By Mina Merve Selvi
Retrenchment can be defined as a strategy that is designed to decrease a state’s military and international costs and commitments. This could be done by reducing spending for defense,
retracting alliance obligations, decreasing deployments abroad or decreasing international expenditures. There is one particular version of a strategic retrenchment, which is the concept
of offshore balancing, that is conquered by political scientists such as Stephen Walt,
Christopher Layne, John Mearsheimer, and Robert Pape. The strategy of offshore balancing is
trying to make sure that not one major power gets to dominate Northeast Asia, Europe or the
The Persian Gulf.
The liberal order was found after WWII and is commonly associated with Pax
Americana. After the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union fell, and the US became one of the most powerful countries. As John J. Mearsheimer said, the “unipolar moment” had arrived.
The liberal order approach had spread across the world. When the Soviet Union collapsed after the Cold War and the US-led liberal power expanded outwards, liberal international order became globalized. Initially, this moment was considered a triumph for the western liberal democracies but, with the globalization of the liberal order, it jumpstarted two things that after hand became the source of the crisis itself.
Firstly, it changed the entire concept of political foundations of the liberal order. Since new states were beginning to enter the system, the past bargains and old institutions that provided the main stability and governance were destroyed. A wider range of states which had more diverse sets of agendas and ideologies were now a component of the order. Therefore, as
Ikenberry said, a “crisis of authority” was in play, which meant new roles, bargains and responsibilities were required. Secondly, with the globalization of the liberal order, it led to a
loss of capacity to function as a security community, according to Ikenberry. He also called it a “crisis of social purpose”. While liberal internationalism became a stage for a wider global order, the sense of social intent and security community deteriorated. The terms “Pax
Americana” or “liberal international order” have come to be outdated as a description of the
US’ place in the world, but the demand for larger countries to provide public goods to remain.
John Mearsheimer, a realist, argued that “in the realm of international politics, liberalism is a
source of endless trouble ... Powerful states that embrace liberal hegemony invariably get themselves into serious trouble both at home and abroad ... The principal source of the problem is that liberalism has an activist mentality woven into its core. The belief that all humans have
a set of inalienable rights, and that protecting these rights should override other concerns,
creates a powerful incentive for liberal states to intervene.” Therefore, while liberal democracy is the closest to the best political system at home, crusades and liberal hegemony are obsolete.
This has been the case many times and American foreign policy has historically moved between isolationism and overextension. In this sense, there can be either a broad approach or a narrow approach to stabilize a state’s military and economy. This particular version of a
strategic retrenchment is a narrow one. So, when it comes to the question “Who has actually
used doctrine of retrenchment?” Trump was not the first in this sense. There are many different examples. For instance, going all the way back to 1969, while America was beginning to withdraw from Vietnam, President Nixon created a doctrine that was warning that the United
States would expect allies to provide military manpower for their own defense. Other presidents such as Carter, Bush and Obama entered the office assuring a restrained American role abroad. Even so, President Carter continued on to launch a covert war against the Soviet front in Afghanistan and articulated a doctrine of his own. He declared that “attempt by any
outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the
vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any
means necessary, including military force.” On the other hand, President Bush promised not to engage in “nation building”, but nevertheless ended up doing just that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Obama, during his first term, had announced a “pivot to Asia” which was the world’s
most peaceful region back then, but instead, he boosted American military commitments in the
The Middle East and Europe on his second term.
Since this has been the case many times and American foreign policy has historically moved between isolationism and overextension. It can be seen that isolationism has been a
recurring allurement of American foreign policy. They have responded to new and unforeseen challenges, although, the United States has resisted that allurement and risen to the demands of global leadership time after time. This brings the question “Will it is different this time?”.
President Trump’s election was a sign that the American dissatisfaction with the existing global division of labor is widespread, according to James Dobbins.
In conclusion, while past presidents oscillated between an activist foreign policy and limited engagement in a globalized and interconnected world, the Trump administration today,
has unilaterally decided to scale back American commitments, leaving the world to decide whether partnerships with the United States is worth sustaining. America’s withdrawal from the world stage was not something that was happening solely on the economic and military face. The Trump administration has given the decision to withdraw from agreements and institutions which the rest of the world was ready to take part in. Therefore, this shows the rest of the world that although the U.S. may have helped to create the current world order, it is no longer interested in preserving it. Since the U.S. has decided to scale back on its commitments,
China has stepped forward to emerge as a new economic power. Although Trump has decided
to use the retrenchment strategy and let China take the world stage, he has also made it a major priority to compete with China in order to remain its power. It is still debatable whether or not
China will become the new economic power or if the United States will remain as the largest economic power as it has been in the past.
Dobbins, James. American Isolationism Isn’t New. 1 Aug. 2017, https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/08/american-
retrenchment-is-a-golden-oldie.html.
Dueck, Colin. “The Strategy of Retrenchment and Its Consequences - Foreign Policy Research Institute.”
Https://Www.Fpri.Org/, https://www.fpri.org/article/2015/04/the-strategy-of-retrenchment-and-its-consequences/. Accessed 15 Mar. 2019.
Ikenberry, G. John. “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs, vol. 94, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp.
7–23. academic.oup.com, doi:10.1093/ia/iix241.
Kelkar, Ameya. “American Retrenchment and the Chinese Advantage.” ORF, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-
speak/american-retrenchment-Chinese-advantage-47873/. Accessed 15 Mar. 2019.
Layne, Christopher. “The US–Chinese Power Shift and the End of the Pax Americana.” International Affairs, vol.
94, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 89–111. academic.oup.com, doi:10.1093/ia/iix249.
Mearsheimer, John J. The Rise & Fall of the Liberal International Order. p. 28.
Nye, Joseph S. “The Rise and Fall of American Hegemony from Wilson to Trump.” International Affairs, vol. 95,
no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 63–80. academic.oup.com, doi:10.1093/ia/iiy212.
Nye, Jr, Joseph S. “Is the American Century Over?” Is the American Century Over, Polity Press, 2015.
“What Is Retrenchment Strategy? Definition and Meaning.” BusinessDictionary.Com,
Comments
Post a Comment