The US no longer wants to be the world's policeman

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:

Now that the war in Afghanistan is just about concluded, less than 24 hours before all of the remaining American troops wrap up their mission in Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, after over 100,000, mostly Afghan civilians, as well as American and coalition partners evacuated from the country. One thing to point to is just how much the United States and the American people have changed in interests, in what presence, what the role, what the mission of the United States globally is and should be.

As everyone now is very keenly aware, this war became very, very unpopular among Democrats, among Republicans. If there was anything you could find people agreeing on in foreign policy, it's, "We're angry at China, we want to end the wars. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, why are we doing all this stuff?" In other words, the idea that the United States is the global policeman. A role that the Americans had accepted to a great degree during the cold war, accepted to a significant degree after 9/11, really doesn't accept any more. And so, I think one of the reasons why people give such a hard time to this America is back idea of Joe Biden is that, there are many things about America's history that a lot of Americans increasingly aren't up for. The idea of being the global policeman. The idea of being the architect of global trade. The idea of being the promoter of common values, of an open society and rule of law and human rights.


And these things that back after World War II, the United States set up the United Nations, did the lion share of drafting the UN charter, the universal declaration of human rights, increasingly something the Americans are focusing on for themselves, but not focusing on for the rest of the world. We've talked about various manifestations of this over the years. This idea that if the average American citizen increasingly believes that their own government is not representative, is not taking care of them, the social contract isn't working. We're letting all of these new immigrants in and the composition of the country's changing, but you're not taking care of me and my family. Then suddenly the country that has the Statue of Liberty, the country that made itself great on the back of accepting all of these downtrodden people from around the world who wanted to make better lives for themselves, suddenly that doesn't seem as attractive for a lot of Americans. And the idea of sending our young men and women around the world to defend liberties and to help improve the lives of others and defend other countries from internal and external menace becomes something we're not as interested in doing. If there's violence on the American streets and policing isn't taken care of, and why are we doing all of these things?

So, I do think that the one notion that America has to provide for American citizens before it can effectively provide global leadership, certainly in terms of being a leader by example, is a very important lesson, and one that needs to be a work of a generation. It is not just a work of a single administration, whether Democrat or Republican. I'm so conflicted in terms of the war in Afghanistan, it was a relatively small presence at the end. The Afghan defense forces were doing almost all of the fighting, you weren't seeing Americans go back in body bags. But I also completely am empathetic to how unpopular the war had become even in a very different manifestation of how much less of the burden was on Americans, and how useful it was to be working together with a coalition. All of these things are very challenging, but they're so much more challenging when the American population isn't onboard with the mission.

And I do think that today's America presence globally is not an isolationist presence at all. It's not that the United States is suddenly saying we're disengaging from the rest of the world. Certainly, the US will still be providing a lot of humanitarian aid. The US will still have significant boots on the ground all over the world, in bases in the Middle East and in South Asia and Europe and Latin America and Asia. No other country in the world has or is interested in promoting the kind of military strength that the Americans do. But the idea of the American's as global policeman has taken a very big hit. And instead of isolationism, I think what's increasingly replacing it is a nationalism, is a mercantilism, is a sense that the US power should be used first and foremost, to ensure that there are no free riders and that the Americans are benefiting. And that means that alliances need to be more transactional than they have been and less about common values.

And that is going to make it hard to build up this notion of common democracies fighting for an individual good. I do think that one of the advantages that the Americans have had historically, vis-à-vis the Soviets and vis-à-vis China, is that American values, given the choice, are better values. And I would say that yes, in 2021. But I do think the gap has diminished. And the reason the gap has diminished in part is because Americans don't really know what American values are anymore. And to the extent they see the way many in America behave, not to mention how divided the country is, they are less willing to stand up for democracy and openness and freedom of speech and all of these values that are bedrock principles for the United States.

And if you look at the first year of the Biden administration, his successes have largely been domestic. They've been $1.9 trillion for the American bailout, the $3.5 trillion that I think is going to come soon for infrastructure, which is a very significant and broadly speaking, supporting the social contract in the US. Not to mention vaccine rollout, which will now include booster shots for Americans, well before most of the world has gotten their first jab. This is a US foreign policy for the middle class. I think if you made Biden choose, would he rather have more success in Afghanistan and less at home? The answer is absolutely not. And again, I think that we can all be sympathetic to any individual political leader that feels that way. The challenge is that the world for the last 50 years has banked on a level of leadership from the most powerful country that increasingly it is not likely to get. And that is going to be challenged from both the left and the right. And as it is, nobody else is going to replace it.

If the United States had spoken with its allies earlier and told them, "Hey, we want to pull out of Afghanistan, but will you guys do it?" I think that would have been a smarter thing to do because it would have been collective decision making, but I don't think the allies would have put up many, if any troops at all. I think the same thing is, unfortunately, we've seen this play out with NATO. The Americans saying, you promised to put 2% of GDP spend into defense and the biggest country other than the United States in NATO economically is Germany, they're not close and they're not going to get close. And so that willingness to provide burden sharing is going to be more challenging as the United States does less in terms of collective leadership, global leadership. The allies are hard pressed to fill any of that space.

And frankly, so are the Chinese. The Chinese may talk a great game and they've accomplished an enormous amount. But belt and road investment has fallen off precipitously over the last 10 years from what it was when it was first announced. And China's facing some serious challenges domestically right now. Their demographic challenges, their debt challenges, growth challenges, the private sector becoming more of a difficulty for them. So yes, China's certainly going to continue to extend its influence around the world. But the idea that the Chinese will in some way fill a vacuum that's left by the United States, that's not coming. And of course, you wouldn't see that from the Russians either. There's plenty of leadership to go around, but it's not global. And increasingly it's not international and multilateral, it's regional, it's domestic it's backyard. And that creates lots of space for bad actors, it creates lots of space for local conflict. That's what I think we're increasingly seeing.

And I think that if the lesson of Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that lesson. It's that whether it was Obama or Trump or Biden, they were all feeling this obvious pressure that the role that the United States was willing to play, was willing to assume in the cold war, and after 9/11, is increasingly one that is not supported or sustained by American domestic politics on either side of the aisle. And that's something that I think the allies had not yet fully appreciated. They thought that Trump was more of an aberration as opposed to a structural response to things happening in the United States, that are much deeper and much longer lived.

So anyway, that's just a few moments for me today. I hope everyone's doing well. And I certainly hope that we can get on from this chapter as smoothly and painlessly as possible. Everyone, talk to you soon.

The key for small business growth? More digital support.

https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/trackimp/N6024.4218512GZEROMEDIA/B26379324.311531246;dc_trk_aid=504469522;dc_trk_cid=156468981;ord=[timestamp];dc_lat=;dc_rdid=;tag_for_child_directed_treatment=;tfua=;gdpr=${GDPR};gdpr_consent=${GDPR_CONSENT_755};ltd=?
The key for small business growth? More digital support.

The pandemic ushered in a boom in new businesses, with growth driven largely by entrepreneurs and small businesses in online retail, transportation, and personal services. According to our recent survey, small businesses indicated that to continue to thrive, greater digital support is even more important than more loans or grants. Their top priorities? Better internet connections. More cybersecurity capabilities. Greater digital sales support. Increasing digital payments. Read more about how we can work together on this important issue from the experts at the Visa Economic Empowerment Institute.

Iran’s nuclear program runs hotter

Talks between Iran’s government and world powers over the future of Iran’s nuclear program continue. The US and Iran are still not communicating directly; Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia are shuttling between them.

The good news is that they’re all still talking. The bad news is that, after eight rounds of negotiations, the main players haven’t agreed on anything that would constitute a breakthrough.

More Show less

January 6 laid bare "the deep divisions, the partisan infighting, the polarization within our society," says Fiona Hill, the former US senior director of the National Security Council. In a GZERO World interview, she spoke with Ian Bremmer about her concerns about the state of democracy in the United States.

Hill famously testified against her impeached boss, Donald Trump, who stayed in power after being acquitted by the Senate of abuse of power and obstructing Congress. She also notes that divisions actually make America look weaker on the global stage — particularly to someone like Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

Watch this episode of GZERO World: American strife: Will US democracy survive? Fiona Hill explains post-Jan 6 stakes

Kevin Allison, director of geotech at Eurasia Group, is concerned about the rise of very powerful tech companies disrupting centuries of geopolitics led by the nation-state.

More Show less
The problem with China’s Zero COVID strategy: GZERO World with Ian Bremmer - the podcast

Listen: Xi Jinping's zero-COVID approach faces its toughest test to date with omicron. Why? Because China lacks mRNA jabs, and so few Chinese people have gotten COVID that overall protection is very low. A wave of lockdowns could disrupt the world's second-largest economy — just a month out from the Beijing Winter Olympics.

That could spell disaster for Beijing, Yanzhong Huang, senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, tells Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast. If things get really bad, though, Huang believes China will pivot to living with the virus, especially as the cost of keeping zero COVID in the age of omicron becomes too high.

Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, shares his perspective from Kiev, Ukraine

First question, how is the crisis in this part of Europe developing?

Not good. There's been a week of intense diplomacy with talks in Geneva, and Brussels, and Vienna that produced virtually nothing. The Russian, sort of key demands are outrageously unrealistic. They know that is the case. The US is trying to engage them on somewhat different issues. We'll see if there's any prospect there, but it doesn't look too good. I think the likelihood is that we gradually will move into the phase of what the Russians call military technical measures, whatever that is.

More Show less

For Angela Hofmann, practice head for Industrial & Consumer at Eurasia Group, the world's most visible brands are in for a very rocky year.

Navigating culture wars will be very tricky, as well as fighting with competing demands from consumers, employees, and regulators on issues like China, diversity, and voting rights.

More Show less

Political polarization in the US isn’t just a problem within the country, points out former US national security official Fiona Hill. Deep divisions, she says, actually make America look weaker on the global stage — particularly to someone like Russia’s president Vladimir Putin.

“Putin loves our disunity," Russian expert Hill tells Ian Bremmer. "It's incredibly useful as a tool to exploit in that toolkit that he has.”

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

An emboldened Putin thrives on American disunity

GZERO World Clips

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal