-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Friday, December 16, 2011 - 4:29 PM
Share
The past decade's worth of American foreign policy debacles has led to some lazy thinking on American empire. Either the United States is using force to advance rapacious economic interests, or Washington is neglecting economic diplomacy because U.S. foreign policy has become too militarized. Right, now, neither argument holds up terribly well.
For example, the Financial Times' Lina Saigol looks at postwar foreign direct investment in Iraq and notes the prominent absence of U.S. and British firms:
After almost nine years, $1tn spent and 4,487 American and 179 British lives lost, theUS is withdrawing from Iraq, leaving the country’s vast economic spoils to nations that neither supported nor participated in the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Turkey, Iran, China, South Korea and Arab states have already invested billions in Iraq, far outpacing their US and UK counterparts in every non-oil sector from transport and telecoms to housing and construction.
This is really a variation of a theme. Take a look at Afghanistan, and the same pattern plays itself out -- significant U.S. military investment, remarkably little follow-on U.S. economic investment, significant investments by others. In short, arguments that the United States uses its military power to advance its economic interests don't hold up well at all -- unless one wants to posit that U.S. elites are really an executive committee of the Chinese Communist Party's economic bourgeoisie.
The overmephasis on military force has been a long-running criticism of American foreign policy. That said, it leads to some lazy analytical habits. Consider this NYT Sunday Review essay by Stephen Glain on the U.S. "pivot" to the Pacific Rim:
With the economy in disarray, President Obama chose a costly instrument in deciding to expand the American military commitment in Asia by deploying a Marine contingent to Australia; the move will only help insulate the Pentagon from meaningful spending cuts and preserve the leading role the military has played in foreign policy since the 9/11 attacks....
Indeed, America’s top diplomat has become the chief civilian advocate for military answers to diplomatic challenges. Speaking in Honolulu last month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for “a more broadly distributed military presence” in Asia. While in Manila, she appeared on an American warship and reaffirmed the nearly 60-year-old security pact between the United States and the Philippines. She also has endorsed the creation of an American-led regional trade pact that pointedly excludes China for the present, a remarkably petty snub compared to the way her legendary predecessor George C. Marshall offered (without success, in the face of Stalin’s suspicions) to include the Soviet Union in the postwar reconstruction plan that now bears Marshall’s name. And this month she visited Myanmar, where the Obama administration has assiduously worked to neutralize a corrupt and repressive government in favor of democratic reform; in the grander strategic game, this, too, could be read in Beijing as a tactic to weave the country — which has been Beijing’s ally — into an American noose around China.
OK, this argument is confusing on a number of fronts. First, how is ratifying an FTA with South Korea and negotiating a framework agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership an example of an excessive role for the military?
Second, President Obama was quite explicit in saying he would welcome Chinese participation in TPP. However -- like Marshall before him -- Obama is saying this because he's pretty sure China will be unwilling to pay the regulatory coin necessary to join.
During the 1990's, one could argue that U.S. foreign policy in the Pacific Rim was too heavily dominated by the Treasury Department. During the 2000's, one could argue that it was too heavily dominated by the Defense Department. Right now, U.S. policy in the region looks like a decent balance of security and economic diplomacy. I suspect that this balance has been so rare for so long that analysts simply aren't used to recognizing it.
EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AFGHANISTAN, GLOBAL POLITICAL ECONOMY, HEGEMONY, IRAN, UNITED STATES 
Also, when arguing about an overly militarized foreign policy and calling the current Secretary of State a schill for the military, to use the example of a former Sec of State who was also a general as a contrast just makes one look silly.
Why use a former SoS when the present will do?
While Obama was otherwise occupied, Clinton and Gates did a fine job recruiting frenemies and clients for the MiC.
"Right now, U.S. policy in the region looks like a decent balance of security and economic diplomacy. I suspect that this balance has been so rare for so long that analysts simply aren't used to recognizing it. "
Fine. But, it's still wrong.
1. How can anyone continue to call this FTA with a straight face? It's managed trade for the auto industry, in this case. And, it's South Korea trying to be America's Asian Israel, only Americans couldn't give a damn about Korea or even locate it on the map. Samsung is not going to buy Congress, but they will get a loan from the central bank and ten years to try.
2. I suspect Marines in Darwin are there to help Aussie keep darker immigrants out and police Timor and PNG. It looks much better when the US tries to secure the area than the folks with blood on their hands in Indonesia.
3. If the US were so concerned about the legal architecture in the region, why doesn't it clean up the San Francisco treaty and deal with EEZs? Another South Korean Coast Guard officer died this past week when he was stabbed by Chinese pirates in the Yellow Sea. I guess for all those billions South Koreans don't deserve real military protection.
I get a hard-on anytime an American pundit even tries to talk about Asia. it's like reading has become a public works program. It's crap, but but someone got paid. Please take the time to learn about the region.
The U.S. is an elephant in a China store. At first the pachyderm in question just wants to get out of there, but as the China comes crashing down it feels threatened and starts thrashing the place.
It may seem just right for now, but there are huge changes happening in China, as their credit bubble seems to finally have burst (i.e. home prices falling 35% in 1 month, etc.). This is going to have very big ramifications, and the recent tarriffs on GM products seem like just the beginning of a trade war. Hopefully, someone in our government is planning for this.
Were engineered by government policy and will be moderated by the recent reduction in bank reserve ratios. That greedy developers took a shot in the pants is not the overarching concern of the Chinese government, taming inflation is.
As for the duties leveled on SUVs, you need look no further than the increasing number of ITC actions taken against China for the answer. GM has the largest market share in the Chinese auto market, I think, somehow, they will survive on the high profits earned in China then the US.
Government planning as in what? Churning out a few hundred billion more in non-dollars to prop up the housing market in America? That boil is yet to be lanced.
On the bright side a bit more 'artificial' greenbacks would go some way toeard devaluing those Chinese reserves. But then that would be like playing Chinese roulette with the Murrican economy, too.
Sadly China IS too big to fail, and not take the world with it. Ain't nobody planning for that nightmare.
Iraq was about oil and money. They will be cutting each others throats soon enough, and we will go back in. IRAN is the real winner here, as we destabilized the region. A-stan will NEVER be 1 country under 1 flag. Too many tribes and ethnicities for that to happen, we should draw down and switch to a "counter-terror" mission. COIN, "nation building" is all BS. How much $$$ has Karzai&Co stashed in Swiss banks? MILLIONS. In the HUNDREDS...
The current Secretary of State a schill for the military, to use the example of a former Sec of State who was also a general as a contrast just makes one look silly....GOOD WORK !
massagista
The US was a great infrastructure destroyer creating the opportunity for China to be an infrastructure builder.
How that plays out in terms of foreign policy influence in the long run is anyone's guess but I'll give odds on the soft power approach in this case.
The FPP initiative,like a new 'club' with artificial admission fees, is far more resticted in membership than the former SEATO arrangement under which America suoervised the 'important parts' of the Pacific.
The traditional lynch pins of US diplomacy - Taiwan, S.Korea, Indonesia have been replaced by an emphasis on the 'only real;' friend, ie 'fightin' buddy', America has in the area, the queendom of Australia. This only because the Australians, right now, buy into the 'global threat' of the Asiatic peril facing America to-day, but them first. America's not loathe to have them ante-up for her help, and reduced strike-distance', on the ramparts.
The others are still there, but more as liabilities for unwanted involvements, than as opportunities for political or economic advantage.
Needless to say the other side of the Pacific presents a possibly much different picture - hegemony-wise.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE