GlobalWide News
The Financial Times columnist Gideon Rahman: Joe Biden is not just an old guy. He is also a representative of an old idea — one that dates back to the 1940s.
The US president believes that his nation and the wider world are safer if the US plays the role of world policeman. He argued recently that: “American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances are what keep us, America, safe . . . To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it’s just not worth it.”
The world view that Biden articulated stretches back to the end of the second world war — when the American elite concluded that the isolationism of the 1930s had aided the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The Washington security establishment decided that it would not make that mistake again.
President Trump’s tenure marked a departure from this traditional approach, leading to uncertainties about the future of U.S. involvement in global affairs. In his first term, he flirted with pulling the US out of Nato. In a second term, he might actually go through with it. Indeed, if he pursued the most radical version of his “America First” ideology, a second Trump administration could see a complete break with the idea that it is in America’s interests to underpin the security arrangements in three of the most strategic regions in the world — Europe, Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf.
In each of these regions, America now faces an active challenger — eager to see it depart. In Europe, that challenger is Russia; in Asia it is China; in the Middle East it is Iran. These nations are actively working to end American hegemony and promote a multipolar world. The U.S. faces the risk of creating a power vacuum if it scales back its military commitments, which could be exploited by these challengers.
Domestically, the American public’s support for global leadership is waning. There’s a growing preference for dealing with domestic issues over international involvement, as seen in the reduced support for aid to Ukraine and skepticism about engaging in conflicts like Taiwan. Additionally, practical constraints such as defense spending and resource allocation pose challenges to maintaining U.S. presence in multiple regions.
Academic voices like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggest that the U.S. should reduce its military commitments and let regional powers handle their own security. However, the article argues that these regional powers are not equipped to counter the ambitions of Russia, China, and Iran independently. The consequences of an American withdrawal could lead to the rise of undemocratic and expansionist powers, eventually threatening even the U.S. itself. This situation underscores the complexities and risks involved in the U.S. potentially retreating from its long-standing role in global security.
The entire article can be read at the link https://www.ft.com/content/90f4abbc-9fce-4870-85b0-53e0e862d6b5
