Otto Van Bismarck had said, Lord has special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America. <\/p>\n
And this is a prescient notion as the USA managed to strive and prosper through the 20th decade in a profound way all on its own. Regardless of getting involved in tragedies, wars, and issues that were not even its own, it had both the Lord and luck on its side. From the point of establishing its own navy to safeguard its territorial waters in 1775 to projecting influence in the world through the Marshall Plan post World War 2 and then achieving and sustaining the worlds sole superpower status after the Soviet disintegration, the United States indeed came a long way. Its policy changed along the way from Isolationism to primacy and interventionism to the plausibility of offshore balancing in contemporary times. This paper is intended to analyze both policies in terms of concept and virtue in the context of the USA. <\/p>\n
For the proponents of Isolationism, the USA is so secure that it does not need to fear the balance of power in other parts of the world; thus shall not get involved in affairs of western hemisphere or Europe militarily, except diplomatic and economic engagements (Mearsheimer, The Future of Americas Continental Commitment 1998). The strategy of Primacy finds extracts from Global Hegemony which explains that a superpower has incentive to dominate the international system, so USA will take action and avail opportunities to build its primacy. The approach is all about Rebalancing and Re-orientation. It advocates military dominance, economic interdependence and nuclear non-proliferation. Primacy as a grand strategy is for the USA to remain leader of the world militarily, politically and economically. <\/p>\n
The second grand strategy is Counter-Hegemony which indicates that USA lacks the power projection capabilities required for global hegemony. It just has had precedent of keeping any other power from becoming the potential hegemon as USA is in western hemisphere. The concept of off-shore balancing is supported by Counter-Hegemony. Because offshore balancing suggests putting burden on the shoulders of allies and local powers to contain threats first. If they seem unable to contain it, then the USA shall meddle in at last. The pros are that sufficient energy of the local powers would have already shaped the situation and USA will have to exhaust less in the process. To be precise, its role would be just to enter and finish off the dirty business. Hence, it is more like passing the buck. Its working plan is quite simple and exquisite. <\/p>\n
Not only it would compel other states to manage their own weight, it would also reduce the stress on the USAs resources that are wasted abroad and there will be more life security to Americans who otherwise get harmed fighting battles of others(Mearsheimer and Walt, The case for Offshore Balancing : A superior U.S. Grand Strategy 2016). <\/p>\n
STRUGGLE FOR PRIMACY : THE COLD WAR TIMES <\/p>\n
From its birth to the Monroe Doctrine, USA preferred a policy of Isolationism, a simple Do not meddle in our affairs, we wont meddle in yours type of stance. It participated the least in Europe, other than supplying arms and political support to the fighting powers. <\/p>\n
Well-protected by two oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific, USAs fears related to its own security remained minimum till World War 2; Primarily because USA was the only state economically and politically capable to manage the disaster as the war did not impact it directly. It was the Destroyers for the Base Agreement USA had with British who desperately wanted to stay in war in 1940, so they exchanged their bases and super-power status for it with USA (Marshall 2016). <\/p>\n
Moreover, the USA had an excellent navy that navigated waters, deterring enemies from attack. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that shocked Americans and actively alarmed them about hitting the bouncing ball flying towards them with all their might. And so, they did, by attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs. This still did not fill the hole they felt in their security blanket, and the USA started to feel the importance of taking an active role before any such incident could happen again. <\/p>\n
To establish their Primacy in the world, USA took several actions like anticipating the formulation of United Nations, initiating the Marshall Plan, establishing NATO, intervening in the state affairs of Europe and Middle East, entering bloc politics against Soviet Union. The Marshall Plan was one of the most genius efforts made to enhance influence in Europe as not only it bought the loyalty of European states which became part of the plan, it also bolstered USAs trade and position in world politics. But this anticipation did come with a price and that was the onset of the Cold war, that had already started due to post World War 2 power imbalances and Soviets struggle for Primacy in the world. The invention of the atomic bomb by the USA and then power assumptions made Stalin a lot concerned about arise of the potential hegemon that USA was going to be. On the other hand, the USA saw Soviet Unions plans of extending influence and communism alarming and after the X article, adopted the policy of containment. The Cold war times saw volatility and tension between both super-powers and there was constant threat of actual war to break out as the power imbalance was nerve-wracking. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Arms Race are examples as both indicate the circumstances where neither of the powers was lenient to hold back. The USA was exceptionally keen on regulating world affairs to keep Soviet influence from spreading in the region. It played active roles in the Korean War and Vietnam War by sending its own troops to fight the wars. However, mass casualties in both wars led to public condemnation of the USAs policy of interference and there was a surge in sentiments of bringing the soldiers back to home. It was then, that the USA started training and equipping the soldiers of Vietnam to fight their own war and this phenomenon was termed as Vietnamization (Hughes 2024). The policy was oriented to bring the US combat troops back and reduce the USAs military involvement in the wars. It was propagated by Richard Nixon, one of the influential USA presidents. <\/p>\n
It is a fact that the USA remained overly committed to its allies in the Middle East, Western Europe, Southeast Asia (Phillippines), Northeast Asia (South Korea and Japan), and the Indian Ocean. Just in Western Europe, it maintained a military force of 326,000, and cutting the domestic budget to put additional sums in the military budget became a norm during Ronald Reagens administration as the USA adopted the Rapid Deployment Force as an additional element in sustaining the military promises all around the world (Nuechterlein 1985). The USA was quite concerned about the key regions of the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean during the Cold War times and did not want the Soviets to penetrate the regions. It was widely debated whether the Persian Gulf was worth deploying huge military personnel and spending a significant budget to sustain its presence, but Carter believed that since the Persian Gulf was the route for the oil trade, any revolution emergence in the power actors could harm Americas national interests. <\/p>\n
However, when the Cold War ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the fears of Soviet power expansion in the Persian Gulf, Arms race, Nuclear threat, and supremacy status were reduced as the world shifted to uni-polarity. Other than the configuration of the new world order in international relations, the perplexion of whether the USA should adopt a policy of isolation or primacy arose, because there was no potential hegemon in sight and well, the reason for which the USA had opted for interventionism: to contain Soviet Union, had vanished. <\/p>\n
PRIMACY OR OFFSHORE BALANCING WHATS THE WAY TO GO <\/p>\n
The USA was dragged into the First World War, and it joined it out of reluctance, particularly to check Wilhelmine Germany. It entered the second world war out of a threat to its national security posed by Japan and Nazi Germany. And after that, it remained in Europe out of a dire need to contain Soviet expansionist tendencies. It must be noted that the USA displayed little interest in forwarding its cause of continental primacy or hegemony in Europe as throughout the times, there remained prevalent sentiments of bringing the soldiers home. Dean Acheson, so as to get the Senates approval on NATOs treaty of 1949, had to declare that the USA had no intention of sending large forces to Europe on short or permanent basis (Mearsheimer, The Future of Americas Continental Commitment 1998). It might be the case that Soviet too, wanted significant presence of American troops in Europe, or Germany to be precise to contain the beast. <\/p>\n
The world did not remain unipolar for long after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Rather, it started transitioning to more of a multipolar order with China earning immense economic power and slowly creeping in all the key regions USA desired to keep it to itself, while Russia, Germany, France, and Iran attracted attention, but not as credible multi-poles but still holding their mass. The USA can not entirely opt for the policy of offshore balancing because of the relative policy of other powers. China has expansionist tendencies. China progressed economically and diplomatically by reinitiating the Old Silk Route and bolstering OBOR countries with economic support, thus yielding their loyalty, a trick the USA itself practiced post WW2 times and it yielded remarkable results. It also stepped up to claim its share of the Arctic as a Near Arctic State, a policy published in 2018 (The State Council Information Office of the Peoples Republic of China 2018). In the South China Sea, it started building artificial islands to claim more seawaterpp access and with the declaration of Beijing Air Identification Zone, it gave a clear indication of expansion. In the Middle East, Iran became a headache with its nuclear program and potential to become an aggressive nuclear power. In South Asia, the USA was exhausted by the war in Afghanistan and retreated after the Fall of Kabul with huge burden on its own shoulders. The Axis of Resistance that comprises Lebanons Hezbollah, Yemeni Houthis, and Iraqs Islamic Resistance Guards too, started triggering the temperament of the USA. <\/p>\n
In such circumstances, whether the USA shall retreat back to its fortress or keep intervening in the European, Middle Eastern, and North African affairs is a debate that can be outlined on the basis of What USA will get out of it?, What is at stake and what is the cost of Primacy. Well, for the starters, the security of own national interest has always remained a core value in USAs foreign policy formulation. But whether it is war or peace in the world, that is the strategic interest of the USA, that has never been clear. The USA is a major seller of arms, and its industry runs on selling these weapons to contested, conflicted states. And for that selling to happen, the demand for the weapons shall remain always high, a condition that can be fulfilled in entirety by war. <\/p>\n
USA has stationed its military forces all around the world. It has fleets and access to naval bases around all the important choke points and it acts as a self-proclaimed policeman of the world affairs. Whatever passes through the strategic choke points, USA keeps an eye on them. If it solely goes with offshore balancing, it would affect its political influence. Though United states would not face any threat to its national security because it has enough layers of technological and military protection, but its core themes of its national strategy that include promotion of own values and interests would be harmed. Nonetheless, it will require time to establish itself in economics, technology and research, so as to sustain its status in the upcoming future again. <\/p>\n
Because, It has spent so much of its energies on sustaining its military presence that it has ignored its relative power is drcreasing as compared to the other actors. The problem is, now that it has settled in the power configurations in world, if it does not keep up with power enhancement, it will be ruled out of such establishments and a power vaccume will be created. And in international relattions, power vaccumes do not stay vacant for long. They are eventually filled by some other credible power. So has been the case here apparently. With its long history of involvement in the world affairs, USA can not entirely vacate its position because not all the regional actors have the capability or desire to assume the responsibility of managing their own security. Neither all the actors take mature decisions regarding foreign policy nor any other state in the time being, can solely take the burden of regulating the international affairs. (Thayer 2006) <\/p>\n
Take Middle East for example, where Israel is in duel with Hamas and it has also tensed relations with Iran. There are fair chances of low intensity military confrontation between Iran and Israel after Israel attacked a representative of Islamic Revolutionary Guard force in Iran violating Irans territorial space integrity and Iran in response, attacked Israel with drones and missiles which were slow-paced to avoid escalation but still a gesture to indicate that Israels intervention is abhorrent (Bachega 2024). The USA clearly indicated that it will not participate in the Israeli response in order to prevent escalation and that is rational indeed. <\/p>\n
The USA followed the policy of primacy at first in the Middle East that involved ensuring the free flow of oil, guaranteeing the security of Israel, and limiting other actors from arising such as Iran. This compelled USA to do military interventions that cost the USA a fortune and anti-America sentiments raised wherever these interventions were made. Now USA can not step out of the region relying all on local allies and Israel, cant be left unchecked to act as the protector of the USAs interests in the region because it has violent tendencies and feuds with almost all the Arab states; especially now that it has taken up the genocide of the Palestinians, the anti-Israel sentiments in the Muslim community have fueled up. In such circumstances, USA shall follow a combination of primacy and off-shore balancing. Taking elements from both policies, USA shall respect the sovereignty and integrity of the regional actors, avoid the destabilizing military interventions and keep the local power in check by maintaining diplomatic ties, trade relations and political presence in the region. <\/p>\n
In the Asia where China has been marking its political influence with diplomatic and economic initiatives, USA too shall engage the states in trade relations because majority of the Asian states are still developing while rest are under-developed and to them, economic prosperity is top priority rather than military. <\/p>\n
It is a fact that the USAs relative power has been declining as China and other actors are rising. Since the USA is too occupied to keep up with the continental and global commitments, it has not been making the astonishing progress it should, provided its power status in the world. Investing energies in the Middle East costed USA the surge of Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific. And China is not the only actor assuming enhanced power status; India in South Asia, EU in Europe, Iran in Middle East, North Korea in Southeast Asia and Russia are also on the rise, diluting USAs influence with their assertive tendencies. The military and technological advantage that once USA enjoyed is being challenged by the rise of globalization, interdependence and and economic ties that weigh more in national interest of the under-developed and developing countries who in turn, enter in alliance with regional actors, shaping the power status of core countries. <\/p>\n
If the USA adopts a combination of Primacy and Off-shore Balancing with mandatory condition that it will avoid military involvement by all means, a lot of financial burden on budget and political burden on USAs shoulders would be elevated. This will give USA enough space to reshape its behaviors, reorient its position and rebalance the situation. The sums saved from defence and military expenditure could be reinvested in addressing the domestic challenges like debt reduction, improvement in education, research and technology advancement. In the contemporary times, the USA can not isolate itself into a fortress, rather it shall embrace the multilateralism, penetrate the international institutions leveraging its soft power and sharing the burden of police work with them. Even If it must engage in global tug of war, it shall adopt the policy of the selective engagement. It has to realize that to contain Chinas growing economic influence, it must step up its own economic game. And that can only happen if it review its position on global chess board and redefines its foreign policy. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See more here: <\/p>\n
Primacy or Offshore Balancing: A Conceptual Analysis of U.S.Foreign Policy - Modern Diplomacy<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Otto Van Bismarck had said, Lord has special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America. And this is a prescient notion as the USA managed to strive and prosper through the 20th decade in a profound way all on its own. Regardless of getting involved in tragedies, wars, and issues that were not even its own, it had both the Lord and luck on its side Continue reading