The Return of Great Power Politics: Re-Examining the Nixon Doctrine
The recent crisis between Russia and the West over Crimea, and the ongoing tensions between China and Japan, are ushering a return of Great Power Politics where U.S. power and influence is challenged. The U.S. is finding that it is no longer in the dominant position, but is still expected to lead. As a result, it is time to re-examine the Nixon Doctrine as a foundation of preserving U.S. global leadership in an increasingly multi-polar world.
The Nixon Doctrine
In Henry Kissinger’s seminal work on foreign policy, Diplomacy, he summarizes the position President Richard Nixon inherited of “having to guide America through a transition from dominance to leadership.” When Nixon came to office, the United States was engaged in the Vietnam War, its longest war to date, and was undergoing domestic upheaval as a result of both the anti-war and the civil rights movements. He faced fiscally challenges as a result of the cost of the Vietnam War, President Johnson’s Great Society Initiatives, and the space program. Additionally, as the leader of the free world, the United States was still engaged in a global ideological power struggle with the Soviet Union. His understanding of the limits of American power led to the Nixon Doctrine. Underpinning this doctrine was the realization that the United States simply could not afford to solve every global problem and had to determine which issues it could solve within the limits of its diplomatic, military, and economic means. Key to Nixon’s doctrine was his effort to extricate the United States from Vietnam and to exploit the growing tensions between the Soviets and China by opening diplomatic relations with Mao’s China.
According to Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s perception of “peace and harmony were not the natural order of things, but temporary oases in a perilous world where stability could only be preserved by vigilant effort.” Nixon was a believer in the Balance of Power concept as a means for stability, and believed that equilibrium required a strong U.S. In the January 3, 1972 Time magazine edition, President Nixon articulated his doctrine, focusing on the need for a balance of power where the U.S. had to lead, rather than merely dominate a collection of powerful states:
We must remember the only time in history of the world that we have had any extended periods of peace is when there has been balance of power. It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. So I believe in a world in which the United States is powerful. I think it will be a safer world and better world if we have a strong, healthy United States, Europe, Soviet Union, China, Japan, each balancing the other, not playing one against the other, an even balance.
President Nixon used this philosophy to conduct his opening to China which created a balancing of sort against the Soviets, who no longer could threaten or coerce China that would lead to a Sino-American Alliance that would threaten the Soviets with two large military alliances on its western and eastern fronts. He wanted to ensure that the U.S. did not tear itself apart by doing more than it could afford or than the people would accept. According to Kissinger, the Nixon Doctrine sought to navigate between over-extension and abdication by establishing three criteria for American involvement:
- The United States would keep its treaty commitments.
- The United States would “provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.”
- In cases involving non-nuclear aggression, the United States would “look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for defense.”
Present Day Challenges
Today, President Obama is confronted by challenges similar to those that President Nixon faced. He continues to extricate the United States from Afghanistan, where it has fought the longest ground war in its history. In Obama’s case, this challenge takes place only a few years after the mission ended in Iraq, even as he struggles to improve an economy severely weakened by the 2008 collapse. Additional challenges include the unknown consequences of the “Arab Spring” which has impacted events in Libya, Syria, and Egypt, while fomenting continued instability in Iraq where a resurgence of al-Qaeda threatens Maliki’s government. As a result of an inconsistent strategic concept for our foreign and national security policy, the United States has been reacting to events rather than shaping them to provide global stability.
Unlike President Nixon, President Obama faces two challengers to U.S. dominance, Russia and China, along with a domestic fiscal crisis. To shape China’s rise and deal with its increasingly assertive and combative territorial disputes, in 2009 President Obama’s administration announced its “Asia-Pacific Rebalance”; however, continued instability in the Middle East and fiscal constraints have prevented the administration from allocating the resources such a rebalance might require. Russia’s annexation of Crimea further challenges the rebalance as attention returns to the question of European security and the unraveling of the unipolar order the U.S. enjoyed since 1991. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov highlighted the unraveling in a tweet he sent on March 20, 2014, quoting a statement made by President Putin: “The end of the bipolar system failed to enhance stability, while competition is on the rise.” Additionally, he tweeted “The geopolitical balance is shifting. Many Western nations are seeking to slow these processes and retain global leadership.” Lavrov’s tweet reflects the reality that Russia and China view themselves as competitors that are working to upend the unipolar world led by America. Moreover, this reality has challenged President Obama decision making to use force in situations like Syria where the unintended consequences of action could lead to tensions with Russia that had close diplomatic, economic, and military ties with the Assad regime, and further strain efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program.
As the Crimea incident was unfolding, Senator McCain accused the administration of having a “feckless foreign policy in which nobody believes in America’s strength anymore.” This was an indictment of the administration’s policies towards Libya and Syria, where the determination to use military force appeared inconsistent. However, for President Obama, the challenge has been reconciling the decision to use military force and the unknown consequences that followed. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked: “Haven’t Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya taught us something about the unintended consequences of military action?” These lessons, along with the realization that the U.S. is supported by a militarily weak NATO, suggest that President Obama should take the key tenets of the Nixon Doctrine and update it for today’s challenges.
Applying the Nixon Doctrine to a new emerging Obama Doctrine
President Obama must clearly articulate a foreign policy doctrine that accounts for the increasing constraints applied by rising powers and its own fiscal debt problems. As the administration develops a new National Security Strategy, it needs to clearly specify what our core national security interests are and how we intend to defend them. Some guiding principles for President Obama’s National Security and Foreign Policy Doctrine should be:
- Re-affirmation of our defensive treaty obligations to NATO and our Asian allies; however, we must also stress that the U.S. will no longer shoulder the unbalanced burden of providing for their defense, which allowed them to divest capabilities after the Cold War.
- Clearly articulate what our national security interests are and our intent to work with other regional powers in areas where friction may occur while retaining unilateral right to secure our interests which are deemed vital.
- Recognition that areas of instability in Africa, South America, and Central Asia will persist due to the actions of non-state actors or as a result of friction between competing major powers. However, not all areas and situations can be considered vital to our interests. In less vital areas, the U.S., working in concert with its allies and partners, can provide a helping hand by building capacities of countries in governance and internal defense.
- A focus on developing a balanced joint force capable of deterring other major powers from threatening our vital national security interests while seeking to shape events in order to prevent minor instabilities from rising to the crisis level. Accomplishing this while restrained fiscally will require new innovative thinking by the Department of Defense as articulated by General Dempsey in the 2014 QDR.
In an era where America’s primacy is being challenged by other great powers, it must consider using the balance of power concept to maintain stability. This is a concept Americans have historically had an aversion to as Henry Kissinger highlighted in Diplomacy when he states:
Despite America’s historic aversion to the balance of power, these lessons are relevant to the post-Cold War American foreign policy. For the first time in its history, America is currently part of an international system in which it is the strongest country…The United States therefore finds itself increasingly in a world with numerous similarities to nineteenth-century Europe, albeit on a global scale. One can hope that something akin to the Metternich system evolves, in which a balance of power is reinforced by a shared sense of values. And in the modern age, these values have to be democratic.
As President Obama’s administration confronts these challenges, it should take note of Kissinger’s sage advice and seek to reshape our national security and foreign policy aspirations in ways that are better aligned with our fiscal realities. The U.S. is and should remain the world’s leader, but only in a system where other great powers operate and where the U.S. carefully chooses how and when it expends it power. Doing so will allow the U.S. to focus on our most pressing national security interests. Utilizing and updating the Nixon Doctrine will be a useful start.
Major Chad M. Pillai is an Army Strategist in the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC). Major Pillai recently served as a Special Assistant to the Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the 38th Army Chief of Staff. Major Chad Pillai received his Masters in International Public Policy from the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in 2009. The opinions expressed here are those of the author’s and do not represent those of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
"Kutoka kwa ""Sera ya Nguvu Kubwa"" - Kuangalia upya Dokta ya Nixon: Mgogoro wa hivi karibuni kati ya Urusi na Magharibi juu ya Crimea, na mvutano unaoendelea kati ya China na Japan, unaanzisha kurudi kwa Sera ya Nguvu Kubwa ambapo nguvu na ushawishi wa Marekani unashtakiwa." Marekani inaona kuwa haiko tena katika nafasi ya kutawala, lakini bado inatarajiwa kuongoza. "Kwa hivyo, ni wakati wa kuchunguza tena Dokta ya Nixon kama msingi wa kuhifadhi uongozi wa kimataifa wa Marekani katika ulimwengu unaozidi kuwa na makabila mengi. """ "Kutoka kwa Henry Kissinger, ""Diplomasia"" ni kitabu cha kwanza cha siasa za nje, ambacho kinatoa muhtasari wa msimamo wa Rais Richard Nixon wa ""kuongoza Marekani kupitia mpito kutoka kwa utawala hadi uongozi"" wakati Nixon alipokuja madarakani, Marekani ilikuwa ikishiriki katika vita vya Vietnam, vita vya muda mrefu zaidi hadi sasa, na ilikuwa ikipitia msukosuko wa ndani kama matokeo ya harakati za kupinga vita na haki za kiraia." Alikabiliwa na changamoto za kifedha kama matokeo ya gharama ya Vita vya Vietnam, Mpango wa Jamii Kubwa wa Rais Johnson, na programu ya anga. Kwa kuongezea, akiwa kiongozi wa ulimwengu huru, Marekani bado ilikuwa ikishiriki katika mapambano ya kimataifa ya kimazingira dhidi ya Muungano wa Sovieti. Uelewa wake wa mipaka ya nguvu za Marekani uliongoza kwenye Nadharia ya Nixon. "Kutokana na mafundisho hayo, Marekani ilitambua kwamba haingeweza kutatua matatizo yote ya ulimwengu na ililazimika kuamua ni masuala gani ambayo ingeweza kuyatatua kwa kutumia uwezo wake wa kidiplomasia, kijeshi, na kiuchumi.""" "Muhimu kwa mafundisho ya Nixon ilikuwa juhudi zake za kuondoa Marekani kutoka Vietnam na kutumia mvutano unaoongezeka kati ya Sovieti na China kwa kufungua mahusiano ya kidiplomasia na China ya Mao.""" "Kama Henry Kissinger alivyosema, ""amani na maelewano hayakuwa utaratibu wa asili wa mambo, bali oasis za muda katika ulimwengu hatari ambapo utulivu unaweza kuhifadhiwa tu kwa juhudi za tahadhari,"" Nixon aliamini katika dhana ya usawa wa nguvu kama njia ya utulivu, na aliamini kwamba usawa unahitaji nguvu ya Marekani." "Mwanzoni mwa mwaka wa 1972, Rais Nixon aliandika katika toleo la gazeti la Time kwamba Marekani ilikuwa na ""mwisho wa amani"" na kwamba ""wakati pekee katika historia ya dunia ambapo tumekuwa na kipindi kirefu cha amani ni wakati ambapo tumekuwa na usawa wa nguvu.""" Ni wakati taifa moja linapokuwa na nguvu nyingi sana ikilinganishwa na mshindani wake anayeweza kutokea ndipo hatari ya vita inapoibuka. """Ninaamini katika ulimwengu ambapo Marekani ni nguvu." """Nafikiri dunia itakuwa salama zaidi na bora ikiwa tuna Marekani, Ulaya, Umoja wa Sovieti, China na Japan zenye nguvu na afya, kila moja ikilinganisha na nyingine, na sio kucheza moja dhidi ya nyingine, usawa sawa." Rais Nixon alitumia falsafa hii kuongoza ufunguzi wake kwa China, ambayo iliunda usawa wa aina dhidi ya Sovieti, ambao hawangeweza tena kutishia au kulazimisha China, ambayo ingeongoza kwa Muungano wa China na Marekani ambao ungehatarisha Sovieti na muungano mkubwa wa kijeshi katika pande zake za magharibi na mashariki. Alitaka kuhakikisha kwamba Marekani haijipasuli kwa kufanya zaidi ya yale ambayo ingeweza kuidhinisha au ambayo watu wangekubali. "Kisinger alisema kuwa ""Nixon Doctrine"" ilijaribu kuhamia kati ya upanuzi wa kupita kiasi na kujiondoa kwa kuanzisha vigezo vitatu vya ushiriki wa Marekani: Marekani ingeshika ahadi zake za mkataba." """Mataifa yatatoa ngao ikiwa nguvu ya nyuklia itatishia uhuru wa taifa lililoungana nasi au taifa ambalo tunaona ni muhimu kwa usalama wetu, katika kesi zinazohusisha mashambulizi yasiyo ya nyuklia, Marekani itatazama taifa linaloathiriwa moja kwa moja kuchukua jukumu la msingi la kutoa nguvu za ulinzi,"" alisema Obama." Marekani inaendelea kuondoa jeshi lake nchini Afghanistan, ambapo limekuwa likipigana vita vya muda mrefu zaidi katika historia yake. Katika kesi ya Obama, changamoto hii hufanyika miaka michache tu baada ya ujumbe kumalizika nchini Iraq, hata wakati anajitahidi kuboresha uchumi uliodhoofishwa sana na kuanguka kwa 2008. Matatizo mengine ni pamoja na matokeo yasiyojulikana ya "Arab Spring" ambayo yameathiri matukio nchini Libya, Syria na Misri, wakati ikisababisha ukosefu wa utulivu nchini Iraq ambapo kuibuka tena kwa al-Qaeda kunatishia serikali ya Maliki. """Kwa sababu ya dhana isiyo ya mfuatano ya sera zetu za kigeni na usalama wa kitaifa, Marekani imekuwa ikijibu matukio badala ya kuyaunda ili kutoa utulivu wa kimataifa." "Kulingana na Rais Nixon, Rais Obama anakabiliwa na ""washindani wawili"" wa utawala wa Marekani, Urusi na China, pamoja na mgogoro wa kifedha wa ndani." "Kwa kuunda kuongezeka kwa China na kushughulika na migogoro yake ya kikanda yenye nguvu na ya kupigana, mnamo 2009, utawala wa Rais Obama ulitangaza ""Usawazishaji wa Asia-Pacific"" wake; hata hivyo, ukosefu wa utulivu unaoendelea katika Mashariki ya Kati na vizuizi vya kifedha vimeizuia utawala kutoka kugawa rasilimali ambazo usawazishaji kama huo unaweza kuhitaji." Kuunganishwa kwa Crimea na Urusi kunatoa changamoto zaidi kwa usawa huo, huku umakini ukirudi kwa suala la usalama wa Ulaya na kuharibika kwa utaratibu wa unipolar ambao Marekani ilifurahia tangu 1991. Waziri wa mambo ya nje wa Urusi Sergei Lavrov alitoa taarifa ya tweet ya tarehe 20 Machi 2014 akitoa taarifa ya Rais Putin: "Mwisho wa mfumo wa bipolar umeshindwa kuongeza utulivu, wakati ushindani unazidi kuongezeka." "Tweet ya Lavrov inaonyesha ukweli kwamba Urusi na China wanajiona kama washindani ambao wanafanya kazi ya kuharibu ulimwengu wa unipolar unaoongozwa na Amerika. """ "Hata hivyo, hali hiyo imemshinda Rais Obama katika uamuzi wake wa kutumia nguvu katika hali kama Syria, ambapo matokeo yasiyotarajiwa ya hatua hiyo yanaweza kusababisha mvutano na Urusi, ambayo ina uhusiano wa karibu wa kidiplomasia, kiuchumi na kijeshi na utawala wa Assad, na kuongeza juhudi za kuzuia mpango wa nyuklia wa Iran.""" "Wakati wa tukio la Crimea, Seneta McCain alishutumu utawala wa Trump kuwa na ""sera ya kigeni isiyo na matokeo ambayo hakuna mtu anayeamini tena nguvu ya Amerika"" - hii ilikuwa mashtaka ya sera za utawala wa Trump kuelekea Libya na Syria, ambapo azimio la kutumia nguvu za kijeshi lilionekana kuwa lisilo na mapatano." Hata hivyo, kwa Rais Obama, changamoto imekuwa ni kupatanisha uamuzi wa kutumia nguvu za kijeshi na matokeo yasiyojulikana yaliyofuata. "Katika taarifa yake, Waziri wa Ulinzi wa Marekani Robert Gates aliuliza: ""Je, Iraq, Afghanistan na Libya hazikufundisha kitu kuhusu matokeo yasiyotarajiwa ya vitendo vya kijeshi?""Mafundisho haya, pamoja na kutambua kwamba Marekani inasaidiwa na NATO dhaifu kijeshi, yanaonyesha kwamba Rais Obama anapaswa kuchukua kanuni muhimu za mafundisho ya Nixon na kuibadilisha kwa changamoto za leo." "Mwanzoni mwa mwaka wa 2012, Rais Obama alitoa kauli mbiu ya ""Mafunzo ya Nixon"" ambayo ilisema: ""Mwanzoni mwa mwaka huu, Rais Obama lazima afanye wazi mafundisho ya sera za kigeni ambayo yanaelezea vikwazo vinavyoongezeka vinavyotumika na nguvu zinazoongezeka na matatizo yake mwenyewe ya deni la kifedha." """Usimamizi unapotengeneza mkakati mpya wa usalama wa kitaifa, unahitaji kufafanua wazi ni nini maslahi yetu ya msingi ya usalama wa kitaifa na jinsi tunavyokusudia kuyalinda." """Mafundisho ya kuongoza ya Usalama wa Taifa na Sera ya Nje ya Rais Obama yanapaswa kuwa: Kuimarisha tena majukumu yetu ya mkataba wa ulinzi kwa NATO na washirika wetu wa Asia; hata hivyo, lazima pia tusisitize kwamba Marekani haitachukua tena mzigo usio na usawa wa kutoa ulinzi wao, ambao uliwaruhusu kuondoa uwezo baada ya Vita Baridi." """Tunaelezea wazi maslahi yetu ya usalama wa kitaifa na nia yetu ya kufanya kazi na nguvu nyingine za kikanda katika maeneo ambapo msuguano unaweza kutokea wakati wa kuhifadhi haki ya upande mmoja ya kuhakikisha maslahi yetu ambayo yanaonekana kuwa muhimu." - Kutambua kwamba maeneo ya ukosefu wa utulivu katika Afrika, Amerika Kusini na Asia ya Kati yatadumu kutokana na vitendo vya watendaji wasio wa serikali au kama matokeo ya msuguano kati ya nguvu kubwa zinazoshindana. Hata hivyo, si maeneo na hali zote zinazoweza kuonwa kuwa muhimu kwa maslahi yetu. Katika maeneo yasiyo muhimu, Marekani, ikifanya kazi kwa ushirikiano na washirika wake, inaweza kutoa mkono wa kusaidia kwa kujenga uwezo wa nchi katika utawala na ulinzi wa ndani. """Tunazingatia kuendeleza nguvu ya pamoja yenye usawa inayoweza kuzuia nguvu nyingine kubwa kutishia maslahi yetu muhimu ya usalama wa kitaifa wakati wa kutafuta kuunda matukio ili kuzuia ukosefu mdogo wa utulivu kutoka kwa kuongezeka kwa kiwango cha mgogoro." "Kufanya hivyo wakati wa kudhibiti fedha kutahitaji mawazo mapya ya ubunifu na Idara ya Ulinzi kama ilivyoelezwa na Jenerali Dempsey katika ""QDR 2014.""" Katika enzi ambapo utawala wa Marekani unashtakiwa na nguvu nyingine kubwa, lazima uzingatie kutumia dhana ya usawa wa nguvu kudumisha utulivu. "Hii ni dhana ambayo Wamarekani wamekuwa na chuki kwa kihistoria, kama Henry Kissinger alivyosema katika kitabu chake ""Diplomatics"" kwamba ""Licha ya chuki ya kihistoria ya Marekani kwa usawa wa nguvu, masomo haya yanafaa kwa sera ya kigeni ya Marekani baada ya Vita Baridi.""" Kwa mara ya kwanza katika historia yake, Marekani sasa ni sehemu ya mfumo wa kimataifa ambapo ni nchi yenye nguvu zaidi, kwa hivyo Marekani inajikuta katika ulimwengu na kufanana na Ulaya ya karne ya kumi na tisa, ingawa kwa kiwango cha kimataifa. "Mtu anaweza kutumaini kwamba kitu kinachofanana na mfumo wa Metternich kinaendelea, ambapo usawa wa nguvu unathibitishwa na hisia ya pamoja ya maadili. """ Na katika enzi ya kisasa, maadili haya lazima yawe ya kidemokrasia. """Wakati utawala wa Rais Obama unakabiliwa na changamoto hizi, inapaswa kuzingatia ushauri wa kisayansi wa Kissinger na kutafuta kuunda upya usalama wetu wa kitaifa na matarajio ya sera za kigeni kwa njia ambazo zinaendana zaidi na hali halisi ya kifedha." """Marekani ni na inapaswa kubaki kiongozi wa dunia, lakini tu katika mfumo ambapo nguvu nyingine kubwa kufanya kazi na ambapo Marekani kwa uangalifu huchagua jinsi na wakati inahitaji nguvu yake." """Kufanya hivyo kutawezesha Marekani kuzingatia maslahi yetu ya usalama wa kitaifa." Kutumia na kusasisha Nadharia ya Nixon itakuwa mwanzo muhimu. Chad M. Pillai ni Mtaalamu wa Mkakati wa Jeshi katika Kituo cha Uunganisho wa Uwezo wa Jeshi (ARCIC). Pillai pia amekuwa akitumikia kama Msaidizi Maalum wa Kamanda wa Jeshi la Kimataifa la Msaada wa Usalama (ISAF) na Mkuu wa Jeshi la 38. Chad Pillai alipata shahada ya uzamili katika sera za umma za kimataifa kutoka Shule ya Mafunzo ya Kimataifa ya Juu ya Johns Hopkins (SAIS) mnamo 2009. Maoni yaliyoonyeshwa hapa ni ya mwandishi na hayawakilishi yale ya Jeshi la Marekani, Idara ya Ulinzi, au serikali ya Marekani.