Domestic Politics vs. Geo-strategic Position

          For decades the U.S. as remained the main power player in foreign policy. When comparing domestic politics and political culture vs. geo-strategic position, geo-strategy is much more influential in the creation and continuation of the U.S. as a hegemon than domestic and political politics. By playing to their strengths with strategic endeavors the U.S. has created its leaders envisioned.

          In his book, Diplomacy, Kissinger examines the realist strategic thought process of Theodore Roosevelt. The first president to push for a global influence from the U.S., he believed that expansion would only increase national interests and that it was time for the U.S. to become an actor on the international level. Much like the presidents that came before him, Roosevelt held the belief that the U.S. had a beneficent role to play in the world, however, where he differed from others before him was his idea that foreign policy could be a messy business. If othersand their motivations threatened the U.S., the U.S. had the responsibility to draw on resources and protect itself. Kissinger outlines the following serious of events in foreign policy that favored America. First, in 1902, America, demanding that Haiti reconcile its debt with banks in European. Then in 1903 with an insurrection within Panama. Followed up by the creation of the Canal Zone, intervention in Columbia, and the financial protectorate in the Dominican Republic. Believing that civil virtues would not be enough to reach Americas greatest potential, Roosevelt was the president to push the narrative of Americas national interests and the role it could play. This mindset and teachings demonstrate that a geo-strategic position is nothing new to the U.S. and is something that is widely understood today. Even though national interest strategy was not favored in Roosevelt time, instead preferring Woodrow Wilson ideals of American exceptionalism, it was much in the underlying workings of the U.S. foreign policy system. 

          Diplomacy can be seen as a soft power tool that the U.S. has used to benefit itself in geo-strategic positions and is another reason why the U.S. as always prioritized geo-strategic politics. As the currents of the international landscape are constantly shifting, the U.S. has an opportunity to dictate how the future is shaped before rivals do in their favor. In his article, “The Lost Art of American Diplomacy”, Williams Burns documents past historical events that demonstrate how the U.S. uses diplomacy to further themselves on the international stage. To achieve this the U.S. must once again build American diplomacy making it a priority followed by economic and military capabilities. In the past, Burns recounts diplomacy at its prime, during the 1991 Madrid peace conference to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With leaders from the U.S., Israel, the Palestinians, and main Arab states, the connection between all of them was the respect towards U.S. influence, which discreetly pointed towards a time of U.S. dominance. This was a great time of globalization that favored the U.S. and its allies, paired with the inferior state of its rivals like Russia and China. Bush choose to combine aspects of humility, future possibilities, leadership, and diplomatic skill to shape influence. Overtime the diplomacy at its core was dampened due to more emphasis on counterintelligence, stabilization, and terrorism vs. persuasion, threats, and browbeating other nations to align their interests with U.S.’s. 

          In recent years, during his administration, Obama reasserted the importance of diplomacy which was showcased in the Iran nuclear deal, Paris climate accord, and the opening of Cuba. What followed was an undoing of sorts from the Trump administration, who was seen as incompetent and weak by other leaders. Despite this diplomacy is far from dead. The U.S. is still able to position itself in a geo-strategic way. With greater allies than rivals, a new era is in store for the U.S.. The combination of the most efficient economy in the world, advantages in the renewable energy and natural gas technology, the U.S. is set up to further its dominance. However, emphasis on diplomacy must be rekindled, if the U.S. wants to see these strides. Diplomacy and its practicality in geo-strategic situations are always at play, but better highlighted through certain leaders and events. 

           A key event in American history that demonstrate the use of geo-strategy in regard to military power is the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 which can be seen as a balance of nuclear power between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. In their article, “The Cuban Missile Crisis: A study of Its Strategic Context”, Kahan and Long highlight why the missile crisis is an event that shows the importance of geo-strategy in foreign affairs. In June of 1962, with Secretary of Defense McNamara created the “no-cities” doctrine, Soviets fear that the U.S. had ulterior motives to initiate nuclear strike, a concept that was already in the heads of Soviets. With the balance of power favoring the U.S., Moscow and Soviet officials could no longer conceal the fact that their grip on power was loosening. Kennedy used this opportunity to try and influence Soviets, putting them on defense mode. Soviets continued to fear that their diplomatic influence was decreasing paired with the inability to maintain public image. Khrushchev acknowledged the importance of avoiding nuclear war and fostering peaceful coexistence, however, he remained unwilling to take on board a costly missile program and was faced with a dilemma: How to increase geo-strategic strength while simultaneously keeping spending in check. Cuba fixed this problem. Soviets had already been providing Castro with arms, and they wanted to use it as a base to deploy missiles. Cuba as a base would allow the Soviets to gain quickly and at a cheaper price the deployment of MR/IRBM against rivals, creating complications with U.S attacks. The events leading up to the Crisis illustrates the delicate dance that occurred between nations to maintain their geo-strategy position. The relationship between the U.S. and the Soviets shows how geo-strategy was always in the mind of Kennedy, McNamara, and Khrushchev. 

          An argument can be made for the opposite viewpoint, the notion that domestic politics and political culture of the United States have been a bigger determinant of foreign policy than the geo-strategic position. Some may say that the past actions taken by leaders was to nurture domestic politics rather than prospects of increasing national interests through geo-strategy, focusing more on inward domestic thinking than outward international thinking. Others may say that Wilsons American exceptionalism is what people of his time connected with and therefore more influential than Roosevelt. However, many domestic decisions will impact the U.S. on a global level. Even if it is not clearly stated, geo-politics is always part of the narrative. To not take geo-strategy into consideration would be unwise on the U.S.’s part. Power is always shifting and the fact that the U.S. was and continues to be a hegemon shows that leaders were strategizing, even if only behind the scenes. Geo-strategy and the need to maintain power, autonomy, and sovereignty is at the core of every nation. Soon after its creation, the U.S. achieved the power to create the hegemony they wanted and continues to influence nations today. 

          Geo-strategy as always been in the forefront of the U.S. foreign policy mindset. The U.S. is skillful in using their best assets to their advantages and leveraging it against rival nations. With allies, they prove their competence which displays their strengths as a leader among other high-profile nations. Looking towards the future the U.S. continues to maintain dominance on a global level thanks to their economic and military power. As the world evolves the U.S. continues to evolved with it, ensuring its survival.

Bibliography

Burns, William J. “The Lost Art of American Diplomacy.” Foreign Affairs, 26 Mar. 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-03-27/lost-art-american-diplomacy. 

Kahan, Jerome H., and Anne K. Long. “The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Study of Its Strategic Context.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 4, 1972, pp. 564–90, https://doi.org/10.2307/2148197. Accessed 8 Apr. 2022.

Kissinger , Henry. “The Hinge: Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson .” Diplomacy , Columbia University Press, 1989, pp. 29–53.