Joseph Nai: The American Exception in the Trump era
Author: Joseph Nai, professor at Harvard University in the United States; father of soft power
Source: Project Syndicate; National Government and Foreign Affairs Scholars WeChat Public Platform Column Article
WeChat Platform Editor: Zhou Yue
In a recent study of 14 US presidents since World War II, the author found that most Americans want a more moral foreign policy, but there have been endless debates on what this issue actually means. Americans generally believe that their country is exceptionalist because the United States, on the surface, defines the identity of its nationals not by race, but rather relies on political, economic, and cultural social lifestyles and liberal ideas. There is no doubt that the Donald Trump administration has deviated from this tradition.
Of course, the American superiority and exceptional remarks have faced various contradictions from the very beginning. Despite liberal remarks by the founding fathers of the United States, the original sin of slavery was written into the American Constitution, which was undoubtedly a compromise clause that united the states of the north and the south. Americans have always had obvious differences in how to express liberal values in foreign policy. The federal superiors and exceptionalists sometimes even ignore international law, invade other countries, and are keen to create excuses to impose US government actions on the people.
However, American superiority has also inspired efforts to ease external threats through a series of international law and international organizations to protect domestic freedom and make the world look safer and more peaceful. However, in fact, Trump ignored both aspects of this tradition and ignored them.
Trump declared in his inaugural speech: America is preferred. “We will seek friendship and kindness with countries around the world, but we do so based on a realistic understanding that all national actors have the right to put their interests first.” He also said, “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but let it shine as a role model. In Trump’s view, a good point of view will inevitably set a good example, which can enhance its ability and scope to influence others.
has a tradition of interferenceism and crusades in U.S. foreign policy. Woodrow · President Wilson seeks the democratization of international security in foreign policy. Kennedy sent 16,000 soldiers to Vietnam, and his successor Lyndon Johnson increased that number to 565,000. Similarly, Bush used a national security strategy that promotes freedom and democracy to find excuses for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
In fact, the United States has participated in seven wars and military interventions since the end of the Cold War. However, as Ronald Reagan said in 1982, “the regime sown with a bayonet will never take root.” "—Avoiding such conflicts seems to have always been one of Trump's popular policies. He restricted the use of force in the Syrian region and hoped to withdraw troops from the Afghanistan region by Election Day 2020.
Due to the protection of the two oceans and bordering weaker neighbors, the United States focused mainly on westward expansion in the 19th century and tried to avoid being involved in the European-centered global balance of power. However, by the early 20th century, the United States had become the world's largest economy, , and its intervention in World War I broke global power .
In the 1930s, American public opinion believed that intervention in Europe was a very wrong move, turning toward tough isolationism. During World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the United States, his successor Harry Truman and other successors learned the lesson that the United States could no longer turn its attention to the domestic. They realized that the scale of American actors had become an important ideological source of exceptionalism. If the world's largest economy at that time could not take the lead in the production of global public goods, other countries would not have been able to do so.
The post-war U.S. presidents established an international system consisting of security alliances, multilateral institutions and relatively open economic policies. Today, this "liberal international order" - the basis of US foreign policy over the past 70 years - is being challenged and impacted by the rise of emerging powers and a new wave of populism within democratic countries.
In 2016, Trump successfully exploited this sentiment, becoming the first presidential candidate to question the major party that led the international order of the United States in 1945, and his contempt for allies and institutions determined the length of the presidential term. Nevertheless, a recent Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll showed that more than two-thirds of Americans want an outgoing foreign policy—a common view among Americans is to avoid military intervention rather than withdraw from alliances or multilateral cooperation. It is certain that the American public will not be willing to return to isolationism in the 1930s again.
The real problem facing Americans is whether they can successfully solve two aspects of their exceptionalism—democracy without bayonets; increasing support for international institutions. Can the United States learn how to promote so-called democratic values and human rights without military intervention and force, while helping to formulate and organize the necessary rules and institutions to create a new system to address transnational issues such as climate change, pandemics, cybersecurity, terrorism and economic development.
But now the situation is that the United States has failed in both aspects. Instead of taking the lead in strengthening international cooperation and fighting the novel coronavirus pneumonia organization, the Trump administration has simply accused relevant countries and threatened to withdraw from the World Health Organization.
has many questions to be answered, but in this year's US presidential campaign, turning it into a political or even a domestic political issue rather than a foreign policy issue is itself a false start. We have not defeated this epidemic yet, and this kind of problem is by no means the last one.
In addition, 40% of the greenhouse gases that threaten humanity's future come from China and the United States. However, neither country can address these emerging national security threats alone. As the two largest economies in the world, China and the United States are destined to establish a relationship model that combines competition and cooperation. For the United States, exceptionalism should include cooperation with China; helping to produce global public products; and defending human rights and values.
The above are moral issues that Americans should strive to discuss and try their best to solve before this year's presidential election.
Digital Economy Think Tank
Politics and International Relations Forum
In order to better serve the construction of the digital China, serve the construction of the "Belt and Road", and strengthen theoretical and practical exchanges in the process of digital economy construction. Experts and scholars from China's digital economy and the construction of the "Belt and Road" have established digital economy think tanks to contribute to the construction of digital China. Wei Jianguo, former vice minister of the Ministry of Commerce, served as honorary president, and well-known young scholars, Huang Rihan, , Chu Yin, and others were the leaders. The Forum on Political Science and International Relations is a special platform under the Digital Economy Think Tank.
