Since the end of World War II, the main thrust of American foreign policy has been the creation and maintenance of a “rules-based international order,” which consisted of a worldwide web of organizations, alliances and other treaties, the formal mission of which was to establish a rational framework for communication among countries. The deeper purpose of this world order was to check the advance of an ideologically-driven communist movement led by the Soviet Union and China.
The extraordinary success of this enterprise culminated in the triumphant conclusion of the Cold War, largely derived from the immense military and economic power of the United States, which alone among major nations emerged from the war with its physical, financial and economic foundations intact, and even enhanced.
Over the past half-century, however, the American sponsored rules-based international order has fallen on hard times. Losing long, debilitating and ultimately unpopular wars — from Vietnam to Afghanistan — demolished the aura of American military invincibility and sapped the energy, resources, confidence and unity of the American people. Many of our allies, having regained vibrant economies and no longer alarmed by a virulent world communist movement, came to doubt the judgment of U.S. leaders and even question whether America — relatively diminished, both economically and militarily — is still the “indispensable nation.”
America’s decline and fatigue, both real and perceived, has emboldened rogue states worldwide but most particularly the giant Eurasian authoritarians — China and Russia — who long have chafed under U.S. ascendency. These states essentially have rendered the rules-based international order dysfunctional by routinely violating any rule they don’t like and largely going unpunished for doing so, thereby draining the order of any serious credibility.
As the America-led world order atrophies, we have begun to see the re-emergence of an older principle of international relations: “sphere of influence politics.” Interestingly, this older conception found its most well-known modern manifestation via the Monroe Doctrine, which was proclaimed in 1823 by the U.S. president who gave it his name, and for 200 years it has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Audacious in its scope, the Monroe Doctrine did not declare just a few neighboring countries as a zone of paramount American interest, but rather, the entire Western Hemisphere. Across two centuries — by diplomatic, economic or military means — we have rigorously enforced it, rarely against European powers but usually against independent nations south of our border. In the context of the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was expanded to justify intervention in any country deemed to be dangerously leftist or even communist; examples of this were the ouster of elected presidents Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954) and Salvador Allende in Chile (1973).
In his 1987 book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” historian Paul Kennedy introduced the concept of “imperial overstretch,” in which he asserted that the United States was committed in too many places in the world but no longer had the military and economic resources to simultaneously meet the global obligations it had accepted. Thirty-five years later, the dilemmas Kennedy described have worsened substantially. Today, the United States must choose carefully where it can deploy limited resources and risk a military conflict that would be supported by the American people, and where allied soldiers would join us in harm’s way.
The other superpowers, China and Russia, face similar or even greater constraints and, accordingly, they tend to project military power — not globally like the United States but on a regional basis in areas they claim as their “spheres of influence” (e.g., Taiwan and Ukraine, respectively).
William Moloney is a Fellow in Conservative Thought at Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute who studied at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University. He is a former Colorado Commissioner of Education.
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the NDP is caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre when it comes to their stance on the consumer carbon price.
Trudeau says he believes Jagmeet Singh and the NDP care about the environment, but it’s “increasingly obvious” that they have “no idea” what to do about climate change.
On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but wouldn’t say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.
Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.
Poilievre responded to that by releasing a video, pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.
British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister responsible for consumer protection, has tabled a bill to force merchants to calculate tips based on the price before tax.
That means on a restaurant bill of $100, suggested tips would be calculated based on $100, not on $114.98 after provincial and federal sales taxes are added.
The bill would also increase the rebate offered to consumers when the price of an item at the cash register is higher than the shelf price, to $15 from $10.
And it would force grocery stores offering a discounted price for several items to clearly list the unit price as well.
Businesses would also have to indicate whether taxes will be added to the price of food products.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
