Foreign policy typically refers to the strategies adopted by a particular state to safeguards its interests, as well as guides its relationship with other states. A number of things, including the administration responsible for coming up with foreign policy, influence the formulation of foreign policy. For instance, domestic conditions of a state are significant considerations during foreign policy development in relation to the policies and behaviors of other states that the correspondent state interacts with and the states have an active relationship. Other factors that influence foreign policy include public opinion, the policies of other nations, past experiences, power, economic, as well as geography. The U.S. foreign policy has changed a great deal since the Trump administration came into power as voiced by people of interest, as well as the American citizenry. The aim of this paper therefore is to provide a critical review of a panel discussion on U.S. foreign policy in the Trump era, as well as the writer’s reflection on the discussion.
On November 3, 2017, the American Conservative convinced policy experts, journalists, and leading scholars to explore the viewpoint for realism and restraint in the Trump Era. The Panelists include John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, Paul Kennedy of Yale University, Christopher Preble of Cato Institute, Michael C. Desch of University of Notre Dame and the Moderator Daniel McCarthy of Fund for American Studies. Each panelist had a thing or two to say about the realism and restraint in the Trump Era concerning foreign policy. According to Michael, regarding the U.S. Foreign Policy, Americans are in a “Jacksonian moment.” He also depicts the relationship between Jacksoniansm and realism as strange as he says, “they are kissing cousins but they are not husband and wife.” Lastly, he discusses the issue of Iran from the perspective of both Jacksonians and realists.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Michael, the mentioned “Jacksonian moment,” with regards to U.S. foreign policy may have elements of traditional realism. However, the professor of political science at Notre Dame University, notes that there is also the element of what he deems “a double edged sword,” which he attributes to the surge of populism and pushback against Realpolitik. He also notes that the issue of a “a double edged sword,” as influenced by the surge of populism and pushback against Realpolitik is causing friction between the Trump administration and Iran. Based on his argument, Michael does not seem to think that the jacksonian moment currently in the U.S can coexists with realism.
Another panelist, Christopher Preble of Cato Institute, notes that smaller powers, even those consisting of non-state actors can take advantage of weapons and new technology to undermine old guard such as the U.S. The Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies argues that the same is evident in the ongoing wars, where he affirms the notion by saying, “The U.S. struggles to win, it struggles to win decisively.” Christopher appears to justify the U.S foreighn policy under the Trump Era by depicting the idea to struggle winning decisively as a way of preventing smaller powers from using weapons and new technology to undermine old guard such as the U.S.
Panelist John Mearsheimer, who is author and professor of political science at the University of Chicago had his own opinion of the topic of discussion. According to him, the notion of big power politics is presently on the table. Mearsheimer expresses his opinion of the idea of realism currently being back alongside big power politics being back on the table. However, he also points out that with the U.S pushing back against a rising China, restraint is no longer realism’s partner. In addition, he gives warning, concerning rising to being a superpower, China is likely to expect similar privileges and freedoms as the U.S, when it was also a rising superpower. Therefore, based on his argument, realism cannot necessarily be sustained concerning foreign policy owing to the current state of affairs (China rising to superpower position). Mearsheimer argues that the current state of affairs is the attributed to realpolitik, where to become a real power, domination of individual region in the world is necessary, thus justifying China’s moves. Therefore, in a matter of interpretation, Mearsheimer may be relaying the message that restraint may not necessarily be a part of the future of great power politics. Similarly, his idea of realism appears to be based on the acquisition of power in response to coming a real power.
According to Paul Kennedy of Yale University, based on the notion of great power politics, America is back to what he deems a multipolar world. He argues that since there are four great powers, the United States, China, Russia, and India, hence for the United states to think that it has special, mentioning the Monroe Doctrine, is the unreal part of the issue of the future of great power politics. Therefore, for this panelist, realism is understanding and acknowledge that other that the U.S there exists other three great powers. This is quite right because it might positively influence foreign policy and quell the ongoing concerns of the ongoing “Cold Wars’ over concerns of who is the bigger superpower.
Also, Kennedy notes that there are smaller powers such as Iran that do not want their interests overlooked or to be pushed around, thus should be considered as a possible part of the future of great power politics. Also, according to Kennedy the future of great power politics will not see a Europe accepting economic terms, thus playing a big power role, thus a realists understanding of power play. Therefore, based on his argument, it is unrealistic for one superpower to consider itself bigger than the rest as well as the future of great power politics revolving around the four established super power.
In my opinion, the future of restraint and realism is a matter that cannot be taken lightly, especially when foreign policy is involved. The future of great power politics is likely to be influenced by various factors such as recognition of other superpowers, consideration of smaller powers that would like to safeguard their interests, as well as recognizing that there is no larger superpower. However, the lack of restraint will be attributed to the idea of wanting to differentiate from other superpowers and demonstrate dominance. This may have negative implications on foreign policy, especially with regards to other states reacting to acts of restraint by the state wishing to dominate great power politics. Similarly, super powers will react by employing their own ideas of realism, such as Europe not accepting economic terms, as a show of realism and true dominance of the super power world. Indeed the future of great power politics is filled with uncertainty, but one thing is for sure, restraint will be uncommon and realism will be relative.
Lastly, panelists are invited to present their opinions or thoughts on matters of interest in the U.S as well as globally, thus their contribution towards educating the masses. Based on their understanding of the current state of affairs each panelist presented their argument on the issue of realism and restraint concerning foreign policy with regards to the future of great power politics. There is both the mention of realism being relative, depending on the perspective of the state demonstrating what reality is concerning future power play. Similarly, restraint is likely to be a thing that might be rare in future great power politics with each superpower trying to dominate. However, realism is accepting and acknowledging that the future of great power politics may involve a little over the four known super powers.
