At a recent Aspen Conference, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan claimed our Republic is more robust thanks to our Pivot to Asia. This assertion is highly questionable.
My Take
The U.S.’s determination to preserve its primacy is the biggest threat to Indo-Pacific stability and America’s security. Our actions destabilize the region, preventing countries from pursuing their paths to peace and development. The nationalism embedded in post-colonial Southeast Asian nations won’t surrender their hard-fought independence. It is a multipolar world driven by nationalism in geopolitics. The days of globalization and harmonious integration are over.
In this multipolar strategic environment, our policymakers cannot create a liberal international order. Attempting to do so invites hostility and harms our Republic. Dividing the world into a new Cold War, pitting authoritarianism against democracy, is ideologically flawed. Who decides who is democratic and who is authoritarian when national identities are in flux in an increasingly multicultural environment? Is Ukraine truly a democracy or an oligarchy? Wasn’t China on the road to liberalization, not a “Pacing Threat”?
America must return to its roots—hard-headed realism, focusing on domestic concerns to strengthen our Republic and avoid overseas entanglements. This is not isolationism but a strategy based on alliances of mutual benefit. However, foreign and defense policies must serve America! Full Stop!
Groups like AUKUS, Quad, and the upcoming Squad with the U.S., Australia, Japan, and the Philippines are inherently unstable. Forming such blocs during peaceful times is counterproductive to peace. These alliances need conflict to justify their existence, which is a primary risk of the U.S.’s strategy. Which of China’s leading trade partners will side with America against China?
We absorb the thinking of Renowned Singaporean diplomat and analyst Kishore Mahbubani’s analysis of the future of the Indo-Pacific as he alerts us to the need for a new strategy based on economics, not security: “Australia, India, Japan, and the United States have legitimate concerns about China. It will be uncomfortable living with a more powerful China. And it’s equally legitimate for them to hedge by cooperating in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, informally known as the Quad. Unfortunately, the Quad will not alter the course of Asian history for two simple reasons: First, the four countries have different geopolitical interests and vulnerabilities. Second, and more fundamentally, they are in the wrong game. The big strategic game in Asia isn’t military but economic.”
Impact of Binary Western Perspectives
We fail to recognize the security potential of regional nations. These countries have coexisted with China for generations and understand how to manage their relationships better than we do. We have no humility to recognize this. Will Japan, Korea, India, Thailand, and Malaysia stand by while China attempts to hegemonize them? Would China dare to invade Indonesia, an archipelago of thousands of islands with historic anti-Chinese sentiment?
We call ourselves an Indo-Pacific nation, but we share no borders with any Indo-Pacific nations, while China shares borders and maritime interests with multiple nations. Historically, their interactions have avoided prolonged wars. When Americans suggest these smaller nations can’t handle China, they insult the peoples and cultures of Asia. These nations have managed their relationships for millennia, exemplified by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest free trade deal.
China’s rise was facilitated by America’s guarantee of freedom of the seas to move goods and resources worldwide. Our policymakers built today’s “pacing threat.” Lenin’s statement, “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them,” holds as American business leaders continue to seek opportunities in China.
It is not a unipolar or bipolar strategic environment. It is and has always been a multipolar environment. Believing that China can dominate even its neighborhood is untenable. States must enhance their statecraft skills to forge win-win agreements that balance security and economic interests unless perpetual conflict is the goal.
Geopolitical analyst Parag Khanna asserts that even if China wanted to, it could not dominate even its neighborhood, let alone the world, due to the many obstacles standing in its way: “With geographies so distant and cultures so distinct, Asia has remained multipolar for almost all recorded history. Rather than seeking far-reaching conquest, Asians’ attitude has generally been to live and let live. Over centuries of Silk Road interaction, commerce, and cultural exchange have been far more common than conquest. A proper appraisal of Asian geography and history thus reminds us that Asia is not a set of dominoes that will fall before an expansionist China. China may be as nationalistic as ever, but the Chinese are not the new Mongols.”
Financial and Strategic Realities
Our financial resources are severely strained, far exceeding our limits of sustainable power. Meanwhile, China remains resilient, interpreting our actions as the start of a new Cold War framed as a battle between authoritarianism and democracy. This perception persists despite Asia’s historical status as a multipolar region. When the goal is to achieve global primacy by maintaining a foothold, we foot the bill for security in the Indo-Pacific, while China became the region’s top trading partner. Our so-called allies offer tepid support for Ukraine, and Southeast Asia fears our grandiose plans for the QUAD or hints of an Asian NATO. By coercing nations to choose between China’s tangible economic benefits and our promises of security, we’re setting ourselves up to be the odd one out. They do not want to choose! They want to modernize, not Westernize!
Our legitimacy is fading as we lose one misguided War after another. The same crew that turned China into a threat now insists we are in a new Cold War, absurdly framed as Authoritarianism vs. Democracy. No, the only foe they have pacified is the American citizen.
Domestic Consequences
In the post-Cold War era, our war-mongering oligarchy has only pacified American citizens, the sole obstacle to their dominance over foreign and defense policies. These policies led us into one failed military engagement after another, losing credibility each time. They go unchallenged at home, free to pursue their war profiteering. The latest folly is the Ukrainian proxy war with Russia.
Our pacification is evident in the absence of debates on war policies in presidential campaigns and congressional races. Despite the disastrous outcomes of our military interventions, such as the failed attempt to liberalize China, these issues remain unaddressed. The essence of War is to conquer and subdue adversaries. Reviewing our post-Cold War strategies reveals a series of losses rather than triumphs. Only American citizens have been effectively neutralized by our war-making status quo. We are nowhere to be found in determining America’s foreign and defense policies. Matters of War and peace are out of bounds. Who is democratic, and who is authoritarian?
Call to Action
American citizens must take back responsibility for evaluating, accepting, or rejecting our foreign policy to maintain our constitutional Republic. Our foreign policy must adhere to power constraints and meet everyday defense needs. Walter Lippmann advised 1943 that we must maintain a “comfortable surplus of power in reserve” to balance the nation’s power and commitments. Failure to achieve this balance will lead to financial ruin and political unrest.
Simply put, we are courting disaster if we stay on this path. Our foreign policy is a disaster, especially in the Indo-Pacific. We ignore the multipolar environment, seeking to be the leader. The ambitions and greed of elites who could not care less about American interests drive this imbalance. The skyrocketing national debt proves this betrayal. We fight wars that do not serve American interests and lose them, showing our elites see the world as their playground, not a platform for American interests.
Strategic Priorities
Our Indo-Pacific policy is based on absurd assumptions. The assertion that our security and prosperity depend on Asia ignores our potential for self-sufficiency and their right to national self-determination. This is about preserving elite power, not America’s defense. We must admit that reshaping the world is unjust and immoral, given the cost of blood and treasure that such a goal carries. Common defense should be our primary objective for foreign policy. The Indo-Pacific strategy damages our Constitution rather than upholds it. It depletes our Republic without offering sufficient advantages. Extravagant global commitments fuel antagonism. It imagines a new cold war centered on an authoritarian vs. liberal fight, courting hostility. It ignores the multipolar world while claiming to support an international system.
U.S. Foreign and Security Policy
U.S. foreign and security policy should aim to:
- Preserve our democratic institutions.
- Encourage global peace.
- Maintain American political identity.
- Prevent attacks on the U.S.
- Strengthen our economy by stabilizing our industrial, agricultural, and technological base and ensuring access to foreign resources and markets.
A Wake-Up Call
Americans must wake up and reassess how our foreign policy supports our nation’s strength and prosperity. It does not. The claim that the Indo-Pacific is essential to American prosperity is false. In reality, we suffer deficits and limitations in the region. It’s time to stop sacrificing our welfare for liberal hegemonic aspirations. In the current multipolar climate, we risk dividing our forces, whereas during the Cold War, we were a deterrence power.
Protecting America should be our top priority in foreign policy, not pursuing global dominance. Historically, Asia has been the dominant force, not America. Our Indo-Pacific strategy should focus on building resilience and benefiting our Republic, not on misplaced nationalism or an imagined liberal hegemony.
Our Indo-Pacific strategy is absurd. We bear the cost of ensuring the security of nations whose leading trading partner is China. This approach costs money, fosters hostility, and forces regional countries to make unwanted choices. We deplete our resources and endanger peace. Our elites fight to retain regional primacy under the guise of liberal values. This is a facade.
Conclusion
Global Liberal Hegemonists have ruined the modern world with their deeds. The U.S. is in jeopardy due to their selfish, misguided goals. Their disdain for power relations post-Cold War has bewildered us and endangered our internal peace and security, particularly regarding China. Their policy facade should not mislead us. The challenges ahead are not merely tactical miscalculations; they stem from those in power prioritizing everything but our country’s welfare.
Because of its size, trading routes, and economic expansion, the Indo-Pacific is often cited as strategically crucial for the U.S. Reality tells a different story. In relationships, we are entangled in the Cold War, where we give up our interests for safety and support. Given how globalization propels China to new heights, we must question the logic of defending states whose relationships lie with potential adversaries.
Politicians argue that involvement in the Indo-Pacific is crucial to our success. They claim the U.S. would suffer if we left the region because we are a trading nation. This assertion is absurd. Exports account for only 12% of our GDP, with half coming from Canada and Mexico. The current trade strategy overstates the U.S.’s reliance on trade. China and its neighbors have maintained a connection for over a millennium, while our involvement in the Indo-Pacific is relatively new. We present ourselves as the region’s security provider, an untenable and arrogant assumption.
Reassessing Our Strategy
American taxpayers and laborers have long funded our foreign policy without reaping benefits. We need to reevaluate our strategic priorities. Relying solely on preserving commerce is a weak justification, given that exports, mainly trade with Canada and Mexico, account for a small portion of our GDP. Maintaining world leadership has been a pursuit since the Cold War ended. However, the U.S. suffers losses while the military-industrial-congressional complex benefits. China has historically influenced Asia for ages. It is time we accept this fact. U.S. strategic decisions must prioritize American interests. We must ensure our policies no longer cost us while other nations decide their paths.
Final Thoughts
The welfare of the people and the country should be the main priorities of foreign policy. This means defending core American interests domestically and internationally. The U.S. must maintain its standing in the international community to fulfill this primary requirement. It also requires avoiding complex military engagements that weaken U.S. standing globally and drain resources. If safeguarding the American people’s welfare is the primary goal of U.S. foreign policy, any action jeopardizing this without yielding reasonable returns over time is reckless.
In paraphrasing the Late National Security Adviser Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who called on the U.S to take advantage of the end of the Cold War not to expand its reign internationally but instead to return home to restore the vitalism of America, she claimed then that foreign policy should be subordinate to domestic policy. For her, a good society is defined by its internal qualities, not foreign policy. Democracy, opportunity, justice, member relationships, character development, and quality of life are attributes. Foreign policy becomes significant when a government exhibits expansionism, imperialism, or aggression or confronts aggressive behavior. The U.S. had more time, focus, and resources to meet its needs once the Cold War ended. Creating a more cohesive, loving, safe, complex, and profound society should be one of the U.S.’s significant objectives, building on its excellent foundation. Our aspirations in this world are essentially human, not philosophical.
Most people must agree with the U.S. government’s objectives for them to be valid. The government cannot use taxpayer money to support any cause democratically elected politicians have not endorsed. Among other noble goals, this means bringing about global democracy, ending hunger, violence, and chaos, forging a stable international order, and setting up a well-organized international commercial system. The only exception is in cases of urgency or unanticipated, critical importance. The laws passed should align with the fundamental values and character of the U.S.
Some argue that because domestic and foreign issues differ, majority rule shouldn’t apply to foreign policy. Although foreign policy has peculiarities, the people must direct and oversee the experts who implement foreign policy. Since foreign policy affects everyone, it should not be the sole purview of a small group. Foreign policy requires specialized knowledge, like other areas of social policy, but this does not mean it should be kept outside democratic governance.
Elected officials, constantly reminded of their reliance on the people, must ensure the government does not place unreasonable, unjustified, or unbearable expectations on the populace. As a result, the public must hold elected officials accountable for their actions, and they must accept responsibility for foreign policy. Every election campaign should include discussions on major foreign policy concerns. It is an essential part of democratic administration in an interdependent society, not a disruptive intrusion.
The U.S. is at a turning point in its history. Regarding foreign and defense policy, we need to reclaim our voices. We must demand accountability from our leaders for their failures and push for policies that put U.S. interests first.
Walter Lippmann wisely advised us to pursue a foreign policy that balances commitment and force. We have broken this equilibrium, and we must correct the damage. Our Republic’s future depends on its citizens’ active participation and steadfast dedication to safeguarding that future.
BRING OUT THE DRAWING BOARD!
Leave a Reply The Essential American Citizen Thanks you!