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.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS