Analysis of 2017 EEUU National Security Strategy

Thousands of years ago, the father of realistic thinking in international relations, stated that states go to war mobilized by fear, pride and the interests they perceive as fundamental to their security[i].  This definition has a complex mix of objective and subjective factors.  The U.S. National Security Strategy of 2017, built on the first eleven months of Donald Trump’s presidency, fully reiterates Thucydides’ assertions.  It is a series of premises and objectives based on the doctrine of political realism (as explicitly assumed in the document), aimed at “reestablishing the U.S. position of advantage in the world.”[ii]

The United States must be prepared to compete in the best conditions, starting with the domestic arena. And to do so, it will focus on four pillars or national interest groups identified in the Strategy: (1) protecting the land and way of life of Americans; (2) advancing the country’s prosperity; (3) preserving peace through force; and (4) promoting U.S. influence in the world.[iii]In general terms, the pillars of the Strategy are part of the liberal creed associated with American values, where, as described by Walter Rostow, an environment must be ensured that allows American society to continue developing, mainly by protecting its way of life.[iv]However, a change in priorities is evident, giving greater prominence to the realistic principles of power and peace through force.[v]The Strategy aims to stop acting behind the curtain and instead start working head-on in a global competition to recover lost ground in innovation and new technologies, emphasizing economic security.  Above all, the United States’ interests are prioritized under the slogan “America First” and move to compete rather than collaborate.[vi]Argument of this is the positions assumed against Russia and China’s geopolitical competition and the emphatic prevalence of military powerin a re-emergence of strategic rivalry between nations.

Russia’s attention stands out since it is seen as the only country with the current capacity to face the United States on an equal footing.  Its nuclear power and the capacity of its conventional military forces is a cause of concern.  That is why Russia is defined as a revisionist power that seeks to damage U.S. interests in the international system actively.  Russia’s actions and its modern application of subversive tactics interfere with U.S. policies.[vii]  It is much more evident through cybernetic operations, where Russia manages to develop information operations that impact public opinion worldwide.

China is also cited with great emphasis on the national security strategy as the only power that projects great human, material, and technical capacity to reach American power quickly.  China is then a competing country that challenges the United States and seeks to erode its security and prosperity.[viii]The Asian Giant is considered a threat within the international economic spectrum, emphasizing developing trade agreements that do not harm development, growth, and social cohesion.[ix]In the realist view, globalization and free trade are considered under the analysis of their impact on national security and not with the rationality of self-regulation and interdependence.  Thus, in terms of U.S. prosperity, it refers to achieving a strong national economy, ensuring that it “will no longer tolerate chronic trade abuses and will work toward free, fair and reciprocal economic relations.Somecan interpret this as an anti-globalization position.[x]

So far, in all the seminars, questions have been asked about China, so it is impossible to ignore this country’s security strategy.  As described by Curtis Stone:”The six-section white paper published in 2019 begins with a section on the profound changes taking place globally and warns of destabilizing factors and uncertainties in the international security environment. Saying that the international order and security system are being undermined by growing hegemonism, power politics, and unilateralism.  China has no intention of challenging the United States for military supremacy. China is a rising military power, this is a fact, but its national defense strategy is still defensive in nature”.[xi]  China and the United States’ national security strategies are totally different, showing the American with a realistic vision of power

Russia and China are seen as agents capable of helping other countries in interests contrary to those of the United States and, therefore, will limit and regulate both economic and political freedom of action.

On the other hand, the realistic position put on the emphasis given to military power, in all its known expressions, from the use of special forces to the use of nuclear power, is indisputable: “Preserving peace through force.” The priority is to substantially improve the structural, logistical, technological, and human capacities to defend the United States and its interests (guarantee its dominant position in the world).  Protection is projected against state actors and non-state actors.  For nearly two decades since the September 11th attacks, U.S. military plans have focused on fighting terrorism, with counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.  But as mentioned, the emphasis is on interstate strategic competition against countries like Russia and China.[xii]

The challenges to U.S. military advantage posed by other large armies’ growth represent another major shift in global security.  For many years, the United States has had total superiority in all analysis fields, with unlimited response capacity.  Today, many of the areas are either challenged or competitive.[xiii]A more potent military force is necessary and must be combined with technological alliances that offer the United States a military advantage, which is in realistic terms: power.The Strategy tacitly formulates that the budget allocated for military power is not sufficient and that the strategic values regarding nuclear power, interoceanic missiles, and strategic bombing are getting old.

.

It is relevant to discern 3 years after the publication of the strategy.  The realistic position of withdrawing from the east to an isolationist western hemisphere was not presented in the way proposed.  In the first place, because to continue shaping the world order, it is necessary to remain committed at the global level and continue to address others’ concerns.[xiv]And secondly, because the United States is not totally autonomous in manufacturing some products that it has to obtain from abroad.  The stability of manufacturing and some American markets, depends inevitably on the relationship with other countries, especially China.   In this same sense, the United States continues to be in a constructive position since its international security commitment level has not changed or diminished.  To do so would modify the Western order that has been in place since the peace of Westphalia and would ultimately harm the United States.

Without a doubt, the U.S. Defense Security Policy 2017 shows a vindication of “American power and pride,” focusing on its priority enemies and leaving aside warriorism or unnecessary interventionism.  Also, with a tempered sense of realism, it focuses on structural and long-term problems.  It is a strategy framed in a hyper-competitive world, very different from the one we have perhaps seen until now.Ultimately, the national interest, defined in terms of security and wealth, will disciplineeven the most ungovernable politicians. Thus, any ruler’s policy or strategy will be forced to conform to the national interest.[xv]

[i]Kenneth Neal Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Reissued (Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press, 2010).

[ii]“President Donald J. Trump Announces a National Security Strategy to Advance America’s Interests”, The White House, accessed 19 de noviembre de 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-announces-national-security-strategy-advance-americas-interests/.

[iii]Carlota García Encina, “La Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de la Administración Trump”, 2018, 27.

[iv] Rostow, W. (1962) Los Estados Unidos en la palestra mundial. Madrid: Tecnos, p.579.

[v]“La estrategia de seguridad y el interés ‘nacional’ de EE. UU. en América Latina”, CELAG (blog), 7 de enero de 2018, https://www.celag.org/la-estrategia-seguridad-interes-nacional-eeuu-america-latina/.

[vi]Encina, “La Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional de la Administración Trump”.

[vii]Por Fabián Calle, “The New U.S. Security Strategy: Trump and Realism 2.0”, infobae, accessed 19 de noviembre de 2020, /opinion/2017/12/21/la-nueva-estrategia-de-seguridad-de-los-estados-unidos-trump-y-el-realismo-2-0/.

[viii]Richard W. Mansbach y James M. McCormick, Foreign Policy Issues for America: The Trump Years (Routledge, 2019).

[ix]“President Donald J. Trump Announces a National Security Strategy to Advance America’s Interests”.

[x]Calle, “The New Security Strategy of the United States”

[xi]“The stark difference between Chinese and American defense strategy – People’s Daily Online”, accedido 25 de noviembre de 2020, http://en.people.cn/n3/2019/0725/c90000-9600545.html.

[xii]“‘No longer focused on terrorism’: the new U.S. national defense strategy announced by James Mattis”, BBC News Mundo, accessed25 November 2020, https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-42755219.

[xiii]Marco A. Gandásegui et al., “La Política De Seguridad Nacional De Trump”, enEstados Unidos contra el mundo, Trump y la nuevageopolítica (CLACSO, 2018), 111–36, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnp0kh7.8.

[xiv]“How Trump will test international relations theory”, Policy Forum (blog), 29 November  2016, https://www.policyforum.net/trump-will-test-international-relations-theory/.

[xv]Ane Alonso et al., “Analysis of Trump’s Foreign Policy From The Perspective Of Mainstream International Relations Theories”, 25 April 2019.