ANALYSIS
17 January 2017
Change in USA security perceptions
By: Karsten Riise
The USA is increasingly questioning its own global primacy. The USA might even leave NATO in a not-too-distant future. NATO may become an instrument controlled by the European Union. To fully leave the EU, the UK may then have to leave NATO too. Africa - Latin America - Asia - must develop new internal security structures.
In Denmark, ambassador Taksøe and the Danish military intelligence service delivered a comprehensive report 1 maj 2016 on foreign policy and security. Their outlook was old wisdom; winds of change are already blowing. Many other countries may like Denmark be overlooking change in the USA - it may be dangerous, if they are not prepared for fundamental change.
In order not to overlook change in your own regional security dynamics it is not enough just to follow the official American policy, like Denmark seems to do. Other political influences may soon turn the direction of the USA.
The following is an analysis of American foreign and security discourse. Special emphasis is put on voices and factors of influence, which may any time soon change USA in world affairs.
Pres. Obama & former secretary of state Hillary Clinton:
Pivot from Europe
USA's so called "pivot to Asia" is just as much a "pivot from Europe".
The European Union - EU President Juncker, EU Foreign Affairs chief Mogherini, the EU Parliament committees, Germany, France, Italy - saw this. Countries like Denmark and the UK have been blind to this.
Recognizing that that the USA is pivoting away from Europe, the EU plans to expand the EU with a European Defense Union, announced at EU President Juncker's "State of the Union" speech on 14 September 2016.
The USA pivot from Europe to Asia was announced long ago by then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton 11 October 2009 in an article Foreign Policy: "America's Pacific Century". On 17 November 2011, Obama announced to the Australian Parliament in Canberra (away from Europe) that American military ressources in Europe would be shifted to Asia.
Since 2011, Europeans should have seen that USA military commitment to Europe is approaching an end. USA has not got the ressources, nor the need. In the USA, experts and ordinary Americans are losing motivation to "protect" rich Europeans. President Trump saw this, but this development is not about Trump - it is realpolitik, the reality of a global power-shift.
USA would be foolish, if USA wanted to risk being involved in a big, maybe nuclear, war for what from their perspective are marginal areas like the Baltic countries or the Ukraine, where a nuclear neighbouring power has much more at stake, and therefore is willing to take bigger risks and commitments than the USA. The USA will (and should) rather stay out - and be open about this.
The enlargement of NATO was not unconditionally an increase in USA power: NATO-enlargement was a heavy increase in USA extended deterrence commitments, which consumes USA ressources, involves risks and maybe unecessary extra cost-burdens to the USA. The bigger NATO may in the end be a netto-liability to the USA.
If the Baltic states and the Ukraine could be used by USA as a stage-area to pressure Russia at marginal risk or costs to the USA itself, fine with the USA. But as this does not seem to be possible, given the strength and assertiveness of Russia, the USA has no need to take on large burdens for areas, which to the USA are basically insignificant "border"-regions.
Denmark, Scandinavia, the Baltics and the UK, walk with eyes closed. They rely blindly and solely on the USA for their security the coming decade. Whether USA will stay committed to Europe's security is not certain, and this does not only depend on the mood of President Trump, as some seem to believe. Those Europeans are deceiving themselves, who may believe, that if they send sulky pleas, they can politically maintain USAs military commitment in Europe. Whether the USA loses interest in Europe or not is a USA decision - European voices will in the end not make the decisive difference.
Prof. Kenneth N. Waltz:
Let Iran get the Bomb
In Jul/Aug. 2012, prof. Waltz argued in Foreign Affairs magazine, that the world will be more stable and secure, if local military balances are allowed to occur without always involving the USA. This was a new viewpoint against American global supremacy. Prof. Walts even argued, that the world will become more stable, if a regional power like Iran gets the bomb to make its own security balance against Israel's arsenal of (probaby 200) nuclear bombs. Essentially prof. Waltz argues that power balance should to a larger degree be improved inside a region, to lessen the need (with commitments, costs and risks) for the USA to balance from the outside.
President Trump has been criticized for arguing that Japan and S.Korea should have nuclear bombs to maintain their own balance with China without involvement of the USA. President Trump follows exactly the same founded logic which the renowned prof. Waltz wrote down in 2012.
From his argument, prof. Waltz obviously does not think, that the USA can or should police and "balance" every region. Prof. Waltz is a person whose words carry importance. His "Theory On International Politics" is one of the world's most influential books on international relations theory.
Prof. Mearsheimer & Prof. Walt:
Leave Europe to EU & Russia - USA must only balance China
Prof. Mearsheimer and Walt are among the most influential scholars of international relations in the USA. In an article in Foreign Affairs Jul/Aug. 2016, they point out, that USA wars and engagements and USA grand strategy have been "misguided": They have been great failures the last 25 years with an "abysmal record", and therefore USA military policy becomes increasingly questionable: "An April 2016 Pew poll found that 57 percent [my emphasis] of Americans agree that the United States should 'deal with its own problems and let others deal with theirs the best they can.' On the campaign trail, both the Democrat Bernie Sanders and the Republican Donald Trump found receptive audiences whenever they questioned the United States' penchant for promoting democracy, subsidizing allies' defense, and intervening militarily".
Also prof. Mearsheimer and Walt point to the exorbitant costs of the wars, the USA has conducted to enhance its primacy. The wars of Afghanistan and Iraq cost between US $ 4,000 and 6,000 billion, about 7,000 dead American soldiers and created 50,000 wounded veterans, which have to be supported by USA society. This price is not included in the official defense costs.
Prof. Mearsheimer and Walt point out, that Europe is of no strategic concern to the USA, and that the Ukraine situated in a location of no strategic relevance to the USA. Only China could in the longer term become a security issue for the USA.
Therefore, they conclude that "instead of policing the world", the United States should "encourage other countries to take the lead [my emphasis] in checking rising powers, intervening itself only when necessary. This does not mean abandoning the United States' position as the world's sole superpower or retreating to "Fortress America." Rather, by husbanding U.S. strength [that is, holding back and reducing US engagements], offshore balancing would preserve U.S. primacy far into the future and safeguard liberty at home".
The reality behind these words is, that in order to preserve what is left of US primacy, credibility and war-fighting apetite, the USA must draw this "primacy" down, drastically reduce the level of US American military engagement in and with the world, and leave it to the rest of the world, Europe and Africa, also the Middle East, and even to a large degree Asia - to manage their own affairs.
Unless "the kitchen burns" - at which time the USA has a choise to or not-to step-in (though stepping-in later become difficult, which is the argument of those advocating that USA should stay enganged in most places).
Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich:
Leave NATO to the Europeans
President Trump is not alone to argue that "NATO is obsolete" in its present form. Prof. Bacevich is far to the left of president Trump and one of USAs very respected experts on foreign policy. Even a more hawkish US foreign policy expert like Robert Kaplan, speaks with respect about him. Prof. Bacevich, a "catholic conservative", is writing in both traditional conservative (paleo-con, not neo-con) as well as in liberal left media in the USA.
In Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2016, prof. Bacevich argues for "Ending Endless War" and for an American "pragmatic" military strategy in the world. Pragmatic means: No primacy. Wars like Iraq (where Bacevich lost his son), Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (clandestine war) should not be made. War should no longer as in recent decades be a "normal" policy tool, but only a "last resort".
Prof. Bacevich argues to end USAs membership of NATO no later than 2025. USA should exit NATO through a deliberate phased devolution of America's responsibility in Europe: (1) Now, end the practice of having an American as supreme commander of NATO in Europe - replace him with a European. (2) Execute a schedule for closing down all remaining US military headquarters in Europe. (3) Pronounce a date, where USA will exit NATO altogether and militarily leave Europe completely.
Exactly like President Trump, prof. Bacevich argues that Europe is "free-riding" on security at USA's expence. Prof. Bacevich obviously agrees with prof. Mearsheimer and Walt, that Europe is of no security concern to USA - and that Russia is no relevant threat to the USA.
To pursuit global primacy, the USA maintains a pervasive (and costly) military presence in 150 of the world's about 200 countries. Prof. Bacevich argues to significantly reduce this pervasive American military presence, which he finds is very much just due to US military "habit". The message to the world's regions is clear: Manage your own security business.
US Military:
Put primacy up for discussion
The United States Airforce sponsors the Strategic Studies Quarterly (SSQ) magazine. The Winter Issue, 2016 of SSQ brings an article by Benjamin H. Friedman and Justin Logan, both from the Cato Instute, which questions why US military global primacy is not discussed in the USA.
The kind of article in the official journal of a US military branch indicates, that top-circles in the US military find it is about time to rethink, whether American military efforts of global dominance (primacy) have been successful or sustainable, and whether this pursuit should be continued.
As the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) has pointed out in its analyses: The US fleet of air planes and war ships is smaller and older than ever since WW II - and in a dire state of technical wear and tear. As the Government Accountability Office has pointed out, the F-35 combat air craft, which was meant to replace nearly all other non-longdistance bomber combat aircraft (F-15C/D, F-16C/D, F-18A-D and AV-8B), is lacking in performance, 8-10 years behind schedule - and the F-35 costs of $ 400 billions for purchase and $ 1,000 billions (2012-dollars, military inflation, higher than civilian inflation, must be added) for operation are probably unaffordable even for the USA, draining the US military of its resources (GAO report 15-364, 14 April 2015):
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-364
The hugely costly and troubled F-35 weapons program illustrates very much intrinsic problems of the USA military the last 50 years, which torment its pursuit of military primacy.
On the people side, the US Army came close to a human breaking point under the strain of extended services to a Iraq (a small population, actually) - and the US Veteran Affairs (with billions not included in official defense spending figures) is in deep trouble after more than 14 years of wars.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/va-still-plagued-by-problems-two-years-after-scand/
The official figures for USA military burden of 4,1% of GDP (US $ 732 billion in 2015, www.BEA.gov) are misleading and absolutely underestimate the real costs of pursuing global military supremacy. Alone US $ 200 billion (1.1% of GDP) for Veteran Affairs are normally excluded, bringing military costs up to 5.2% of GDP. Nuclear weapons programs belong strangely enough to the Department of "Energy" - these extra billions are also normally excluded from figures of USA defense costs. Additional budgets & appropriations for USA wars in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. are normally also excluded - according to prof. Mearsheimer and Walt above, these wars cost a staggering US $ 4,000-6,000 billion, no less than 22%-33% of one year GDP (2015).
The wider societal costs of broken veterans, lost work hours, opportunity costs of efforts and money for war purchase which could have been spent to repair USA broken infrastructure and a falling educational level - are excluded in the figures. Counting all costs, the societal burden including hidden costs of maintaining USA military primacy - especially for the lower 90% of USA society - resembles more and more the longterm societal burden of defense which caught-up the Soviet Union in its latter days.
To sum up, "primacy" is hugely expensive for USA society - seemingly the pursuit of global (supposedly liberal) hegemony, in the longterm simply proves to be simply too costly for the USA.
See also:
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
All this questions USA ability to play a "primacy" role in the future world. As I documented 4 August 2016, the burden of US military primacy in the world is economically unsustainable for USA:
The USA military top must be aware and worried of these facts - which question their own future primacy.
Cato Instute - and Koch influential advocacy:
Come Home, USA
The Cato Institute was September 2016 ranked no 6 think-tank in the USA by the "Global Go To Think Tank Index Report" from the University of Pennsylvania. The Cato Institute is founded by the Charles Koch Foundation. Charles and David Koch are among the USAs richest and most influential individuals in many movements, so called political action committees (PACs). In spite of some recedent incident in a Trump golf-course, Koch also have political connection to President Trump :
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863
The USA military top must be aware and worried of these facts - which question their own future primacy.
Cato Instute - and Koch influential advocacy:
Come Home, USA
The Cato Institute was September 2016 ranked no 6 think-tank in the USA by the "Global Go To Think Tank Index Report" from the University of Pennsylvania. The Cato Institute is founded by the Charles Koch Foundation. Charles and David Koch are among the USAs richest and most influential individuals in many movements, so called political action committees (PACs). In spite of some recedent incident in a Trump golf-course, Koch also have political connection to President Trump :
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863
Viewpoints of the Cato Institute therefore has political importance in today's USA. The Cato article by Benjamin H. Friedman and Justin Logan in Strategic Studies Quarterly, 4/2016 questions American global primacy, but in that piece they do not propose an alternative.
However, a 6 December 2016 piece in The National Interest points to what they propose instead:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640
Benjamin H. Friedman from Cato points out, that to save money, the US military will have to close bases, reduce the number of commands, cut down on the "too many generals" (USA has a lot of generals), reduce military personnel and nuclear forces. In fact, the US military needs to reduce the "number of missions" in pursuit of "foolish goals" (i.e. wars). In another piece, same journal, from 6 November 2016, Mr. Friedman makes a link to a 1997 piece "Come Home, America" in International Security, vol 21, no 4 co-authored by Eugene Gholz, another Cato-related specialist:
The 2016-link by Benjamin H. Friedman back to a
1997-analysis shows that American intellectual reservations against US global
dominance have persisted for at least 20 years. These reservations can one day
soon become prominent in political influence in the USA.
USA now de-securitize Russia
USA under President Obama and US secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have in their discourse constructed Russia as a nearly existential threat to USA and the West. The process of constructing somebody or something as a threat is called "securitization".
I now term the opposite procedure: To deconstruct a threat; to argue that something hitherto perceived as a threat, is no longer a threat, or maybe actually never was, I will call "de-securitization".
More politicians and foreign policy experts in USA now de-securitize Russia. They argue that Russia is by no means a real threat to the USA, that she never was since 1990, and that the USA and Russia can and indeed have to find a constructive way together again. Also, American experts are increasingly coming into the open with a realization, that Russia's course of direction is NOT defined only by its top-leader the last 17 years, but that Russia's aims and policies have a broad legitimate, foundation and support in Russian society. Also, they argue not to make American "regime change" policies towards Russia, sanctions are not helpful - accept differences.
Henry Kissinger:
Reduce commitment to Ukraine and befriend Russia
Already 4 February 2016 - before Trump was even nominated - Kissinger in The National Interest magazine published a piece where he promoted the view, that USA instead of combatting Russia (as under Obama) should work to "merge" the futures of USA and Russia:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relations-15111
Kissinger is a realist. For Kissinger, international equilibrium is the most important of things. Kissinger has for years argued that promoting a better balance of power between the USA and Russia would improve global stability.
Kissinger wrote in his article in February, that "Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States." Kissinger also wrote that the "long-term interests of both countries call for a world that transforms the contemporary turbulence and flux into a new equilibrium which is increasingly multi-polar and globalized".
An article 24 December 2016 in www.politico.www points that the Ukraine is losing its faith in the West:
http://www.politico.eu/article/home-alone-in-ukraine-in-the-age-of-donald-trump-russia-us-macaulay-culkin-christmas-film/
If Ukrainians lose losing faith in the West, where else can they turn? Only to the East - to Russia. Kissinger probably already in February 2016 saw this - that the Ukraine is a "lost cause" for the West, because Kissinger in his piece argued for much more limited (realistic) American aims in Ukraine - namely that "Ukraine needs to be embedded in the structure of European and international security architecture in such a way that it serves as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than as an outpost of either side." [My emphasis] Ukraine is gravitating back towards Russia, and the best that the USA can now hope for is, in Kissinger's words, that the Ukraine becomes neutral.
Kissinger recommends the USA to cooperate with Russia on Syria: "Compatible U.S.-Russian efforts coordinated with other major powers could create a pattern for peaceful solutions in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere.” Kissinger view can now influence the White House again, and he has already been in contact with Trump several times.
USA now de-securitize Russia
USA under President Obama and US secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have in their discourse constructed Russia as a nearly existential threat to USA and the West. The process of constructing somebody or something as a threat is called "securitization".
I now term the opposite procedure: To deconstruct a threat; to argue that something hitherto perceived as a threat, is no longer a threat, or maybe actually never was, I will call "de-securitization".
More politicians and foreign policy experts in USA now de-securitize Russia. They argue that Russia is by no means a real threat to the USA, that she never was since 1990, and that the USA and Russia can and indeed have to find a constructive way together again. Also, American experts are increasingly coming into the open with a realization, that Russia's course of direction is NOT defined only by its top-leader the last 17 years, but that Russia's aims and policies have a broad legitimate, foundation and support in Russian society. Also, they argue not to make American "regime change" policies towards Russia, sanctions are not helpful - accept differences.
Henry Kissinger:
Reduce commitment to Ukraine and befriend Russia
Already 4 February 2016 - before Trump was even nominated - Kissinger in The National Interest magazine published a piece where he promoted the view, that USA instead of combatting Russia (as under Obama) should work to "merge" the futures of USA and Russia:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/kissingers-vision-us-russia-relations-15111
Kissinger is a realist. For Kissinger, international equilibrium is the most important of things. Kissinger has for years argued that promoting a better balance of power between the USA and Russia would improve global stability.
Kissinger wrote in his article in February, that "Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States." Kissinger also wrote that the "long-term interests of both countries call for a world that transforms the contemporary turbulence and flux into a new equilibrium which is increasingly multi-polar and globalized".
An article 24 December 2016 in www.politico.www points that the Ukraine is losing its faith in the West:
http://www.politico.eu/article/home-alone-in-ukraine-in-the-age-of-donald-trump-russia-us-macaulay-culkin-christmas-film/
If Ukrainians lose losing faith in the West, where else can they turn? Only to the East - to Russia. Kissinger probably already in February 2016 saw this - that the Ukraine is a "lost cause" for the West, because Kissinger in his piece argued for much more limited (realistic) American aims in Ukraine - namely that "Ukraine needs to be embedded in the structure of European and international security architecture in such a way that it serves as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than as an outpost of either side." [My emphasis] Ukraine is gravitating back towards Russia, and the best that the USA can now hope for is, in Kissinger's words, that the Ukraine becomes neutral.
Kissinger recommends the USA to cooperate with Russia on Syria: "Compatible U.S.-Russian efforts coordinated with other major powers could create a pattern for peaceful solutions in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere.” Kissinger view can now influence the White House again, and he has already been in contact with Trump several times.
28 American foreign policy researchers
Russia is NOT the Soviet Union - adapt US foreign policy
Former US Secretary of State and presidential-candidate Hillary Clinton publicly compared Russia's leader with "Hitler" - with a person who murdered millions of people. Ms. Hillary Clintons comparison was not just haphazard populistic - it was self-defeating and damaging to USA's ability to manoeuver in international relations. Now, times seem to change.
From November to December 2016, The National Interest magazine hosted a multi-part symposium on American policy on Russia. At the symposium, 28 American foreign policy academics gave their recommendations for changes in US policy on Russia:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/symposium-advice-president-trump-us-russia-policy-18522
A general line in the 28 foreign policy academics view on Russia is, that Russia is a country that must receive a more constructive attitude from the USA, that US confrontations with Russia are dangerous and meaningless, and that Western sanctions don't work. After President Obama, it is time to find a way for a better relationship.
Under president Obama, the USA escalated its confrontations and sanctions towards Russia, and this has backfired on the USA. Instead of comparing Russia's leader with "Hitler", very many American foreign policy experts now recognize that USA is not strong enough to push Russia down. Obama painted the USA into a corner towards Russia - the end of Obama's term is an opportunity for a new approach.
Of the 28 foreign policy academics, Doug Bandow (also a Cato-affiliation) probably most succinctly underscores in a follow-up piece 29 December 2016 in The National Interest, that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/newsflash-russia-not-the-soviet-union-18884
Russia has for long known and played on the fact, that USA needs Russia in a new global political order with China. This is acknowledged openly by Blake Franko, 10 January 2017 in an other well-informed conservative magazine, The American Conservative:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-reverse-kissinger/
Now, at long last, influential conservative voices in the USA openly begin to recognize this reality of Russia's key-importance. Due to lack of American coercive superiority (primacy fading), the USA must no longer try to "change" Russia - the USA has to accept and work with Russia as she is.
Europe will be pressed
to fundamentally reorient its view and policy on Russia.
American global strategy can suddenly change
From the right to the left of the political spectrum, American politicians, experts and lay-people strongly question USA global engagements.
I could illustrate the above with several more examples. Read Christopher Layne's far-looking and thorough analysis in International Security vol.22 no 1, 1997. Already 20 years ago, Christopher Layne made the point well, that over the long term (over a decade) a USA seeking global predominance would over-extend its deterrence-commitments. This is exactly what has happened. I could also mention Barry R. Posen from the prestigious MIT, who for several years has argued that American foreign policy must be based not on global primacy, but on restraint. American restraint may end USA's interest in NATO.
Why do so many more Americans - experts, ordinary people, and the new USA president - start to question USA primacy in the world right now? They do, because global primacy is becoming more and more impossible for the USA to pursue - as I have already predicted in FUTURE OF SECURITY:
The Soviet Union stopped to exist in 1989, though it might technically have continued 10 years longer (Tsygankov, 2013). But it recognized at last, that continuing past efforts would become too difficult.
In FUTURE OF SECURITY, I compared USA global defense commitments with a bridge losing its strength. You don't see the cracks at the beginning, but if you don't modify the structure, the cracks will get worse and a dangerous surprise may arise.
In FUTURE OF SECURITY, I also foresaw that regional powers will increasingly play their own game, making it very difficult for USA to instrumentalize regional actors to extend USA primacy. This pattern of regional key-countries going in their own directions, caring less and less about USA, is exactly what we saw in 2016: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines care less about the USA. More people in the USA question American global primacy, because primacy becomes more difficult, requires more ressources - it is becoming unsustainable.
Many other American experts and politicians continue to argue that USA for ideologic, missionary or safety reasons should continue to invest more ressources to seek supremacy or a maximum possible degree of primacy in the world: Pundits like Petraeus, Kagan, Kaplan, Krepinevich, Hillary Clinton, Ash Carter - even after once denouncing primacy, in a half-hearted way Brzezinski continues. Their arguments reflect conventional American wisdom, which has been repeated more or less unchanged for 10-20 years. I will therefore not go into detail with this here.
The Soviet Union stopped to exist in 1989, though it might technically have continued 10 years longer (Tsygankov, 2013). But it recognized at last, that continuing past efforts would become too difficult.
In FUTURE OF SECURITY, I compared USA global defense commitments with a bridge losing its strength. You don't see the cracks at the beginning, but if you don't modify the structure, the cracks will get worse and a dangerous surprise may arise.
In FUTURE OF SECURITY, I also foresaw that regional powers will increasingly play their own game, making it very difficult for USA to instrumentalize regional actors to extend USA primacy. This pattern of regional key-countries going in their own directions, caring less and less about USA, is exactly what we saw in 2016: Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines care less about the USA. More people in the USA question American global primacy, because primacy becomes more difficult, requires more ressources - it is becoming unsustainable.
Many other American experts and politicians continue to argue that USA for ideologic, missionary or safety reasons should continue to invest more ressources to seek supremacy or a maximum possible degree of primacy in the world: Pundits like Petraeus, Kagan, Kaplan, Krepinevich, Hillary Clinton, Ash Carter - even after once denouncing primacy, in a half-hearted way Brzezinski continues. Their arguments reflect conventional American wisdom, which has been repeated more or less unchanged for 10-20 years. I will therefore not go into detail with this here.
The point of this analysis is to demonstrate, that retrenching influences which have existed for 20 years, are on the rise in the USA - and may achieve a breakthrough in the White House.
The election of Trump should be a wake-up-call. Whether the USA retrenches from the world now, does not depend on President Trump only. But circumstances & people put their forces around him, and a seismic reduction in USA willingness (and ability) to commit its defence to other countries can happen now or under the next USA president in just 4-8-12 years.
Orderly change can take 10 years. Start to prepare now.
USA-independent regional security
When the USA leave local security-balances to regional actors - new security structures will develop.
Europe - the EU must prepare itself to take over NATO. Russia must be reconnected.
Africa - ECOWAS, the East African Community and South African cooperation will be pressed to improve their own regional security - for a future without USA involvement. Congo needs an African solution. North Africa (esp. Morocco) may need a close defense cooperation with Europe, and Europe must invest enormously in civilian projects to repair what they broke with their war in Libya which has spread extremism all over North Africa.
Asia - The USA history of brutal colonization (Philip Golub, 2010) and later support for a long deeply problematic regime (Marcos) detract from USA efforts for Philippine cooperation. After Marcos, the Philipines quickly kicked USA forces out. In spite of USA strongest efforts, and some renewed USA presence, the Philipines (a key country) are turning away from the USA - towards China. This is probably not about the Philipine leader as a person, as often reported, but about something deeper. The USA may try to remove the Philipine leader with a coup, assasination or some legal case. But as we saw with the failed coup in Turkey (which the USA must have known about), with gradual loss of superiority, the USA is becoming a more unsafe pair of hands, capable of making own-goals which can further accelerate USA own loss of global influence.
The Philipines are a key location in East Asia. Vietnam, Malaysia og Indonesia may after the Philipines also have to move closer to China. According to a RAND study, the USA has already lost military superiority in the Taiwan strait. With the Philipines moving towards China, the South China Sea can fall under political (and maybe also military) dominance of China, and the oil supply line from Malacca up to North East Asia, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, may come under considerable Chinese influence.
The USA can suddenly stop to be the dominating security actor from Singapore all the way up to Japan - one of Earth's wealthiest regions with increasing international political importance.
American military presence in East Asia looks to become ever more costly, ineffective, operating from ever more remote locations (Guam), and even irrelevant. This in spite of USA most determined efforts to concentrate ("pivot") remaining USA power to continue the game to stay on top around China. The USA loses vital interest in Europe and moves forces to Asia, but the USA may even be driven out of Asia too. This is the final game. A weaker USA in Asia may become nervous, insecure, jittery - losing direction and therefore even become a destabilizing risk-factor, as Chinese influence increases. Realist political theory calls this the "Thycudides-trap" - and it must be avoided.
China, India, Russia Japan and South Korea, ASEAN and Pakistan with neighboring Iran and Saudi Arabia, are all in focus. This creates a difficult security link to the Middle East. Russia even has to manage its rôle in three theaters, Europe, Asia and the greater Middle East (with Turkey and Iran). Asia must build an own regional security architecture - which must be a whole new kind of regional security structure based on serial-multilateral regional balances-of-power not to be depending on the USA for on-shore or off-shore balancing.
Latin America - China will increasingly want to invest in and politically cooperate with Latin America, especially with Pacific countries like Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama (the canal), and Peru with transport corridor to Brazil.
With increased commercial and political interests, greater security interests normally follow. Chinese interactions with Latin America may therefore sooner or later conflict with the Monroe doctrine and its Roosewelt corollary of American regional hegemony. Latin American countries must therefore strengthen their own security cooperation to manage potential conflicts from outside. The MERCOSUR and Mexico (with Cuba, Colombia and Venezuela) may have to take on themselves a greater security responsibility in South America and Central America.
All these regional security changes in the world challenge old wisdom. A new president in the White House with new security perceptions is a chance to restrain interventionist old habits.
Karsten Riise
Partner & Editor
CHANGE NEWS &
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
