U.S. Foreign Policy: A Shift Towards Unilateralism
The image of the leaders of India, Russia, and China joining hands in the final days of summer created an idea globally that the United States had seen a significant shift in its relations with India and Russia, now leaning towards China. However, the president, seemingly unperturbed by this shift, extended his wishes for their mutual prosperity. This incident has brought previous foreign policy plans and missteps into stark relief.
The serving president, known for his deal-making capabilities, has been at the helm of numerous negotiations on behalf of the United States. These include marquee discussions with technology industry giants, as well as referring to the potential Israel-Palestinian peace agreement as the ‘ultimate deal’.
However, there seems to be scant evidence of substantial progress within the current administration across several key areas. This can be observed in the unresolved conflict in Ukraine, the lack of advancement on peace in the Middle East, and no notable breakthroughs on trade deals.
Moreover, there has been a significant strain placed on the relationship with India. Notably, this follows similar situations with Europe and Canada, and there are indications that Mexico might be next. The current administration’s outlook on foreign affairs overlooks a core principle of the American ethos: the principle that ‘a deal is a deal’.
This administration’s reticence towards entering into long-term agreements and a tendency towards unilateralism is a reminder of patterns seen in U.S. foreign policy, which were prevalent through the 20th century. At the same time, reputable diplomatic figures from the past would stand by their word when an agreement was reached.
Statesmen in the past were known for their reliability, ensuring that if an agreement was reached with the United States, the commitment would be upheld. This resulted in allies placing their trust in American commitments, even when it required their own compromise.
The reliance of our allies on our commitments is undermined, however, when the U.S. walks back on its promises. Allies are naturally inclined to safeguard their interests in such situations which disrupts established agreements, and the impact can be seen even in the execution of the administration’s own diplomatic strategies.
Specific instances demonstrating this can be seen in the U.S.’ relations with Canada, Mexico, Russia, India, and South Korea. And it’s not just countries that have experienced a reversal of commitment firsthand who are taking notes.
Rival powers like China and Russia are exploiting these global shifts to their benefit. While the administration has managed to secure some short-term victories, including better trade terms in Asia and increased defense payments from NATO allies, the landscape is changing.
Countries are increasingly adapting in ways to protect their national interests and thus become more resistant to external pressures. The dangers of striking a deal with the current administration are becoming evident to world leaders, resulting in countries making attempts to reduce their dependency on U.S. technology and diversifying supply chains.
Conversely, this mirrors America’s push to reduce risks from dependence on Chinese supply lines. Despite its might, the influence of the United States worldwide appears to be gradually diminishing, with China marching at the forefront of manufacturing capacity and technological progress.
Against this backdrop, the administration’s endeavors to revamp America’s industrial foundation, position the U.S. as a leader in future industries, level the playing ground on defense expenditure, counteract China and Iran, and combat drug trading have not been as successful as desired.
The paradox lies in the fact that while the administration’s intention was to slow down any potential decline in America’s standing on the global stage, it appears that this decline has progressed faster than many had imagined.
It has become undeniably clear that reversing this course will neither be an effortless nor a quick endeavor. The broader international relations landscape continues to evolve, and it will take consistent, effective diplomacy to position the United States favorably in the years to come.