Is the end of “missional internationalism”?

Today's America is faced with the task of specified a profound reassessment of its function in a planet that has not been done since planet War II. The election fight is not just about winning this or another presidential candidate.

There's more going on. Will America, in its present form, last as the top power and will specified America origin the planet to crash? Fanatic defenders of the “liberal madness” of the happiness of another nations and states by the United States, which is not lacking over the Vistula, are convinced that America's mission is to “eternal” to play leadership global roles. However, they do not see the negative effects of an interior crack in the American establishment, which thus cannot agree on its actual and coherent interests. Philo-American politicians and commentators do not want to see the negative effects of American hegemony, a sense of superiority and arrogant globalist mission, as well as the influx of primitive mass culture and behaviour patterns harmful to national identities.

The problem did not come out adequate in the ending US presidential campaign, but more and more observers around the planet note that the increasing divisions in American society against the background of the scope and nature of engagement abroad can find the nature of the next presidency. Even if the election was won by Kamala Harris, it would besides be essential to answer the question of whether the so-far "internationalist strategy" is sustainable in the long run. In Donald Trump's case, it seems more obvious, due to the fact that despite the various inconsistencies in his statements, he advocates breaking up with “missional internationalism” for healing from within America itself.

The outgoing America?

In Poland, fewer people address the problem of the return of the US to isolationism, in fear of leaving Europe to its fate, and even worse, to Russia and China. However, in the United States, this subject returns not only in political debate but besides in solid analyses. The proof of this is simply a published book by an excellent investigator of American abroad policy Charles A. Kupchan entitled “Isolationism. How in its past America has separated itself from the world”, Warsaw 2024. For many apologists of America, it should become a compulsory reading, so that they can cool down their “hot heads” in promoting her hegemony.

In more than 2 100 years of U.S. political history, as most people in the planet do not know, the United States has stayed distant longer from many global problems than they have been active in. From the beginning of statehood in the 18th century until the 1898 War with Spain, they avoided territorial expansion outside North America. For they themselves were surrounded by hostile powers and were incapable to overcome them. The increasing economical power in the 19th century utilized for interior consolidation, utilizing diplomacy and strength to grow territorial conquests (declaration of work for Western Hemisphery, expansion towards the Pacific, war with Mexico 1846-1848 and annexing its lands, redemption from Alaska's Russia in 1867). The safety of the American “reduction” was to be based on “natural boundaries”, geographical distance, uniteraryism and isolation by not engaging (i.e. declarative neutrality) in abroad affairs.

It would seem that geographical distances no longer play a function in ensuring prosperity and security, as was the case in the 19th century. Meanwhile, in the United States, any ruling elites keep a strong belief that their "resistance" is simply a function of distance from Europe, Asia, the mediate East or Africa. It is an enviable position distant from erstwhile and contemporary rivals that gives birth to natural temptations to give up, retreat or retreat from allied obligations.

In the 19th century, ideological foundations of imperial power were built. This was expressed in the concept of "revealed destiny", a Messianic commitment to promoting the ideals of American democracy. The U.S. was to be the “leading light” of freedom, and its uniqueness was based on the story of avoiding permanent geopolitical commitments. Trade with all possible parties of the world, utilizing protectionism and recourse to continentalism (protection of its own territory and a developing region of influence) was flourishing.

Only on the wave of criticism of internationalist strengthening in the late 19th century and years planet War I this alternatively complex strategy was called isolationism, although it was alternatively selective activism, i.e. engaging only there and to specified a degree as it was beneficial to the US. erstwhile America was not yet a power, the more crucial strategy for it was – according to the directive George Washington from the farewell speech (Farewell Address) of 1796 – “not getting involved” in the complexities of permanent alliances and commitments.

Returning to history, it is worth remembering that the direction towards isolationism frequently resulted from interior weakness, or cataclysms, which included a tragic civilian war (secretary war) in the 19th century, and in the early decades of the 20th and 30th centuries a large crisis. While America is at the forefront of large powers in terms of economical growth and the ability to mobilise its resources, it maintains its position as a hegemonic power. Who knows if he'll start hiding behind the barriers?

United States participation in 2 planet wars did not prejudge the inclusion of the Allied with permanent safety guarantees. After Hitler's attack on Poland, the Americans did not bother to take action against the Axis. Only the nipponese attack at the end of 1941 on Pearl Harbor determined a change of strategy, and the triumph in the war triggered decks of global engagement until modern times. That is erstwhile the era of “active internationalism” began. Interestingly, due to inappropriate associations with another internationalism (in the proletarian and socialist editions) in Polish literature, devoted to the abroad policy of the United States, 1 avoids itself like the fire of that term. We will not hear specified terms in media comments either.

Over the last 80 years, the US has created a global network of global financial, economical and political institutions, established bases chains and military alliances that have allowed them to prosecute their strategical interests in virtually all places on Earth. It is worth repeating that this "deep" commitment to the affairs of another regions of the planet against the background of the full past of the US appears to be an exception alternatively than a permanent correctness.

Contrary to universal mythology, the temptation to engage internationally was never the consequence of American morality or altruism. These are ruthless motives in the mechanisms of capitalist pursuit of profit, in the desire to control and selfish exploitation of others. This is primarily about the interests of the large economical and military tycoons, who derive tremendous wealth from the addiction of another countries and sometimes take over their resources in a veiled way. State policy only legitimises these interests, becoming in time an obedient and effective tool in the hands of financiers, soldates and peculiar services. This is besides served by various war expeditions and direct and indirect engagement in conflicts to combat competition and manage global relations by destabilising and weakening opponents, most frequently designated in an arbitrary manner.

A retreat from imperialism?

More recently, the hope of reducing American engagement in the planet is primarily to reduce commitments rationally due to expanding interior needs, especially in view of the failure of competitiveness, material infrastructure degradation and social negligence. For these reasons, many more presidents outside Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump will return to the slogan “America First” (“First America”) and “MAGA” (Make America large Again!”). This is frequently done in order to divert attention from disasters and disasters abroad, as was the case in the case of the abrupt evacuation of American forces from Afghanistan, the burning out of the impurity in the mediate East, and the awakening of memories of the "golden age" that return as an inherent past, but possibly besides the prelude to the "new" American strategy.

Another reason for the revision of the external engagement of America may be the increasing conflict between democrats (internationalists) and Republicans (isolationists) against the background of the doctrine of global engagement. For 30 years, we have seen the degradation of the cross-party consent in the United States (with a break in the “war against terrorism” in Afghanistan and Iraq), which for many years has legitimized the hegemonic aspirations of this superpower. American society, more specifically part of its elite, fears that continuing investing in “world politics” will affect their safety and well-being. It is evident that the Americans are tired of preferring the interests of another countries and nations at their expense.

Hence, the search for a "golden means" between activism and distance, between internationalist enthusiasm and prudent restraint continues. Despite the rich past of turning the United States distant from problems in another parts of the planet – the most memorable episode afraid the rejection by the U.S. legislature from 1919 to 1920 of participation in the League of Nations and abdication of work for Europe during the interwar period – in the current circumstances of the global strategy considering the likelihood of a return to known past of isolationism, and even a selective commitment cannot be detached from the realities of hic et nunc.

These indicate, above all, immense interdependencies on a global scale, both in the economic, social and technological spheres. The phenomenon of the global strategy is the existence, in spite of various sceptics, of a "global community of interests", whether in the fight against pandemics, environmental and climate disasters, proliferation of weapons of mass demolition or cybercrime. The existence of unruly political regimes or dysfunctional states, which are on the verge of falling or even falling, besides leads to commitment alternatively than isolation.

Despite various ambivalities, it is apparent to many that the United States owes large wealth to its internationalism, which is frequently simply a cover for “republical imperialism”. Thus, it is impossible to neglect to see the profits that America derives from wars, especially in the mediate East and Ukraine, without the bloodshed of its own soldiers. Stopping rivals on a global and regional scale has been the cornerstone of the global American strategy since the post-war era. Nothing has changed after the end of the “cold war”. The detention has now been enriched by various means, far beyond the military arsenal. Thus, supporting local conflicts goes hand in hand with an extended policy of sanctions against “nominated” enemies, multi-format diversion and diffusion, drastic break-up of economical and diplomatic ties.

Europe lost

Europe was the primary victim of the US's strategy to halt Russia and China. The European Union has lost its decision-making over "Eastern Partnerships". Its most crucial members, specified as Germany and France (not to mention smaller and weaker states), have become vassals of Washington, and Russia's displacement from the European energy marketplace at the price of multiplying their costs is simply a testament to the extraordinary cynicism of the American elite against its own allies.

If there were an interior breakdown in the US, whether in the form of an economical disaster or social rebellion, an isolationist consequence would surely not be the only solution. A fewer decades ago, 1 of the seniors of a extremist American political thought Noam Chomsky he warned that in the event of a threat of failure of his position and the state of imperial possession, the Americans would put on a complete confrontation with the “whole world”, thus leading to global demolition (Noam Chomsky, “Hegemony or survival. The American drive for global dominance”, Warsaw 2005). Of course, this kind of pessimistic speculation and "ifs" can be denied, but people who think about specified a anticipation to turn the situation does not slow down from an analytical diagnosis and formulation of predictive warnings.

Not only has the strategical inconsistency of global engagement become a hallmark of modern America, but besides the increasing divisions and contradictions that make it an unpredictable power. Many thanks to political leaders who, alternatively of uniting, effectively divide and conflict American society. The paradox is besides that it is the largest immigration state, open to visitors for centuries, which has become the place of expanding immigration control, sealing borders, exclusions and distances towards strangers. Untrust turns into xenophobia, and stigmatizing opponents turns into ideological crusades and criminal expeditions or wars through others.

The End of the Global Power

The United States appears to have exhausted its capacity to accomplish hegemonic goals in the global system. For respective decades the power of Asian hegemon, or China, has increased. With this, the strategical reorientation of many countries in Asia and the Pacific will continue, as the US will not be able to meet its commitments, especially as regards safety guarantees. It is already evident from the example of the mediate east conflict that the U.S. does not full control the situation. Even the most crucial Israeli ally is clearly getting out of control, and the conventional arabian partner – the Sauds – is looking for another strategical options, heading towards China. Keeping in head the Afghan trauma, Americans are little likely to put their soldiers at hazard of mutilation and death, and fresh conflicts involving the US – for example in Iraq, Libya and Syria – left behind the instability and suffering of millions of people.

The isolationist slogan is accompanied by disappointment about America's goals in a globalised world, with disproportionately advanced effort and sacrifice. The failure resulted in efforts to spread democracy in areas completely unprepared or different in terms of civilization and culture. The U.S. elites active in the war in Ukraine are now experiencing a circumstantial "awakening" that they are dealing with a state that is constantly demanding unlimited assistance and support, but does not show itself a concilation initiative and a compromise will, based on corrupt structures, oligarchism and dangerous nationalism.

Donald Trump represents a certain kind of these not popular “discover” and although he was most likely not and would not be consistent in his actions, he has already achieved a certain goal. The threats of reducing the American commitment to defence of Europe, and the wider West, in front of our eyes, give emergence to the consequences desired for America: greater readiness to subordination of allies, foolishness of elites, increased investment in defence among the vassalized states, increased their militantity and mobilisation of resources.

Both Republicans and Democrats increasingly conclude that the planet's systemic universalization is unattainable in the foreseeable perspective. So it is time to come down from the clouds to the ground and take care of the curing of your own yard, where there are many things to repair. It turned out that for many societies in the planet there are inactive attractive, or at least safe adequate different variants of authoritarianism. Many nations, despite the American crusade, proceed to treat democracy as a kind of “political decoration” alternatively than a “compasse”, which would advance “westernisation” or “similarity” to America. The regression in the spread of liberal values and western systemic patterns requires reflection on the consequences of unrestrained ambitions of internationalist imperialists.

Trump Time

Therefore, in the eyes of many American audiences Donald Trump, although he is the oldest candidate for president of the United States in history, holds hope for a revision of hegemonic expansionism through ideological crusades. The 'Great America' can again become an example to all, but not by force and immense costs, but by attraction and attraction.

It seems that the eccentric Republican presidential candidate has convinced more U.S. citizens as compared to its democratic and little colorful counter-candidate, in line with the thought of "founding fathers", that any excessive engagement in abroad affairs takes place at the expense of freedom and interior prosperity. The power for external use, whether in the form of a immense army or a bureaucracy liable for inter-power struggle, always negatively affects the level of taxation of citizens, increased cost of living, increased national power at the expense of states, limiting freedom, even through surveillance or widespread prevention.

Indeed, a repetition of Trump's 2016 success – if completely unpredictable events do not stand in the way – can be due to the constant reminder of the direct consequences of America's global commitment to its citizens. Of course, the prospects ahead do not have much to do with the prudent simplification of American commitment to global issues. A extremist turn towards isolationism could be both destructive and dangerous. The search for balance between intentions and necessity will so become 1 of the most hard tasks of the fresh president of America.

Prof. Stanisław Bielen

Think Poland, No. 45-46 (3-10.11.204)