Politics

Каким образом Трамп может ослабить Америку

May 10, 2016 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

КЕМБРИДЖ – Дональд Трамп, предполагаемый кандидат на пост президента США от Республиканской партии, скептически высказался о значимости для США участия в альянсах. Его позиция представляет собой взгляд на мир, существовавший в девятнадцатом веке.

Тогда Соединенные Штаты последовали рекомендации Джорджа Вашингтона избегать «союзов, связывающих по рукам и ногам», и следовать доктрине Монро, сосредоточенной на интересах США в Западном полушарии. Ввиду отсутствия многочисленной регулярной армии (и флота, который в 1870-е годы был меньше флота Чили) в девятнадцатом веке США играли незначительную роль в расстановке сил на мировой арене.

Ситуация решающим образом изменилась после вступления США в первую мировую войну, когда Вудро Вильсон, нарушив традицию, отправил войска США для участия в сражениях в Европе. Помимо этого, он предложил Лиге Наций организовать глобальную систему коллективной безопасности.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 30 Comments on this article

Dennis Argall May 18, 2016

There is something rather cute about the statistics of number of alliances and which country leans which way. We wonder about young people when they say they have large numbers of 'friends' on Facebook. This here is surely as profound as that.

Many of us in Australia wonder what it will take for us to find leadership and a popular will that will carry us away from alliance mentality to thinking and acting for ourselves.

Modern wars serve mainly to import into the countries launching them the disorder they go to war to quell. While 'destroying the village'.

As to the character of alliance, I recall when in the Australian Defence Department in 1973, renegotiating some agreements with the US, I got one of my staff to find a meaning for 'consult' in US treaties. He came back with US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the Rota base in Spain, where in reply to a question the Legal Counsel of the State Department said "consultation means we tell them what we are going to do before we do it."

We have no equal treaties, treaties are memes like religion, essential underpinning for dependant mindsets and for armed forces chiefs to lever to buy the most expensive gear for interoperability and entanglement with US forces.

With both major parties in Australia deeply committed to alliance with the United States and popular culture so Hollywood or Las Vegas dependent, it will surely require a major shakeup at the top in the US for things to change. Sure, Trump is so many ways detestable. But the last para of this article is sad and no alternative to Trump: "we are losing our monopoly of control, we've gotta keep our facebook friends!" If the American establishment wants America to lead the world, then an entirely new tack is needed, not this 'Clear Thinker's Clintonery'. What a Trump victory will mean is that others are bereft of capacity to lead and inspire.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Derrick Baragwanath May 16, 2016

In the coming century America should be like Great Britain in the 17th, 18th 19th and early 20th centuries. In those three and a half centuries Britain was not a military juggernaut, her standing army was smaller than all the major continental powers and yet she was the guarantor against territorial infringements. She did this by shoring up the strength of the threatened or weaker powers. Thus, when France was the bully boy in the 17th, 18th and the early 19th century she anchored the alliances opposed to her. In the later 19th century she sided with France and Turkey against Russian imperialism. In the early 20th century she sided with France and the smaller European states against German imperialism. Without Britain giving spine to the underdog during this period the bully boys would have had their way and ethnic minorities would have probably suffered grievously. Britain's role during this period was vital to global stability. These were not alliances imposed on weaker parties. If anything Britain was usually the reluctant guarantor, but they did bolster and help protect the threatened states. America's role is the same today. This is not a privilege for America but rather a burden (with some fringe benefits), but it does keep the bullyboys from having their way and makes the world a better place. If America walks away the bully boys will have their way.
- jagjeet sinha May 17, 2016
  
  Whenever Global Power - British or American or Indian - is exercised in defence of The Truth, Victory is guaranteed.
  Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan - perhaps The American Trinity that understood The Truth.
  And pursued relentlessly - and the whole World applauded until The Evil Empires sought were history.
  Francis Drake, Duke of Wellington, Winston Churchill - perhaps The British Trinity that understood The Truth.
  The Truth is not embedded in Geography or Region, Sect or Caste, Race or Color.
  The City-on-the-hill is a responsibility to support Good over Evil.
  In understanding both The Self and The Enemy - lies the answer.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld May 16, 2016

Alliances are good if there is true reciprocity. However, in the case of many, if not most, alliances formed by the US, there is little reciprocity. US allies, for the most part are net liabilities that stretch Us power excessively. They also create an inability for the US to prioritize its military and diplomatic efforts and commitments.
Given limited resources, the US will fall into the pattern described in The Rise and Fall of Nations, in which an overextended military is the basis for "the fall." Are the Baltic countries vital for the security of the US, or is China or Russia more of an existential threat? Which Middle east countries are really US allies? What does the US get for supporting them?
By all means work for agreements for the attenuation of global warming and other good outcomes, but as for alliances, beware of the free riders.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini May 16, 2016

Diplomacy, the purseposeful intelligent wielding of the power of carrots and sticks, is the way for America to succeed in the 21st century, if global peace and prosperity were the indicator of choice. This then would require an inclusive vision and mission, beginning with the minimum wage at home, and supporting environmentally-friendly North-South Partnerships for Development for Asia-Oceania, The Americas and Europe-Africa, sustained by global governance and tax reforms, and objective measures and indicators for socioeconomic inclusion:

https://www.academia.edu/24596360/TRUTHOUT_-_The_solid_wall_between_the_1_and_the_working_poor_in_the_USA_The_perverse_and_persisting_conundrum_of_the_minimum_wage_-_2016041801
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Richard S. Stone May 16, 2016

The USA is doing reasonably well, by most measures, particularly considering the diversity of its population and the extent of its involvement with the rest of the world. But it seems to me that the Republicans, at least the angry ones, have come to believe their negative narrative about Obama and the country, despite what looks like mainly good news. In one sense, the Republicans have only themselves to blame, with the real and actual poor performance by GW Bush while in office and by their unyielding and failed attempts to make Obama a one term president. The theme here is Republican failure, and the hope of now using that failed and inaccurate narrative to gather even more negative power. To what end?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ready sf May 15, 2016

Joseph Nye is right. However, US foreign policy is of necessity run by the elite, with the consent of the rest. The elite seems to have forgotten this, and the rest are grumbling, and Trump is the beneficiary. They are grumbling because the benefits Nye talks about matter less when you can't pay your bills. We should either revert to a democracy of the elite (stock-owning rather than landowning, perhaps) or fix our internal mess. Time to sound the alarm, and blaming Trump for channeling the concerns of a growing segment won't help.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mike Holly May 15, 2016

The world would have little need for war if it had a free economy. Trump would make the economy even less free while unjustly blaming foreigners for America's economic problems.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Barth, CFA,MBA,BBA May 15, 2016

Spoken like a true negativist. How well have the political platforms of both parties (Paul Ryan listen up) and know we have another hypocrite proposing more of policy for losers (Romney listen up). The results of progressive big government has decimated the free net worth of the working middle class, now we have another effete Crony proposing continuing big government destructin of the middle class with continuing rigged "Free" trade profiting the select elite and their grant sucking mouthpieces.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp May 12, 2016

The question remains: would a President Trump really weaken/damage the USA, and the world, more than G.W. Bush already did ?
If Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & Co. would have been taken apart by public and congressional opposition from Labor Day 2003 onward, as Trump has been taken apart during the past six months, then there would have been an impeachment in 2004 and not a re-election.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Laurent Weppe May 12, 2016

That may be the problem: Trump seems to adhere to the Lannister school of thought; "anyone who isn't Us is an enemy"
- Laurent Weppe May 14, 2016
  
  @Alex R. Mumm: Bush's simplistic, shallow visions still had a little room for allies and partners. Trump's vision, on the other hand, divide the world between his Royal Household and enemies to be either subjugated or destroyed.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Alex R. Mumm May 12, 2016
  
  I thought that was George W Bush: "You are either with Us, or you are against us"
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha May 12, 2016

ALLIANCES ARE ASSETS, COLONIES ARE LIABILITIES

Britain's downfall was mired in its entanglements in Europe - in trying to use its Global Power to bring peace in Europe.
Britain had escaped the embrace of Europe - and created The Anglosphere, despite Europe.
Britain's GDP by 1900 was larger than the combined GDP of France Germany Spain and Russia - thanks to The Anglosphere.
Europe was biding its time, plotting to challenge, and end the dominance of The Anglosphere - Europe's Top Five never the best of allies.
America supplanted Britain - fortunately the baton was passed within The Anglosphere - when Britain was trapped in European tribalism.
America's power indeed not based on colonies, but alliances - and it remains central TO THE GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER.
America's incumbent position as First among Allies - causes the same angst to #2,#3,#4,#5 as Britain in 1901.
In America's PERSPICACITY to KNOW ITS ENEMIES AND KNOWING ITSELF, lies The Truth.
The Game of Thrones has not changed - and Victory in Battles still belongs to The Truth.
Francis Drake, Duke of Wellington, Winston Churchill - all knew the KEYS TO THE TRUTH.
Invincibility lies in strengthening Defenses - those that attack without, are always defeated.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Benedict Voon May 12, 2016

Joseph Nye, America is already in deep deep water and already very weaken. The debts is unthinkable. There are even several others issue to dealt with. It wasn't created by Trump and you know is created by someone. Trump is doing damaged-controlled/mitigation. Discerning critics for Trump is few and far between partly because of main stream media to blame for their manipulation and distortion.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 11, 2016

Joseph S. Nye is not alone to believe that Donald Trump "would weaken America." Most of the world views the disturbing possibility of a Trump presidency as unthinkably damaging. Nye is right about the presidential candidate being a "very nineteenth-century view of the world." While America followed "George Washington’s advice to avoid “entangling alliances,” pursuing the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which "focused on US interests in the Western Hemisphere," Trump would turn inward, staying out of America's backyard - the Caribbean basin. He would also build a wall along the Mexican border to insulate America.
Trump wants to "make America great again," ignoring how it rose to global power in history. He should read how Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman overthrew the Monroe doctrine. By declaring war on Germany in 1917, Wilson changed America's place in the world. He increased American involvement in world affairs and his idealistic vision led to the creation of the League of Nations, which aimed "to organize collective security on a global basis." However the Senate rejected US membership in the League in 1919.
Nye claims, America's isolationism in foreign policies in the 1930s "set the stage for a disastrous decade marked by economic depression, genocide, and another world war." That Trump "takes his inspiration from precisely this period of isolation" to shape his "America First" agenda shows his utter ignorance. In 1939 Franklin Roosevelt declared America's neutrality after Nazi Germany invaded Poland. But in the following years he began to abandon isolationism, by shipping armaments to Britain, modernising the navy fleet and strengthening ties with the Alliance against the Axis powers. FDR had been preparing for America's role in WW II, and the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was Harry Truman, who oversaw the end of it, including the atomic bombing of Japan, the planning of the post-war world, and new challenges of the Cold War.
In foreign policy, Truman issued the Truman Doctrine, justifying support for any country believed to be threatened by communism, in respondse to the growing threat from the Soviet Union. He introduced the Marshall Plan, which spent more than $13 billion in rebuilding Europe. When the Soviets blockaded the western sectors of Berlin in 1948, he authorised a massive airlift of supplies until the Soviets backed down. The fear of the spread of communism in Europe led to the establishment in 1949 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Trump seeks to erode Eisenhower's legacy if he gets elected, saying America's allies have been free-riders, relying on Washington for their defence. He has vowed to make them foot the bill. In July 1953, Ike agreed to an armistice to end the fighting in Korea, with American troops remaining in South Korea. In 1960, he signed a security treaty with Japan. Since then the US has been bringing more and more allies into the fold.
Nye points out that the US still "remains central to the workings of the global balance of power, and to the provision of global public goods" in this new multi-polar world with a rising China and a resurgent Russia. He reminds the voters of what a disaster it would be to have a president like Donald Trump, who lacks the human qualities, and the qualification to run America, whose "preeminence in military, economic, and soft-power terms will not look like it once did." Therefore it is most crucial for the country "to sustain the credibility of its alliances as well as establish new networks" to secure "its global success."
- Benedict Voon May 12, 2016
  
  What a load of wisdom from you. Mine is short and simple. Is USA doing great now, domestically and internationally?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hamid Rizvi May 11, 2016

“Its absence of alliances in the 1930s set the stage for a disastrous decade marked by economic depression, genocide, and another world war.” So Joseph Nye in one dirty swoop has blamed everything even the leaking kitchen sink on the US’s absence of alliances. So, you think the depression and the crash of 1929-30 was the result of no alliances? Then, who might you think the US might have allied itself to save itself and the World from every conceivable ill and disaster. I hope you are not suggesting Europe; which was reeling under debt and economic crisis?
Look, Trump aside, I really believe all Nations not just the US and particularly Empires as the US has been dubbed need to at some point pull back for a lack of a better term. Mr. Trump the bitter pill may or may not be suggesting that however, I do believe this is the time for the US to consolidate its own situation at home and then perhaps there may be a time for a Bretton wood II to then as you suggest save the World from a WWIII.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H May 11, 2016

Trump is in the first place a populist who is saying all the things he thinks represent popular opinion, confident this will take him to the top, but what policies he will actually pursue once he gets there is something entirely different.
The alliances that America leads at present are a hoax and everybody knows it. America is the world's number one interventionist bully and the act of dragging a few henchmen nations with you won't confuse anyone about who's in charge or who's going to pick up the bill. But such is the price of world domination, a game Trump does not intend to change but rather add to, by forcing these allies to pay up for the privilege of being part of the new coalitions.
America's interventionist policies are driven by the CIA, Jewish lobby groups,right-wing think tanks and by the mistaken belief that war is good for the economy. The need to export the current cultural and political paradigms has also lead to fundamentally misjudge every political situation recently encountered and motivated a few of these allies into following where they should have known better and just stayed out.
The need to stay out of America's chosen conflicts is becoming more obvious to everybody to the point that even Trump knows things are changing, leading to the demands for greater participation and contribution as well as identifying the need for less interventionist policies.
- henry bonk May 16, 2016
  
  You just made a good case for American isolationism and for
  Trump. But be sure that your socialist utopia will not be the
  beneficiary of this policy change, and you and other
  ingrates like you will likely pay the price.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee May 11, 2016

Not long ago, Nye wrote a series of articles on "American Primacy", extolling the benefits of our role as benevolent hegemon (his word).

It is refreshing to see him here singing the praises of multilateralism, but has more in common with Trump than he realizes.
- P. Kamath May 12, 2016
  
  People's ideas do change with time, and experience. It is not a sin. There is nothing wrong with such a phenomenon. In history, we can find good many hawkish politicians and generals , turnings moderates or even peaceniks. Opposite is also true! During the cold war era, US did not hesitate to make alliances with military dictators , dictators etc. Now it is a different story.
  
  Let us give lots of credit to Joseph Nye. After all he has seen war and peace, occupied seats of responsibility in govt. and academia. We need not dismiss every view of his!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hiroshi Nagatsuma May 11, 2016

Wilson was the worst U.S. president who deceived Germany by his 14 points ceasefire conditions. This generated hatred in them and Hitler.He also passed Federal Reserve Act and U.S. dollar bills became mere paper since then. Now a book Wilson Warmonger has been published. Many readers of Project Syndicate know those facts. Too bad example.
- Curtis Carpenter May 11, 2016
  
  It would be interesting to know what tortured reading of 20th century history produced these amazingly simplistic perspectives.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Public May 11, 2016
  
  Agreed. If someone besides Germany should be blamed for WW2 there is your man.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
suzanne p goard May 10, 2016

While I read Nye with much interest and deeper perspective I surmise Trump's skepticism reflects apparent majority. Are "Entangling alliances" aligning us with friend or foe and who can discern? Rather than entropy be a futuristic concept, it seems a modern day reality ever prevalent in global governance. Genocide, displaced refugees, political corruption and degrees of economic and environmental destruction are commonplace. Relative predictable international order is a dance of ever changing rhythm wherein the lyrics of diplomacy's face and voice complies as an ideal concept according to the beat. In the world (dis)order perhaps American politics reflects the times with a pitch that sounds definitive. Thank you for your article that inspires thought. We need to stay attentive to our world.
- P. Kamath May 12, 2016
  
  II agree with you. You summarized it very well indeed. We have not yet reached a state of truly peaceful times where all countries rich, powerful,small and big countries live by accepted norms of civilized world.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lt lee May 10, 2016

Post WWII alliances were economic as well as political. Economic alliances reap economic benefits. Present day political alliances are mostly bottomless pits draining in taxpayers' money and government officials' time and energy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst May 10, 2016

Of course you could always argue that 'America's alliances' - which the US donimates - are in reality the pretence that the US operates on a collective mandate when in most cases it appears to act on its own.

This is of course the advantage of an alliance package that you dominate, by doing so you have a multiplier effect on your actions. I would therefore expect US presentations to attempt perpetuate this strategic advantage.

However the US whilst remaining very significant in terms of global population, global economy and global military budget is declining by percentage. This suggests problems with maintaining dominant influence and mutation of the existing at times somewhat simplist berating approach will be needed.

US isolationist activism is simply a reaction to knowing alliance dominance or global dominance by other means is progressively more difficult. If it was progressively easy there would be no activism. Isolationist activism is therefore a domestic identity crisis
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/tpbz7VXru

Каким образом Трамп может ослабить Америку

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Каким образом Трамп может ослабить Америку

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification