Navigating The Diminishing Global Influence Of U.S. Foreign Policy

When the UK, France, and the US confronted Germany and Japan in the Second World War, 49 countries joined the alliance against the Axis powers. At that time, there were about half the number of countries that exist today, so forty nine countries constituted nearly half the world. It was clear that the will of the global majority was to side with the Allies and against the forces of Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese Imperialism.

It was in the aftermath of the Second World War that the United States emerged not only as a superpower but as a country many in the world looked up to for ideas, inspiration, and leadership. America rode a wave of tremendous global goodwill that led to economic alliances and support for the US in the Cold War, which in turn led to the demise of the Soviet Union.

The US believed, at that time, that alliances mattered, that the goodwill of the world mattered and that support for the US cause was to be carefully cultivated and nurtured. This could be done first and foremost by establishing principled positions and second by rallying allies to the cause through constructive engagement actually useful to the nations of the world.

As is true across much of history, perfection is never achieved in politics. America too, was not free of errors in policy and execution. For example, our involvement in Vietnam turned out to be a stain on American foreign policy. But on the whole, by the end of the Cold War, America had still managed to retain the goodwill of much of the world.

When the United States organized a coalition to defend Saudi Arabia and win back Kuwaiti freedom after Saddam's invasion in 1990, 42 countries rallied round and participated in the Gulf War on the side of the United States. A decade later, after the 9/11 attacks, the US launched an invasion of Afghanistan.

It organized a military alliance known as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). 42 countries joined this coalition, and many other states supported ISAF without being formally part of the alliance. The 2002 invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, a claim that later turned out to be false.

The initial invasion involved four countries. But the US was able to muster support from 36 others, eventually. Even though in most cases the support was not military. During the first two decades of the 21st century, however, the American ability to forge meaningful alliances has been declining. In part due to its reaction to 9/11 and its conduct of the war on terror, in part due to the rise of China, and perhaps in part due to the increased isolationist tendencies in its domestic politics.

An analysis of how exactly this came to be is a topic worthy of a book. But for now, let's look quantitatively at the support America has been able to muster for major security issues. With the end of the War on Terror, the US pivoted to the Pacific, naming Russia and China as its main antagonists in the era of "great power competition." How has the US fared in garnering alliances and support against these near peers? Getty First, on the economic front, by 2018, 128 out of nearly 190 countries had chosen China as their larger trading partner.

Two thirds of the world was trading more with China than with the United States. In fact, 90 of these countries traded more than twice as much with China as they did with the United States. These numbers are only tilting further in China's favor. The causes, in brief, are China's increased competitiveness, the US propensity to ban and sanction, and an increasing sense in middle powers that they want independence in their trade policies, as well as technology transfer and autarky.

But aside from the seemingly benign choice of trading partners, let us consider an issue at the intersection of national security and trade; the ban on Huawei Technologies. The United States deems the Chinese technology company, Huawei, a national security threat because it alleges that Huawei uses backdoors and other mechanisms to exfiltrate data to China.

As a result, the US imposed sanctions on Huawei and then began to build a coalition to globalize these sanctions. So far, after several years of effort, only six countries have imposed bans with another seven having imposed some curbs. How effective were these curbs? If one looks at Huawei’s net profits, which nearly doubled from 64.6 billion yuan in 2020 to a record of 113.7 billion yuan ($17.22 billion) in 2021, one would have to say that success was...

limited. But let us revisit the alliance against Huawei and China's tech industry in general. Who are the six countries partnered with the US in banning Huawei? The US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Keep these names in mind because they happen to be the nations that support the US on most national security issues.

Aside from the US, the combined populations of all these countries amount to under 3% of the global population. Due to the growth rate of other parts of the world, this percentage will continue to decline. So the question for US policymakers to ask is, are our alliances growing or shrinking? And is the relevance of our allies increasing or declining? Let's take another security issue connected with China; the question of Taiwan.

To date, only 13 countries recognize Taiwan as an independent state. To think that this number will grow in the future is to ignore the prevailing global sentiment. Let us now consider the two principal military alliances put together to counter China in the South China Sea and the Pacific at large.

These two alliances are AUKUS and the QUAD. Collectively, they involve five countries; the US, UK, Australia, Japan, and India. And of these, it is entirely unclear if India will participate in a military confrontation with China in the Pacific over a question such as Taiwan. Let's move to another of the near peer competitors, Russia.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine should have been an easy cause on which to build a global alliance. Yet, the global desire to oppose Russia in favor of the United States and Europe is nearly non existent. Yes, countries have sold arms to both parties, but in measuring true support for the US/European coalition against Russia let us consider more meaningful measures.

For example, only 36 countries have banned Russian overflights. This includes the entire EU, so it is essentially the US, Canada, and the EU that make up nearly the entire list. All of Asia, all of Africa, all of South America... the parts of the world that are growing the fastest, continue to do business with and in many cases, support Russia.

To close, let us consider the most recent matter of global security in which the United States has taken a position and is also seeking to build an alliance; the war in Gaza. First, let us consider the world's view of Palestine. Today, 139 of the 193 United Nations General Assembly members recognize Palestine as a state.

Notably, the US and UK do not. In this, they are opposed to the position of 72% of the world's countries. Only ten countries opposed a recent United Nations General Assembly vote demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The US was one of these ten, in opposition to 153 countries that voted for the ceasefire.

Without commenting on the merits of the case or on its ethics, one simply notes that the US was not able to muster the support of more than nine other countries in line with its position. If you look at the list of countries, their populations, and their importance on the global stage, it is an even more telling failure.

Finally, let us look at the most recent security incident which may even lead to a larger regional war; the 2024 US attack on Ansarullah (Houthi) facilities in Yemen. The US found itself conducting these strikes with one other partner, the United Kingdom. Earlier attempts to build a coalition against the Houthis did not succeed.

While several countries contributed naval assets to a US organized task force in the region, almost none of them agreed to extend their participation to US military intervention. In complex matters such as national security, diplomacy, and war, there is always far more than meets the eye. Generalizing any one incident to a great degree is inadvisable.

But at the same time, refusing to learn from an abundance of data and the strengthening of a clear trend is foolhardy. What is the trend? That the United States is losing its ability to construct alliances that matter. That it is increasingly going it (nearly) alone and that it too often finds itself opposed to the direction in which much of the world is headed.

In fact, the older generations in power in the United States are heading in a direction that even their own grandchildren are opposing . This will inevitably change as one generation makes way for another. But this inevitable transition could have been handled more deftly. And in a way that would have preserved more goodwill for the United States.

There is still time to revitalize U.S. foreign policy and alliances. If the U.S. were to make a concerted attempt at multilateralism, actively engaging in and respecting international institutions and treaties, it could still restore some global trust. We cannot be seen as the country threatening to cut funds to and pull out of organizations whose charter is the global good.

We should be the ones promoting them. We must acknowledge that to be seen as a leader, we have to respect the wishes of the majority of people and nations on this planet. We must take a more collaborative stance on global issues concerning security, but also on more benign matters such as climate change and international trade.

We cannot ignore the concerns and aspirations of emerging powers. It is high time we develop a constructive policy of economic diplomacy, where trade and investment are used as tools for fostering positive relationships, rather than for sanctions and as economic weapons. Without this, there is no way to balance the growing economic influence of competitors.

Finally, we must reduce our propensity to employ hard military power. We are seen as a nation constantly at war. A more restrained and strategic use of military power, prioritizing diplomatic solutions and international cooperation is essential if we are to rebuild confidence in the U.S. as a global leader.

We still have some time. But do we have the wisdom?.