The report is realistic but may open new fissures between the US and its allies. America needs a common project to deal with future massive challenges.
Peter Frankopan writes a strong assessment of the recently published and controversial American report on National Security: “Rather than offering the usual blend of aspiration and reassurance, it sets out to describe the world as the United States sees it, and to define American interests in unusually direct terms…That is blunt, brutal even. But it is not wrong.”
Reading it from Rome, the biggest issue is the report’s take on Europe. In a nutshell, the EU, with a population of over 500 million and a GDP over 10 times Russia’s, wants America to defend it.
The real issue is China, the heart of American and global interests. The US requests that Europe address its own challenges more independently and help the US with China. On this basis, a new transatlantic relationship can be built.
Here, however, a series of problems begins. If the EU complies, what will the future US-EU political chemistry be? Now America is clearly the ‘boss’ in the relationship, but if Europe builds up a proper army and a proper war industry, would ties change, or not, and why?
If the UE doesn’t comply, what will the US do? Feed Europe to Russia and thus beef up Russian ambitions, strength, and confidence against the US, and lose Europe in the process?
It’s all unclear, and that’s because there are some deep logical and, thus, practical problems in the report.
Nation or Collective
America cannot, on one hand, seek primarily and almost solely to defend its own interests, as clearly stated at the beginning of the report, and then, in doing so, commandeer its allies’ resources as if they were its own. (“United States must work with our treaty allies and partners—who together add another $35 trillion in economic power to our own $30 trillion national economy (together constituting more than half the world economy.” p. 21 and “China’s state-led and state-backed companies excel in building physical and digital infrastructure, and China has recycled perhaps $1.3 trillion of its trade surpluses into loans to its trading partners. America and its allies have not yet formulated, much less executed, a joint plan for the so-called ‘Global South,’ but together possess tremendous resources. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and others hold net foreign assets of $7 trillion.” p. 22)
The spirit is right; US allies’ resources should be mobilized collectively toward specific goals against common adversaries. However, for this to happen, a shared idea or project is necessary; otherwise, it’s pure strength that doesn’t go too far. In every relationship based on strength, force is provided as a service for something. In the report, it’s unclear what American force provides to allies.
It is also true that in the past, this shared ideal has muddled American priorities. Americans have allocated funds to armaments rather than healthcare and aid for their working class, while Europeans have invested more in healthcare and education by saving on weapons. This has created a paradoxical situation, where the American working class suffers while Europeans have better lives and are ungrateful for the US efforts.
These issues should and can be addressed clearly.
Hub of the wheel
America is the central hub of a global economic, political, and security system. There is a collective interest in maintaining this system, which has led to remarkable growth over the past eighty years and general expansion over the previous 2 to 300 years. A practical hierarchy of intervention must be established, like airplane safety protocols: the mother must put on her own oxygen mask first, then help the children. If she does the opposite, she might pass out first, be unable to assist the children, and ultimately, all may die.
This logic is essentially the same that can and must be applied to the US. America must be saved to save everyone.
But stating instead that America and other countries have specific interests in contrast with other nations (“The United States will put our own interests first and, in our relations with other nations, encourage them to prioritize their own interests as well.” p. 9) creates new, very dangerous fractures. The fractures must, at best, be managed case by case, laboriously and strenuously. At worst, they fester, widen, and escalate conflicts that threaten the world and, consequently, America itself. The American-centric system wobbles.
The emphasis on American Soft Power is correct, but it must be well understood. Soft Power is not banal propaganda but the creation of an authentic, not fictitious or false, ideal system that reconciles America’s interests with those of the world—almost a theological theory of authentic politics.
Back to modern times
It already exists. Modernity, born in the West, has created and continues to create an unprecedented miracle in human history. It’s liberal capitalism that drew on mathematics from India, accounting from the Muslim world, and the idea of the invisible hand, inspired by the Chinese wu wei, non-action. All these elements, mixed and reshaped quickly in Europe, turbocharged the world. They also sacrificed old European “traditional values,” which dragged the continent down. It’s true that trappings and regulations saddle Europe, that its spirit is sagging, that managing migration is a grave issue. But managing can’t mean to stop migration: it would halt all economic growth in the most developed parts of the world. In the engine, you want the right amount of fuel. It floods if there’s too much, won’t run if there’s too little.
This miracle has a driving force in America, and it is proper that it be protected and expanded. It can be achieved by recognizing that the West is not a jumble of outdated cultures, but a dynamic and vibrant engine. It has ancient roots but has evolved rapidly and continually over the last 500 years, incorporating contributions from all parts of the world.
Within this framework, challenging issues like the Chinese one, or even the less severe but very irritating Russian one, might be better understood and addressed.
If this happens, the chances for a peaceful resolution of conflicts increase. Without it, conflicts may tend to become chaotic, resolved one by one through force or the threat of force. Ultimately, through constant use of force, strength is depleted. Then, the weakest member of the group, out of the fray because of their weakness, may arise and take everything.
For the good of America and the world as it has been so far, this must not happen. It’s like building a house: the bricklayer is essential, but if you don’t understand physics and apply sound engineering, the wall will collapse even before it has a roof.
