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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS