Foreign Affairs: What are the roots of Washington's addiction to the use of military force? Can China curb it?

Foreign Affairs magazine published an article criticizing the United States' use of military force in its interventions in foreign conflicts, saying that its addiction to that is an unfortunate trend, and the rise of China in the international arena may curb it.

The article indicated that the United States seemed comfortable using higher levels of force abroad, although this was not the case in the early eras of the establishment of the state, when it was not heavily involved in foreign conflicts, and its involvement in many conflicts was limited to defending its borders and expansion. west.

The entry of the United States into the First and Second World Wars signaled its assumption of a role in world leadership and its greater involvement in international affairs, according to the article written by Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. of Law and Diplomacy), with Sydita Koshy, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Bridgewater State University.

After the Cold War - particularly in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001 - the proportion of armed conflicts in which the United States participated and ignited by its enemies decreased dramatically.

The United States now finds itself in an era when its adversaries no longer provoke it militarily as frequently as in the past, yet it intervenes, using military force more than ever before.

This is - in the opinion of the authors of the article - an "unfortunate" trend, and the evidence for this is its "disastrous" military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

The frequent and excessive use of force also undermines the legitimacy of the United States in the world.

And with the diminishing role of its diplomatic missions and influence abroad, the US military presence alone is increasing.

Global opinion polls show that more than half of the world's population now perceives the United States as a "threat" to them.

A change may occur in the near future, with China becoming a more influential and effective power, with the United States most likely refraining from getting involved in foreign interventions, given that it may end in confrontation with another superpower.

Ultimately, this may prompt US policymakers to adopt diplomatic and economic initiatives that can enhance Washington's soft power and global credibility.

To put the use of American power in the right context, it is useful to consider the circumstances that would confer legitimacy on it, the authors say.

In contemporary international law, the "legitimate" resort to force must fulfill 3 basic conditions, the first of which is that force can only be used in self-defense or to defend an "innocent" party, and the second, that the response must not be reciprocated whenever possible.

The third condition is that the violence is proportionate to the initiation or commission of violence.

America's decline

The article notes that a poll - conducted by the Pew Research Center between 2013 and 2018 - showed that the status of the United States had declined sharply: in 2013, 25% of non-Americans saw that the power and influence of the United States constituted a threat. big.

After 5 years, that percentage had risen to 45%.

In their article, the two academies attributed this shift - for the most part - to Donald Trump's assumption of the presidency of the United States in 2016, succeeding Barack Obama.

Certainly, Trump's disregard for international norms and commitments to US allies, his scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal, his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, and his antagonistic outbursts against other countries on social media have all encouraged negative perceptions of his country.

But that is not the whole story. There are several factors that help explain why America is more inclined to militarize, and why global perceptions of American power have changed as a result.

According to the article, the first reason for this, which can be called the "9/11 effect", is the tendency to dehumanize adversaries. The resort of "jihadists" to launch "suicide" attacks on civilians convinced many Americans - including many policymakers. - That the United States is facing a "barbaric, inhuman" enemy.

Perhaps this habit of considering opponents as fundamentally different from other human beings or irrational helps explain Washington's decline in using its diplomatic and economic tools in favor of a foreign policy that relies on force first, as the article puts it.

Another explanation could be the "inertia of a unipolar world," as the article describes it.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, commentators and analysts cheered the dawn of unparalleled American hegemony.

In the view of the two American academics, this characterization is flawed “because true unipolarity implies the ability of one country to defeat a group of other countries in the system without assistance. The United States did not have this power, and therefore the direct distribution of power after the Cold War is accurately described It is more multipolar.

The authors believe that the United States should be wary of China's growing military and economic power, and its expansion of its presence on the international scene.

They indicate that this may herald Washington's return to adopting the American traditions of diplomatic and economic governance as a last resort, and armed force as a last option.

The best way for the United States to capitalize on China's growing lack of legitimacy is to forge strong alliances in the region.

Moreover, the presence of a strong China would limit the risks that America might be exposed to in the international arena, and avoid self-destruction.

In conclusion, the two authors advise Washington to reconsider the use of force abroad, and to refocus on diplomacy in the coming years.