Bannon, China, and America's return to traditional foreign policy
- By Sumantra Maitra
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, August 22, 2017
The fundamental question when Trump won the American presidency last November was whether the differing and often opposing currents in his administration would produce a winner.
Last December, I noted two different currents in the Trump administration. The first was traditional bureaucrats. Some of them were Realists, but mostly they didn't want to rock the boat too far. People like Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster and Kelly were part of this group.
Even though, individually, they had different ideas about how to run the world, and which countries formed the bulk and major threat to the United States, overall it could be said that they were in the "internationalist," or more pejoratively known "globalist" camp. They focused on traditional threats, including Iran and North Korea, and, notwithstanding long term dissatisfaction about NATO burden sharing, and skepticism with regards to China, the standard flow of American policy under this group was predictable.
The other group was a combination of more nationalistic and Huntingtonian crusaders. That included Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Mike Flynn and Sebastian Gorka. The nationalist part of this group focused on China. In the words of Bannon, within the next 25 to 30 years, the globe will have only one hegemon -- either China or United States. The U.S., under the Bannon perspective, would reach a point of no return in the next decade.
The nationalists were rationally opposed to nation-building, and focused on self-preservation and domestic politics. The Huntingtonians, in contrast, were more focused on Islam. While China mattered a lot to these people, Russia was considered a civilizational ally against fundamental Islam.
Mike Flynn is already out, while Sebastian Gorka is also sidelined. Now, the big boy of the group is gone, too. Steve Bannon, the former editor of the alt-right Breitbart group and the intellectual heavyweight of the Trump administration, has resigned (or been fired), marking a major shift in the administration. This will have major impact in how America behaves in the international arena.
First of all, Bannon was the major anti-China hawk. While Trump's administration is skeptical about free trade overall, most of the people are still rational and are bound by the structural forces of economics. Trade war, as a rhetoric, sounds good, but implementation of such policy has grave repercussions.
Bannon wanted to focus on a trade war with China regardless of the cost. That cavalier attitude has gone. It won't ease the bruises of the administration, but it might smoothen or at least lessen the tension between the two giants.
Second, the Middle East hawks are back in action. The Trump administration is looking like a junta, with a concentration of retired military personnel serving in government. Nonetheless, Bannon was providing a notable discontinuity from the past two decades of consensus in foreign policy and wanted America out of Afghanistan and Middle East.
With Bannon gone, there are chances America will double down in regard to imperial overstretch and further intervention cycles in Middle East, and failed counterinsurgency strategies.
Finally, and most importantly it comes down to a question of economics. In these day of interconnectedness and globalization, to wave the flag of autarky and nationalism is to swim against the current. Bannon talked big about his trillion-dollar economic resurgence plan and massive infrastructure-building like the 1930s.
It was a good plan. However, he almost totally lacked allies in Washington to help him in implementation. Secondly, he lacked international allies. His idea to move out of NAFTA, failed. His idea to get out of TPP essentially meant that China is the economic hegemon in Asia, and his opposition to AIIB, BRI (the Belt and Road Initiative) and his support of a trade war meant that Europeans depending on Chinese investment, or Russian gas and oil would go against American interests. It was a war which was lost even before a single bullet was fired.
However, the forces that gave rise to Bannon are not dead. Americans, by and large, still don't want any foreign adventures, much less war. At this stage, it would be insanity to imagine America proceeding with interventions and nation building anytime in the near future, Bannon or no Bannon. The U.S. is also facing a severe cultural revolution that is tearing the country apart between traditional heartland and coastal liberal elites.
Finally, Europeans don't care about Bannon, as they don't trust Trump anyway and EU interests are actually opposed to American interests in the long run.
That said, as predicted, even Trump and his administration is being guided by the logic of economics and geopolitics. America staggers back to standard issue and predictable policies. Just with a bit of embarrassing Trumpism added here and there.
Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:
http://m.formacion-profesional-a-distancia.com/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.
