© Joshua Roberts / Reuters
Yesterday the White House published a new
National Security Strategy (pdf). The publication was, unusually,
announced by the president in a stump speech. The new NSS is
unusually long:
Reagan National Security Strategy was 41 pages, Bush 2002 was 31, Obama 2015 was 29. Trump's is 55 pages: Buffet of priorities without much prioritization.
The first "fundamental responsibility" the NSS sets out is:
... to protect the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life ...
Micah Zenko
points out that does not really do that:
[A]lmost nothing in the ... document deals with the actual domestic threats, risks, and systemic harms that Americans experience every day.
...
The Trump NSS ... mentions terrorists 58 times, and pledges to "defeat jihadist terrorists," just as all previous NSS documents have done since 9/11. Over the past 16-plus years, jihadis have killed 103 Americans within the United States, while right-wing terrorists have killed 68. During that same time period, drug-induced deaths have more than tripled, with over 59,000 Americans dying in 2016, while America's suicide rate has risen by 25 percent, resulting in 43,000 deaths annually.
...
The Trump administration's NSS fails to do what it claims - protect Americans - largely because it does not address the real threats and risks faced by Americans. It might be an "America First" foreign policy, as the president contends, but it does not put Americans themselves first.
While it touches lots of foreign policy issues, the emphasis of the new NSS is
more realist than the - on paper - more idealistic version of Obama's imperial strategy. There is less schmoozing about "values" and a new emphasis on "rivals", most importantly China and Russia.
Labeling those two countries as rivals
implies that they are again seen on a similar level than the U.S. itself. It thus marks the end of the "unilateral moment" moment that the U.S. felt entitled to after the end of the Soviet Union. Sure, the U.S. is still trying to set itself apart from others. It just ridiculously
vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that reaffirmed the occupied status of Jerusalem. But voting against all other members of the UNSC, including close allies like Britain, is not a sign of global leadership but of a pariah state.
That the "unilateral moment" has passed might have some very positive aspects for the world. The end of a global competition had allowed the U.S. to
wage more wars:
[W]hile the United States engaged in forty-six military interventions from 1948-1991, from 1992-2017 that number increased fourfold to 188.
The interventions after 1991 occurred even while the U.S. had lost the ideological rationale of "countering communism" and while the chance of military operations against itself was smaller than before. Moreover many of these interventions were not successful. Other states have found means to counter overwhelming military might.
The unchecked United States felt no necessity to weight potential responses from competitors. It did not show a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind". It proved itself to be a danger to global peace.
It intervened because it could, not because there was a real national interest at stake, or even a decent chance of winning. The "unilateral moment" has cost the U.S. a lot of money and good will, and it brought little gain.A rational U.S. strategy would recognize that the unilateral approach failed and thus emphasize other means. Real global cooperation and increasing economic and diplomatic power would likely be more successful than military might.
The new National Security Strategy does not do that. While it says it "will advance American influence" it ignores or rejects climate change and international "rules of the road", like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Trump administration in putting more resources into the military and less into diplomatic and economic foreign policy measures. It is thereby, true to Trump's campaign stance, isolationist.
One can either have an overwhelming role or finesse one's influence through cooperation with others. The overwhelming role, demonstrated by military interventions, has not been successful.
The cooperation approach is spelled out in the words of the NSS but rejected in its specific policies. The third way it is paving is one of isolation.
As a global citizen I welcome this development. A U.S. that again feels limited in its global reach will likely be more careful when it considers initiating new conflicts. It will do less damage to others and to itself.
Comment: The "
four pillars" as defined by the document: protect the homeland, promote U.S. prosperity, peace through strength, advancing U.S. influence.
The White House has described the strategy as "principled realism" because it "acknowledges the central role of power in international politics, affirms that strong and sovereign states are the best hope for a peaceful world, and clearly defines our national interests," but also "grounded in advancing American principles, which spreads peace and prosperity around the globe."
The biggest threats? Russia and China, who seek to "shape a world antithetical to our interests and values":
In the actual speech, Trump called China and Russia "rival powers" that "challenge American influence, values and wealth," but said that he was planning to work with them while putting American interests first.
Next on the list are regional "dictators that spread terror, threaten their neighbors, and pursue weapons of mass destruction" followed by "jihadist terrorists" and transnational criminal organizations.
To protect the US, Trump will "target threats at their source" and "confront threats before they ever reach our borders."
State Senator Richard Black is skeptical, believing Trump has reversed on his campaign promises and caved in to the war hawks. He
told RT:
"I believe the 'Deep State' actors rushed this National Security Review to completion in order to use it as a tool to dominate the foreign policy of President Trump," the senator told RT. "I believe that President Trump views Russia and China as economic competitors - not as enemies," he added.
At the same time the document "drastically reverses Donald Trump's campaign promises to normalize relations with Russia, work with the Syrian government, limit US involvement to defeating ISIS [Islamic State, IS], and downplaying our relations with NATO."
Russian MPs have
responded with statements like these:
"The US national security strategy is aimed exclusively at the restoration of American hegemony and the line for building a monopolar world" -- head of the lower house committee for international relations, MP Leonid Slutsky (LDPR)
"The tone of this document leaves no doubt about the fact that the United States is not content with the changes that have taken place in the world over the past years and that it intends to reverse these changes and restore the latest version of Pax Americana as a supposedly-just new world order. What the US means by stability is its control over the domestic and foreign policy of other nations" -- head of the upper house foreign affairs committee, Senator Konstantin Kosachev
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying
responded:
"We urge the United States to stop deliberately distorting China's strategic intentions, and abandon outdated concepts such as a Cold War mentality and a zero-sum game, otherwise it will only harm everyone," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, the Chinese embassy in the US said it is "completely selfish" for Washington to put its interest above others, warning that such an approach "will only lead to isolation." The Chinese mission also accused the US of "self-contradictory rhetoric" that diminishes the countries' cooperation.
"On the one hand, the US government claims that it is attempting to build a great partnership with China. On the other hand, it labels China as a rival. The self-contradictory rhetoric of the US betrays the truth that China and the US are becoming increasingly interdependent and have growing intertwined interests," the embassy said in a statement.
"For China and the United States, cooperation leads to win-win outcomes, while confrontation can only lead to a lose-lose situation," the diplomatic mission added, calling the US "to abandon its outdated zero-sum thinking" and "engage in win-win cooperation."
And the
Kremlin:
"Looking through [the strategy], particularly those parts concerning our country, one can see the imperial nature of the document, as well as persistent unwillingness to abandon the idea of a unipolar world and accept a multipolar world," he said. Peskov stressed that Moscow strongly disagrees with Washington's stance towards Russia expressed in the document, which designates the country as a threat to US security. And yet, there are some positive signs too.
"[The strategy] has some positive moments, particularly those regarding cooperation with Russia in fields corresponding to the US interests. It is totally in line with our approach, voiced by [President Putin], because Moscow is also seeking cooperation with the United States in areas which are beneficial for us, and depending on how far our US counterparts are ready to go," President Vladimir Putin's press secretary said. When asked about "a perfect example of US-Russia cooperation," Peskov mentioned the recent exchange of information between the two countries' special services, which made it possible to thwart terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg and "helped save many lives."
The new US national security strategy is a long document with "rather impressive" wording "which needs to be thoroughly assessed" by relevant Russian agencies, the presidential spokesman said.
...
While China allegedly "seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor," Russia seeks to "restore its great power status and establish spheres of influence near its borders. The intentions of both nations are not necessarily fixed," the document added.
Overall, there are some slight shifts in the right direction here (seeing Russian and China as rivals, not simply enemy threats, with the camouflaged olive branch of cooperation in some spheres), wrapped in the clothes of "more of the same". American exceptionalism lite, perhaps? See also:
Comment: The "four pillars" as defined by the document: protect the homeland, promote U.S. prosperity, peace through strength, advancing U.S. influence. The biggest threats? Russia and China, who seek to "shape a world antithetical to our interests and values": State Senator Richard Black is skeptical, believing Trump has reversed on his campaign promises and caved in to the war hawks. He told RT: Russian MPs have responded with statements like these: Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Hua Chunying responded: And the Kremlin: Overall, there are some slight shifts in the right direction here (seeing Russian and China as rivals, not simply enemy threats, with the camouflaged olive branch of cooperation in some spheres), wrapped in the clothes of "more of the same". American exceptionalism lite, perhaps? See also: