The Forgotten Issue: Foreign Policy in 2020

As the election nears and voters begin to cast their ballots, many are voting for criminal justice reform, mobilization against climate change, healthcare, the American dream, but only a small fraction are voting for a better foreign policy. They should be though. If any progress will be made following the election, policymakers must come to terms with their failures. If they don’t, and if they continue to live in the shadow of Trump’s vision, the world will surely suffer. The consequences of inaction are steep and multifaceted - dollar costs, environmental costs, and, of course, human costs - and we can no longer afford to twiddle our thumbs and stand-by while lives are being lost. For the same reason you vote for criminal justice reform, healthcare policy, climate change policy, vote for a better foreign policy; innocent lives are at stake. 

If I were to merely list all of the world events that demand our attention it would surely take up the entire article. The highlights, however, may be enough to demonstrate the scope of the geopolitical issues knocking at our door and the immense human cost incurred by these tremendous losses. China has mobilized its forces in the South China Sea and the Indian border. Azerbaijan and Armenia are engaged in armed conflict that has the potential to escalate into a regional war. There is documented proof of reeducation camps sterilizing the Uyghur population of Xinjiang. Democratic movements have been suppressed with brutal force and relentless ferocity. Climate change threatens the lives of many, but none more so than the civilian population of the global south. And most importantly, a global pandemic has ravaged the American and Eurasian continent. Meanwhile, this administration has doubled down on its ‘America first’ approach as they left, threatened, or defunded many international bodies, agreements, and alliances. The many credible signals of inaction have set the stage for human rights violations and general disregard for international law. These will be fixed by increasingly stringent economic sanctions and tariffs, or at least that is what the administration has continually told us, but it’s been 4 years and research has shown it only served to decrease the overall well-being of American civilians. Therefore, it is imperative to outline the different types of costs that will surely compound over the coming years if general inaction is maintained. 

 Many are critical of the U.S. military-industrial complex, as they should be, but the argument that America would be better off by defunding their military misses the crucial question; would the world be better off? If your first, instinctual reaction is “duh”, then you’ve probably been paying attention to the national news over the years. This image discounts the fact American failure in foreign policy endeavors is our heuristic and doesn’t reflect the complex nature of the question. The international system is very eager and relatively quick in their response to changes in power dynamics. A reduction of military spending by a great deal would surely be met with an increase elsewhere, a decrease in mobilization will be met by greater mobilization elsewhere. To claim that the world wouldn’t change, or even charge that it would be better fails to answer ‘for who?’ Life may not change for you living in your suburban house, but it would very much change for people in China’s sphere of influence or Russia’s sphere of influence. Without the United States to mediate in conflicting interests, there is no power to ensure that war will not break out, at which point it becomes necessary for US intervention with all the dollar signs attached to it. Momentary savings here and there when it comes to military savings, if not done strategically, will almost certainly be met by future spending down the line, except many more lives would have been lost and countless livelihoods are thrown into ruin. With this motivation in mind, we must analyze the associated costs - dollar, environmental, and human - and why they will be greater if we don’t change our current foreign policy approach. 

Dollar Costs 

First, it seems necessary in the wake of the election to analyze the economic impact of President Trump’s tariffs on the United States economy and elsewhere. Implemented as a tool to punish China for manipulating its currency and dominating export markets to help encourage negotiations of fair trade. Similar logic applied to the renegotiation of NAFTA earlier this year. In total, tax revenue has increased by 80 billion dollars from the increased tariff level, however, a recent paper by the Federal Reserve holds that the economic costs far outweighed the benefits. The increased tax level has increased the overall price level, especially in industries surrounding manufacturing, aluminum, and electricity as the input prices experienced a rapid upward shock. The same paper finds no statistically significant difference between pre- and post- tariff manufacturing activity. Moreover, the Tax Foundation estimated that the effect of the tariffs on the economy was a long run reduction in GDP by 0.23 percent, the equivalent of several billion dollars in economic activity, a 0.15 percent reduction in wages, and total full-time employment jobs by 179,800. While it is important to take these estimations with caution, as it is difficult to isolate variables when examining the economy, it is pertinent to note that the general academic consensus is that these tariffs have caused more harm than good - especially to American workers. China faced a far smaller impact, which is important to note because it leads us to the conclusion that the tariffs did a poor job at accomplishing its goals. Finally, the tariffs did little to negotiate fair trade agreements, encourage diplomacy and did nothing to slow down the imperialistic tendencies of the ruling party. 

So what does it have to do with foreign policy? A whole lot. The administration’s overuse of economic means to pressure foreign governments and foreign powers is a shift from the previous orthodoxy of diplomacy and mediation through various international organizations. The drawback of this approach, as outlined above, is that it often hurts our economy, especially when imposed on nations who make up a large portion of our imports which also makes them painfully ineffective in accomplishing their goals. For this reason, it doesn’t aid in helping to stabilize relations or tensions within the region, it may even make matters worse. If we impose unilateral tariffs, it is almost certain we are fighting against our interests as it does little to discourage the behavior. However, it is clear from recent developments that it is precisely political behavior in which we need to change. Effectively, we have done little to reduce the probability of conflict, inflicted harm on the US economy, and moved diplomacy at least a few steps back. In other words, Trump’s foreign policy approach has failed. 

One last consideration is necessary before we move on. If soft power in conjunction with the very real threat of military involvement is not utilized more effectively by the United States, no matter the state of trade relations, there will certainly be great costs in the future as conflicts continue to escalate globally and attitudes become increasingly negative. As any economist would tell you, these costs will almost certainly be greater than if dealt with today. Foreign policy has the potential to be an investment in future security, but the Trump administration has placed the economic security of our citizens and citizens of other countries at risk of economic loss and all the losses associated with dangerous political behavior. 

Environmental Costs

If we are to stay on our present course of action - minimal intervention, minimal cooperation, and minimal trust - the environment will be among the greatest losers. Not only did the US military pollute 59 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2017, but the damage caused to soil, forests, and natural ecosystems are beyond quantifiable. A large portion of carbon emissions arise from the fact that military vehicles are big and inefficient, as tanks don’t tend to get great gas mileage, and the standard Humvee gets only about 10 miles to the gallon. Plus, the US military produced 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon emissions since its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. One may assert that this is reason enough to downsize our military, which is a fair argument as the Pentagon is the 55th largest polluter in the world. I can’t argue against it so much as offer alternatives - investing in more fuel-efficient vehicles, decreasing the number of active bases on the homefront, and so on - but it is important to remind ourselves of an earlier discussion; all decreases will inevitably be met with corrections in power balances by other countries. Decreasing our size does nothing to guarantee total emissions will decrease, only that the United States’ contribution to the problem will decrease. This is made worse when many countries also do not keep great records of the carbon footprint of their military or do not publicize it at the very least. 

  Moreover, the damage to the biosphere is nearly impossible to quantify, but it is not hard to conceptualize why this may be the case. Considerations for the soil, for the trees, for the animals that live there, for the water at your feet, are often the first to go when your life is at stake. Consider the effects of the napalm blasts in Korea, the ecosystems of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the carpet bombs in Syria, German Bombings of the British countryside, the term between the trenches in World War 1. Even less extreme, think of the ammunition that rests in the soil, never to be thought of again, think of the mines established to extract minerals to help the cause, and many more. From start to finish, war does nothing but destroy the environment in irreparable ways. Studies of the effect of the Gulf War have shown that radiation from over 300 tonnes of missiles has caused radiation to link into the soil and water, creating a small cacogenic environment. 

Trump’s foreign policy approach, analyzed through the approach of the environment, has been far from stellar. His actions did little to reduce conflict, and in several instances egged on foreign powers into becoming more involved. He removed us from the Paris Climate Accords. He included fewer environmental protections in trade deals. Any policy that does not attempt to minimize conflict through diplomacy and trust is no favor to the environment, and Trump’s foreign policy is not focused on harm reduction or conflict resolution. If current trends in geopolitics continue, conflicts will continue to mature and progress, wars may erupt, and at that point is too late to turn back now. 

Human Costs

  This goes almost without saying, but conflict creates immeasurable suffering and violence. From the radiation in the soil that causes cancer to the wife who lost her husband, brother, and son, to the thousands upon thousands of lives lost, to those whose land is taken from the - war is nothing short of damnation. If there is no change of course soon, the entire culture of the Uyghur population will be wiped out, Armenia and Azerbaijan will lose more soldiers, the largest countries, India and China, may battle for dominance in the region, and the world may never be the same again. Millions of individuals dying by brewing conflicts, millions of individuals dying from a miscalculated pandemic, millions of individuals dying in the fight for liberation or freedom or democracy, thousands dying in cultural genocide, with nothing indicating improvement anytime soon. 

Perhaps the saddest part about all of this is that it was well within the realm of possibility that with better communication, diplomacy, and competent leadership, much of this may have been avoided, much of what needed to be done would have been done long ago. The first reports of genocide appeared 4 years ago, but it wasn’t till this year that the US passed a law that encouraged analysis of the issue - let alone actual action to stop or deter it. Perhaps, talks could have been made between India and China, rather than two countries in the middle east that had such little conflict, to begin with. Or what about Turkey and its involvement in the escalating conflict in Azerbaijan and Armenia? Nothing was done to deter them. Meaningful action by the United States and other countries is incredibly powerful, and the shifts in global power dynamics certainly are making life difficult for billions of individuals as conflict, authoritarianism, and death loom heavy on their minds. These immense human costs could have been avoided, or at the very least, decreased if an action was taken sooner. Now, however, we may be past the point of no return. 

So Why Should I Care? 

As you may have guessed, these issues are not independent of each other and they will only continue to increase if no action is taken. However, it is a matter of what actions should be considered to remedy these situations. Simply identifying problems and pointing out their implications adds little to the dialogue, and certainly adds to the ‘doom and gloom’ mentality of far too many. So I will briefly outline a general plan to restore US trustworthiness abroad, ensure better diplomatic practices, and build the necessary infrastructure to instill necessary reforms of the military-industrial complex. First, make it clear that we are committed to international cooperation and to supporting burgeoning democracies globally by rejoining the US Human Rights Council, World Health Organization, World Bank, Paris Accords, among others while expressing sincere support for democratic reformists, like those currently protesting in Hong Kong. This infrastructure may not be the best suited to combat the complex global problems that plague us, but they certainly represent the best global attempt to facilitate reform. Actions included in this may also incorporate the refunding of Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and Voice of America. Second, encourage economic growth of developing nations in eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia as economic growth usually leads to a greater reduction in conflict as it both leads to a greater degree of political openness and economic security - two prime reasons for conflict. The specifics of this program will be key as if done wrong it may walk the boundaries of economic imperialism. Third, and finally, send credible signals of force as a backdrop to mediation and conflict resolution. If no credible threat can be established, there is little reason to believe despotic regimes will change their behavior. 

Some may be skeptical of my use of the word intervention used throughout this article - as the heuristic of American violence is almost entirely botched invasions, senseless violence, and assisting in the overthrow of democratically elected leftists. However, it is a deathly flawed assumption that less military, less intervention, means better intervention and better military; especially when you are not the one bearing the costs associated with the resulting change in the international power structure. Just because the government does bad things now and then doesn’t mean that we should defund the government. Reform is possible - it just takes the right leader to do so. Moreover, I use intervention to include both the concepts of soft and hard power, however, soft power is far more important in the ever globalized world and should be utilized far more if real change is going to be made. Mediation and diplomacy are great examples of this approach and can go a long way if done well - far greater than war. In instances where it is not possible to negotiate, say with regards to the cultural genocide in China, hard power may be necessary. It is up to policymakers to determine the need and adjust their approach accordingly. This will also require a far smaller reliance on overthrows, coups, and sting missions to maintain soft power, but that seems like it could maximize outcomes for all parties. 

It is a bad policy to let people suffer, citizen or not, and the Trump administration has certainly opened the possibility for greater human suffering abroad. It may not be appealing to think about, it may be inconsistent with your view of the world, but it is time to care about the world around you, it is time to vote for change, to vote for environmental protection, to vote for democracy, to vote for humanity. Foreign policy orthodoxy has not been ambitious enough and it is the world who will pay for it. When you cast your ballot this November consider foreign policy. The future may depend on it.