It is generally accepted that since the end of the 20th century the world process of strengthening integration and unification in the economic, political, cultural, religious and other spheres of social life in different countries began, with the creation of a system of interstate regulation called globalization.
But since the mid-2010s, neoliberal capitalism has been faced with serious challenges, manifested both by increased geopolitical competition and in the form of demands by national communities to protect their specific way of life, culture, and religion from excessive diversification and cultural “homogenization.” There is an opinion noted in the analytical material Whither Globalization: Retreat, Industrial Policy, Unintended Consequences ( Mathew Burrows • Robert A. ManningGrand Strategy) against the background Great Power Rivalry, National Securitization of Economic Decision-Making, and Economic Nationalism.
Industrial policy is a new consensus that will lead to prosperity and peace in the United States and around the world. However, the facts show a different picture: trends towards globalization lead to gradual geo-economic fragmentation, increased competition between great powers and a slowdown in global economic growth. The result is fragmentation of the global trading and financial systems and a problematic trajectory of geopolitical changes. (Whither Globalization: Retreat, Industrial Policy, Unintended Consequences) .
As a result, the neoliberal international order has undergone a remarkable transformation process. And the transformation of the world order has been concentrated mainly in the political dimension.
The existing liberal international order, the guiding idea of which was a combination of comprehensive transnational rule of law and economic liberalism, built on the foundation of global capitalist logic and supported by the dominance of hard and soft power of the West, was considered a trigger for globalization and global governance under the supremacy of the United States in an alliance with Western Europe. However, it started to malfunction. (The World Isn’t Deglobalizing. It’s Reglobalizing | WPR (worldpoliticsreview.com). There were “spaces" (territories) that got out of control of the dominant powers and began to malfunction. As a result, the dominance of Western liberal democracies is gradually being challenged by a new bloc of new, including autocratic powers, which are increasingly cooperating both to advance their economic interests and to challenge the norms and structures of the world order. The transition from the old unipolar world to a multipolar one is accelerating and taking on ever clearer outlines. Globalization, understood as a global process of strengthening integration and unification in the economic, political, cultural, religious and other spheres of society in different countries and the creation of a system of interstate regulation, is being reformatted. There is a process of restructuring the geopolitical space and transformation of the model and content of globalization.
The members of the group "Rethinking the Grand Strategy of the United States" note that in 2024, US foreign policy faces serious questions. The US presidential elections, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, relations with China and global economic problems — all this will be a test for the United States and its politicians: https://www.stimson.org/2024/testing-assumptions-about-us-foreign-policy-in-2024/ .
Back in 2016, one of the pillars of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, in the December issue of The Atlantic, said that American exceptionalism during the Cold War was a thing of the past. The United States must develop a more flexible strategy that adapts to changing circumstances: World Chaos and World Order: Conversations With Henry Kissinger (turbopages.org).
Discussions about the need for changes in US foreign policy became significant during the presidency of Donald Trump and continued after the rise to power of Democratic Party leader Joe Biden as part of a discussion of the problems of a multipolar world. But they have become particularly intense in connection with the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict and the events in the Gaza Strip. In the Biden-Harris Administration's National Security Strategy, published in October 2022, Biden stated that the world is "at a tipping point in history" and we are "in the midst of strategic competition to shape the future international order." In the fight for the future of our world, Biden notes, his administration clearly understands the scale and seriousness of this challenge. Therefore, the United States will consider it a priority to respond to these transnational challenges together with our partners, even though we often face problems coordinating efforts to change the way countries interact with each other (8-November-Combined-PDF-for-Upload.pdf (whitehouse.gov).
Bernie Sanders, a prominent figure of the US Democratic Party, representing its left wing, writes about the urgent need to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy in an article for Foreign Affairs. He sees the reasons for the failures in US foreign policy in the fact that a long-term American policy was pursued, in which short-term unilateral interests were placed above long-term efforts to create a world order based on international law. The United States has supported military coups in a number of countries. In part, these interventions were aimed at supporting authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and spread corruption, violence and poverty.
According to Bernie Sanders, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties are often driven not by respect for democracy and human rights, but by militarism, groupthink, greed and the power of corporate interests. As a result, the United States is increasingly isolated not only from poor countries, but also from many long-standing allies in the industrialized world. According to his definition «economic policy is foreign policy». «As long as large corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on the economic and political system, foreign policy decisions will depend on their material interests, and not the interests of the vast majority of the world's population. Speaking about Washington's politics, Bernie Sanders notes that "the sad fact is that some of the most important issues facing the United States and the world are rarely discussed seriously. And this is most evident in foreign policy".
It is noteworthy that both Democrats and Republicans, both liberals and conservatives, speak about the need to revise foreign policy. The article «Why America Can’t Have It All» in the same Foreign Affairs is of interest (https://shorturl.at/cwzM6 ). The author of the article, Steven Wertheim, argues that the era of unipolarity is over. He writes that the Biden administration wanted to prioritize what, in its opinion, mattered most, but at the same time continued to deal with what was less important. In the future, the options are obvious: the United States must selectively reduce costs and risks and control them, or they will continue to adhere to global primacy and rush from crisis to crisis. He also notes that in the National Security Strategy 2022, the terms "priority", "priorities" and "prioritization" occur 23 times. In fact, the administration intended to exclude certain regions from the control of the president, while remaining the main player in the field of security in the same places.
The article suggests that Washington implement this policy more fully, distinguish between regions, and establish a clear division of labor between itself and its security partners. This means systematically separating the United States from some regions and shifting most of the burden onto allies. A well-known American organization, the Stimson Center, also addresses this topic. Analytical materials are devoted to it: https: https://www.stimson.org/2024/testing-assumptions-about-us-foreign-policy-in-2024/. Confirming the conclusion that the era of US global dominance is over, it is indicated that the last decade has demonstrated a serious discrepancy between the goals and means of the United States.
The US budget deficit of $1.7 trillion for fiscal year 23 and the national debt of $34 trillion should remind American politicians that American resources are not unlimited. The war in Ukraine, for example, has clearly demonstrated the inadequacy, if not the complete devastation of the American defense industrial base. The shortage has limited the amount of ammunition and air defense technology that the United States can provide to Ukraine. The decision to intervene in one situation may limit the possibilities of solving a higher priority problem in another situation. As we can see, we are talking about priorities again. This inability to understand the limits of American power, the analytical material says, both in terms of resources and opportunities to achieve goals, continues to haunt US foreign policy. Grand strategy, especially in a turbulent time of historical change, is problematic, especially when it is shaped by an exceptional ideology and outdated assumptions.
However, the goals and means of U.S. foreign policy are not coordinated. Recalibration should start with prioritization. The United States alone cannot maintain peace and security in all corners of the globe. They should share responsibility with others, according to the Stimson Center.
On the eve of the November presidential elections, many researchers, not only in America, but in many other countries, are wondering: what changes will US foreign policy undergo if one or another candidate wins? Many American studies claim that Biden took office promising to pursue a foreign policy based on a renewed commitment to values such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law and international cooperation. In practice, however, it mostly came down to descriptive framing, with little or no impact on his foreign policy. Some of Biden's priorities bear close resemblance to Trump's agenda. His “foreign policy for the middle class,” which links American diplomacy to peace, security and prosperity at home, has been described as a disguised version of Trump's emphasis on putting U.S. interests above their global obligations. Biden also fulfilled Trump's agreement to withdraw troops from Afghanistan without consulting or coordinating with Washington's NATO allies — and paid the political price for the collapse of the Afghan government and the chaotic evacuation that followed. And on other issues, such as his approach to immigration and border policy, Biden initially showed little urgency in making immediate changes. Despite the rhetorical commitments, it will be difficult for Biden to fully restore the status quo. Countries may no longer want to follow the example of the United States in promoting democracy after the erosion of America's democratic norms. And Europe, in particular, is reconsidering its relations with the United States and may no longer want to agree with the American approach, especially with the tightening of relations with China. Nevertheless, as the war in Ukraine has shown, there is still a high demand among allies, partners and other countries around the world for decisive U.S. leadership in times of crisis. But it will be difficult to implement it in its previous form.
We will try to talk about how the above changes will affect the situation in the Middle East and South Caucasus in the next article.
Comments