[ad_1]
An important question in any contemporary discussion of America's role in the international system is the responsibilities, burdens and rewards of a "global" power. The critics of the "populist" program, which is the pejorative label of the day, assume that the "populists" endanger our role in the world by insisting on:
Fairness in international trade and equitable sharing of burdens with our allies. Let's look at the claim on its merits.
The overall system that emerged from the Second World War was of our own making. Since the San Francisco Conference (1945) that gave birth to the UN, the Bretton Woods Conference (1944) defining the terms of post-war trade and international economic transactions, the Marshall Plan ( 1948) channeled American aid to a devastated Europe. later, the Washington Treaty and the establishment of NATO (1950), the London and Paris Agreements (1954) which resulted in the accession of Germany to the NATO and finally Japan's ratification of the McArthur Constitution (1946). The United States played a decisive and determining role in defining the post-war order. Most importantly, given the world we faced, we were willing to pay most bills!
Clearly, the stated objectives were twofold. The first was to allow the remaining power whose society had been spared by the destruction to lead to the restoration of a world torn apart by totalitarian domination and a devastating war. The second was to protect liberal democracies in Europe and Northeast Asia from the spread of communism.
For our motives in creating this system to be entirely altruistic, we must recognize that America's global agenda insists on the leadership of all. The leadership claim was the logical consequence of our unique ability to finance and finance the post-war system and, as the largest nuclear power, the only nation capable of deterring and neutralizing Soviet and Chinese power. .
In sum, since we were paying most of the UN bills and almost all NATO bills, we could challenge our right to direct and call the shots of fire. Alas, the situation has changed dramatically in the 70 years since the creation of the global system.
In the first place, having been spared the "proportional leadership" and shared responsibility for their security, the impoverished former European nations, Japan and Korea emerged as rich and stable powers in their own right. Secondly, Gorbachev "demolished this wall" and the Soviet Union and its Alliance system collapsed. Finally, in our collective concern to integrate China into our global system, we legitimized the totalitarian / mixed capitalist agenda of China and welcomed it into the World Trade Organization and the free trade community
. and the responsibility of the system has passed. Why should the United States remain a party to an obviously unfair trade deal with friends and allies who are penalizing American companies and costing jobs in the United States? Why, in particular, would our "good-for-nothing" policies for China result in a $ 500 billion trade deficit that would be used by US consumers to fuel China's new growth? Why should we continue to pay about 70% of NATO bills? And, given the contribution we have made and continues to make to the EC's prosperity, why can not Europeans afford to pay the lion's share for their own safety?
It is time to review the terms of reference that underpin the global system and the global agenda. We need allies and we support free trade, but the world has changed. Let's get a new playbook.
Philip A. Dur, PhD, is an admiral of the US Navy (retired) and a resident of Destin. He can be reached at [email protected].
Source link
