The US Foreign Policy Roadmap: Framing The New Power Equation

Six Factors Framing US Policy:

We are experiencing a revolution in American foreign policy behavior. Posted below are some of the driving elements designed to reshape this new and evolving political model:

Manifest Destiny: This concept provides a perspective on how particular countries see themselves in the world and how they advance their interests by conquest and control. This 19th Century idea was core to an earlier period of US diplomacy.

Power Politics and National Interests: Only the interactions among superpowers  define the world order.

Spheres of Influence: As with the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the “Great Powers” divide the world as a way to establish and maintain a balance of power equation.

Geo-Politics:  Gaining access to specific, strategic territories, having access to key economic and natural resources, and marshaling control of major waterways help to define a nation’s core interests and assert its power.

Economy Diplomacy: Controlling key resources and having the ability to dictate terms and policies allows a nation to use its financial powers to dictate political outcomes.

Bait and Switch Diplomacy:  By laying out proposals and/or creating threats, nations can generate from other international players counter responses, and in doing so are able to take advantage of possible concessions that serve to benefit their interests.

Trump Administration’s overarching goals appear to be:

• To move Russia away from China, using the Ukraine conflict as an entry point.
• To limit China’s economic and military access in this hemisphere.
• To secure control over the Panama Canal, in part to reassert US presence in this hemisphere.
• To gain access to Greenland for both economic and strategic military purposes.

Remember Diplomatic History: 

Let’s begin by citing three historic examples. The Trump Administration is seeking to revisit each of these scenarios, bringing them back into play.

The Monroe Doctrine:  The 19th Century policy framed by President James Monroe (https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine)provides us with some insights into this administration’s focus on this hemisphere, and more directly, the Panama Canal. Control of the Canal is seen as strategic in managing naval traffic, both commercial and military. Beyond the Canal, the US is deploying this doctrine as a way to reassert its diplomatic and economic dominance in this hemisphere.

US History Involving Canada: At various times in American history, the role and place of Canada has been a core item in connection with this nation’s military and strategic interests. On three occasions, the US has explored its geo-political relationship with our northern neighbor, the American Revolution where US forces invaded and sought to acquire parts or all of Canada; the War of 1812, where the British attempted to use various allies and resources in Canada to attack the United States, resulting in a counter-offense by the American military, and finally at the time of the Civil War, Union concerns over British/Canadian support for the Confederacy resulted in efforts by Washington to target Canada.  In the 1870’s, there was some interest on the part of groups of Canadians to align with the United States in reaction to British demands and controls in connection with Canada’s ultimate independence from England.

Greenland’s Relationship with the United States:  When Denmark was seized by the Nazis at the outbreak of World War II, Greenland, a territory controlled by the Danes, sought to align with the United States. During the Cold War, American officials referenced the value of Greenland as strategic forward location in managing the threats from the Soviet Union, and more recently, as the Arctic Circle becomes more accessible, due to climate change, various US analysts have addressed the value of Greenland as a staging area for the US to best compete with both China and Russia in accessing minerals and other resources. It still represents a potential strategic location for US military purposes in connection with any future Russian territorial ambitions.

In moving to achieve some of the current strategic and policy objectives, the past clearly plays a role for the American diplomacy in understanding current and possibly future attention on and interest in these geo-political areas.

Beyond these specific territorial considerations, Washington is moving to undo the NATO alliance. There appears to be a growing belief that for this administration to accomplish its foreign policy objectives, this trans-Atlantic alliance will be less helpful, and may,  in fact, be more problematic.  Based on his first term’s performance, this President operates directly with key political elites. Deals become less possible or probable with too many secondary actors. Big power relationships must involve the real and primary political actors, namely Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang.

As a result, we are seeing a transformational shift in the conduct of foreign policy. As US policy evolves, it is likely to reflect the political principles outlined above and focus on framing a fundamentally different type of transactional model of diplomatic engagement and practice. Indeed, the immediate and most directly impacted actor at this moment will be Ukraine. If Washington is in fact redoing the world order involving a fundamental remake of our nation’s foreign policy, Kyiv will likely pay a major price as part of this realignment.

Where does Israel fit into this new equation? 

The value-added that the Jewish State provides appears to be five-fold:

• Strong US domestic support of Evangelical Christians and Jewish Americans is a core contributor to this special relationship.
• Israel is being seen as a conduit for growing economic and political deals within the Arab World and beyond.
• As a significant military power, Israel provides benefit and support to US military intelligence, providing the advancement of weaponry and technological innovation.
• It serves as a key element in blocking or limiting both Russian and Chinese expansionism in the region.
• Israel is seen as a strategic asset in containing Iran and in managing and monitoring Islamic extremism.

Is US support for Israel guaranteed? In nation state politics, nothing is eternally certain but there appear to be more benefits to Washington on a number of levels that allow for this ongoing relationship. It is possible that this administration may move to create some form of defense pact with Jerusalem, if that is perceived to be in the long-term strategic interests of the United States. We anticipate a number of other policy initiatives in connection with the existing special relationship between the Israeli Prime Minister and this US President. 

The Challenges:

As anticipated, we are experiencing significant domestic and international push back to this administration’s efforts to reconfigure international power relationships. The controversial decision on USAID and American foreign assistance arrangements, the redoing of the senior military leadership of the Pentagon, and the introduction of tariffs and other conditions, all reflect these broader policy changes underway.

These events signal a fundamental revolution taking place in connection with US diplomacy. Each of the steps, as outlined above, speak to this emerging new foreign policy stance. Much of what is transpiring resembles 19th Century and early 20th Century big power agreements, where balance of power models emerged and where imperialist ambitions of nations framed international politics.

We are living through a broad-based shift in the conduct of this nation’s international role, which will have a profound impact on the course of global events and serves as a major distruptor in this moment to the international order.