this perception and change its frame.
It must not leave a trail of destroyed, dominated vassals but a trail of creative, freely associating allies. There is no worse enemy than America and, should the American elite choose it, there may be no better friend than America.
I am skeptical of the notion that the Islamic State will be defeated soundly. It is a far more potent force than Al Qaeda in Iraq ever was and its growing confidence in acts of foreign terrorism are a sign of widening appeal. It certainly doesn’t help that the massacres committed by enraged Shiite militias against Sunnis are turning the Sunni tribes into the arms of the Islamic State, these very same forces that were so critical to the victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Syria is of course a mess, with new reports that Al Nusra front is experiencing something of a resurrection after a string of defeats.
But Iran doesn’t necessarily need to defeat ISIS. In fact, they may want to keep it going, since it presents a bigger threat to countries with Sunni majorities (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan) all enemies of Iran, than it does Iran itself. Perhaps Syria is a worthwhile sacrifice to these ends, so long as they can keep Lebanon as a forward operating base, which is of course essential.
Yemen is also going to be critical to Middle East policy. Why do I get the sense we’re going to see some Western intervention there very soon, embroiling us in a sectarian hellhole between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Not that I really care too much. Giving sound foreign policy advice to a Modernist America in order to prolong its hegemony in the world is not high on my list of priorities.
Hi Mark,
ISIS isn’t inflicting acts of foreign terrorism. Do your research into the suspected cases and the most you get is ‘inspiration’. Everything else is a dud and fearmongering. And yes, the Shiite lack of discipline is causing trouble but that doesn’t make ISIS any better. The Sunni clans revile being ruled by yet a new class of foreigners, this time pseudo-Sunni Wahhabis who’ve never even read the Quran. And no, these Wahhabis can’t fight for the life of them. Compare that to the Shiite militia, trained by the formidable Iranian infantry and there is no comparison. Their continued survival is enabled by American logistical and informational support, which I’ll have to post on in the future to substantiate.
Yemen is also very important, great that you noticed that. People forget about it but its a massive anti-Saudi hole that drives them crazy. The Anti-American rebels have finally weakened the American-backed president to the point that open rebellion is in the air and the Saudis have begun bombing. Its a very important place.
Rest assured, America won’t be taking my advice. If they were capable of that they wouldn’t have all the problems that they do. But its important that we, as the future of the West, have conceptions of what a healthy foreign policy looks like.
Do you suspect the Islamic State headquarters in Iraq and Syria do not have contact /provide logistical support to the affiliate in Libya which is causing chaos? The Tunisian link is suspect, but their ties to Libyan Jihadists seem concrete from what I have seen, especially the co-ordination of media propaganda operations.
I absolutely think they have affiliates in Libya, especially in Benghazi. But here’s the thing: The Benghazi militants are American tools. They’ve been American tools since the beginning of the anti-Gaddafi revolution, which was coordinated and supported by the Americans, and for which there is ample proof. Furthermore the Benghazi militants have no interest in expressly subordinating themselves with ISIS, only working tangentially with them.
It adds to my not taking ISIS seriously. All the so-called ISIS connections just show their nature as American-backed tools with limited independence.
Keep in mind that the Libyan civil war has not ended either and the remnants of the Green Army remain at work with the various tribes which control much of Western Libya.
“By all accounts America’s strategy of sucking Russia into an aggressive, boots-on-the-ground war in the Ukraine has failed.”
By all serious accounts, that’s what we have. But it hasn’t worked out well.
I’ve dealt with the Novorossiyan situation plenty at my blog over at ahousewithnochild.wordpress.com. You’ll find dozens of posts giving detailed analyses of the situation there.
There is no evidence that there are Russian troops in the Ukraine, as the Germans, OSCE, and everyone else has demonstrated. The only ones who continue making such claims are the Joke Ukrainian Government (and not all of it at that) and the Americans, neither of which have ever provided definitive evidence despite the availability of overhead satellites and videocameras in the region.
There is ample evidence of Voentorg, or Russian logistical support, but that’s not the same thing. You’d know if the Russians did put their boots on the ground in the Ukraine because that fighting would be over in twenty four hours.
“After all, would you rather work with ultra-alien Chinese, or the pleasant and industrious American? The answer is obvious.”
It’s at this point I disagree and that’s why I think the situation is completely hopeless. America likes to think it has some innate appeal, but it has found allies only by systemically co-opting or subverting the ruling class of other countries. The average foreigner watching American TV shows or Hollywood movies might have a benign view of America, but the ruling classes do not. They know what American power really looks like. If they’re an ally, they know where their own power comes from, and its limitations. They know how stifling American hegemony is.
The fact that nobody in Western-aligned countries can ever say anything that might offend American sensibilities is telling. For example, Japan can’t openly discuss its demographic crisis except in terms of pouring more feminism onto the fire. Surely every Japanese leader has considered that the foreign system of family law imposed by the occupation government might be to blame, even if he can’t say it out loud, and he’s probably taken the further logical step of thinking about why he can’t say it out loud. What could the US even do to back off here? Only a radical break with liberalism can solve Japan’s crisis. This is an existential threat and yet it cannot be dealt with except by leaving the US sphere of influence.
That’s the basic flaw in most analyses of the transition from American to Chinese hegemony: it’s assumed that people would prefer America, if only it’d stop acting like America. But an America that doesn’t get to loudly tell others what to do while maintaining little capability or desire to understand their culture or the problems they face is no America at all. There are inherent limitations to American ideology and it can only engage other countries in this crude and belligerent way. China, on the other hand, plays a different game entirely, and both the American and European leadership are ideologically (and perhaps culturally) blind to it.
What you’re calling for necessitates the transformation of America into anti-America. But America is never going to change in this respect and, without military and economic supremacy, it will suffer a much more substantial loss of global influence than anyone now suspects and much more quickly than anyone now imagines. The developed countries all have problems that can only be solved by leaving the American sphere of influence, it’s just a question of who breaks first. The developing countries don’t want what America is selling now there’s an alternative source of investment with (seemingly) no strings. Besides, there’s already an anti-America and its name is China.
I agree with you on most accounts, actually. My above post is more of a comparison between the American spirit in ideal versus the classic Hamiltonian American policy in practice. In practice, all America only wants to control. But in ideal they want to create. Could the ideal American spirit dominate the state? Hypothetically, yes, but it would mean a de facto purging of large portions of the ruling classes.
I think America is locked into its journey of decline. There is neither the will no the vision to see past the futility of the current path which will lead to a collapse (as they intend) but not to a restoration of power (due to their delusions). I don’t think the Asians will be so quick to jump on board with China, as both Japan, Indonesia, and Australia see themselves as viable counterweights, especially if they work together. But that’s besides the point.
Anti-America though is not China. China is not the great entrepreneurial nation. China is the nation of cuthroat business. People tolerate China because they have money and mind their own business, but nobody really likes them. On the other hand, people love America in ideal, I’ve seen it again and again.
But yes, as said before, I would bet against America putting its good qualities to good use. For them the way down is the future.
“should the American elite choose it”
Perhaps I missed something, but what makes you think the dysgenic, degenerate idiocracy goes anywhere?
You are proposing a foreign policy for who exactly? All policy certainly foreign will be determined by who’s in charge, I daresay the Victors. Absent conflict the Boss today is the Boss tomorrow.
The American elite are not a mere idiocracy but a talented and intelligent group that has sustained American hegemony for decades. Absolutely degenerate though.
Those amenable to shifting their position should understand that there are other options, and that it is the current FP that is leading America to a premature decline.