A New Approach for a New World
The standard response of Western countries towards intrusions into their national interests, or when it suits them, human rights issues, is the imposition of economic and political sanctions and alienating them from their systems. The prominence of this approach has risen in the wake of perceived state threats, such as in Russia’s arrest of opposition figure Alexei Navalny, and mounting concerns of Uyghur rights in China’s Xinjiang. This approach is popular amongst Western leaders as they claim the moral high ground in a domestic context, and theoretically use their state’s or collective economic clout to punish actors without resorting to the use of armed force, and are an indispensable instrument to liberal foreign policy.
The mirage of dominance
The unwillingness of Western states to escalate to armed conflict, or ‘reward’ malign actors by engaging with them, hence the adage ‘we do not negotiate with terrorists, does not reflect the needs of the current geopolitical reality, nor are they productive. This is reflective of a post Cold-War triumphalism that assumes the geo-economic dominance of Western states without taking into account the new factors that are mitigating the intended effects of sanctions.
The ‘blowback’ of sanctions is well-known: the use of counter-sanctions and asymmetric costs, such as the Russian ban on European foodstuffs after it was sanctioned by the EU for occupying Crimea, and China’s sanctions on US officials following the latter’s sanctions regarding Xinjiang. More importantly, the use of Western economic institutions also corrodes with increasing use of economic pressure, as powerful states especially are attempting to bypass them entirely to increase future resilience against their weaponisation, such as the development of alternatives to SWIFT.
Russian Agricultural Services destroy sanctioned food products, August 14, 2015 - TASS
A Changing World
Sanctions are productive if there are little to no alternatives, so malign actors are incentivised to comply in order to trade and interact with the wider world. Things have changed since ‘the end of history’. Not only have rival great powers re-emerged in broad opposition to ‘Western’ interests which offer an alternative order from which malign actors are trapped, but the resurgence of nationalism has also influenced perceptions of pressure from other countries. States such as Iran and Venezuela have been pushed closer to China and Russia as a result of these regimes, despite the lack of intrinsic ideological friendship, and degrades the influence and clout of the West in the long term. The rise of Russia and China have long been noticed and discussed in conventional circles, but the methods for achieving foreign policy goals have been stagnant, and have led the West to the dilemma of needing them to tackle global and regional challenges, yet alienating them to the point of hostility.
This article is not calling for the full embrace of moral bankruptcy, but the need for a collective reflection of foreign policy instruments and clear prioritisations of its objectives. The challenges of global finance, energy, climate, and global security are at stake, and much can be achieved with cooperation, rather than confrontation. A mature foreign policy doctrine involves seeing the bigger picture, and adaptation to changing global dynamics.
Former US President Donald J. Trump shakes hands with the President of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK Kim Jong-Un at the Hanoi Summit, February 27, 2019 - Trump White House Archives
The Bitter Pill
Engagement, instead of alienation for productive cooperation, yet effectively communicating what the West wants from these countries is a possible alternative. Instead of an impulsive and reactionary foreign policy, a more measured approach promises a more comprehensive and honest exchange of information, which facilitates understanding and construction of a more effective long-term strategy. Trump’s engagement with North Korea was denounced by many for dealing with a ruthless dictator and achieved little in the end, but it had demonstrated the potential of such an approach. Despite critics citing the continued buildup of the nuclear stockpile, a moratorium was imposed (and kept) on nuclear testing by North Korea in the context of timely suspensions of US-South Korea military drills in 2018. A return to confrontation by subsequent US administrations will likely reverse this, and potentially threaten this positive development in de-escalating nuclear actions.
This approach is not without challenges of its own. The issue of trust is often raised when this approach is touted. A step-by-step implementation plan should be adopted, such as the aforementioned quid pro quo of Trump’s North Korea strategy. Western liberal democratic governments might find it difficult to grapple with public pressure for a more morally guided foreign policy. There is no silver bullet for managing great-power relations, nor does the West have bottomless pockets. The stakes are too high. Western governments must find a way to engage with alternative political systems, and rethink the means and ends of their foreign policies for a changing world.
