US foreign policy is based on an inherent contradiction and fatal flaw. The aim of US foreign policy is a US-dominated world, in which the US writes the global trade and financial rules, controls advanced technologies, maintains militarily supremacy and dominates all potential competitors. Unless US foreign policy is changed to recognize the need for a multipolar world, it could lead to more wars and possibly World War III.
The inherent contradiction in US foreign policy is that it conflicts with the UN Charter, which commits the US — and all other UN member states — to a global system based on UN institutions in which no single country dominates.
The fatal flaw is that the US comprises just 4 percent of the world’s population, and lacks the economic, financial, military and technological capacities, much less the ethical and legal claims, to dominate the other 96 percent.
At the end of World War II, the US was far ahead of the rest of the world in economic, technological and military power. This is no longer the case, as many countries have built their economies and technological capacities.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke the truth when he said that the EU, although an ally, does not want to be a vassal of the US. He was widely attacked in the US and Europe for uttering this statement, because many mediocre politicians in Europe depend on US political support to stay in power.
In 2015, former US ambassador and deputy national security adviser Robert Blackwill described the US’ grand strategy with exceptional clarity.
“Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally,” he wrote.
“Preserving US primacy in the global system ought to remain the central objective of US grand strategy in the twenty-first century,” he added.
To sustain US primacy vis-a-vis China, Blackwill laid out a game plan that US President Joe Biden is following.
Among other measures, Blackwill called on the US to create “new preferential trading arrangements among US friends and allies to increase their mutual gains through instruments that consciously exclude China,” “a technology-control regime” to block China’s strategic capabilities, a buildup of “power-political capacities of US friends and allies on China’s periphery” and strengthened US military forces along the Asian rimlands despite Chinese opposition.
Most politicians in Australia, the EU, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, the UK and the US support the US’ aggressive approach. I do not. I view the US approach to China as contrary to the UN Charter and peace.
China has the right to prosperity and national security, free from US provocations around its borders. China’s remarkable economic accomplishments since the late 1970s are wonderful for China and the world.
During the century from 1839 to 1949, China was driven into extreme poverty in a period marked by European and Japanese invasions, and civil wars. Britain invaded in 1839 to force China to buy its addictive opium. Other powers piled on during the following century. China has finally recovered from that disastrous period, and has ended the poverty of about 1 billion people.
China’s new prosperity can be peaceful and productive for the world. Its successful technologies — ranging from vital cures for malaria to low-cost solar power and efficient 5G networks — can be a boon for the world.
China would only be a threat to the extent that the US makes China an enemy. US hostility to China, which mixes an arrogant US aim of dominance with long-standing anti-Chinese racism dating back to the 19th century, is creating that enemy.
The dangers of US foreign policy extend beyond China. The US goal to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, thereby surrounding Russia in the Black Sea, stoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Countless nations see the danger of this approach. Major nations from Brazil to India and beyond aim for a multipolar world. All UN member states should recommit to the UN Charter and oppose claims of dominance by any nation.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The views expressed in this column are his own.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS