The return of 'sphere of influence politics' | TheHill - The Hill | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

The return of 'sphere of influence politics' | TheHill – The Hill

Published

 on


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). 

The architects who created the NATO alliance three-quarters of a century ago — President Harry Truman, Secretary of Defense George Marshall and Secretary of State Dean Acheson — operated in a very different world on behalf of a much different America. They had at their disposal the most powerful economic and military engines the world had ever seen. Their modern counterparts — President BidenJoe BidenCory Booker and Rosario Dawson have reportedly split US ups estimate of Russian forces on Ukraine border to 130,000 Harris heads to Munich at pivotal moment MORE, Defense Secretary Lloyd AustinLloyd AustinUS F-22 fighter jets arrive at UAE base in wake of Houthi attacks Kirby: Time is ‘shrinking’ in diplomatic efforts with Russia over Ukraine Majority of Americans say its a bad idea to send troops to fight in Ukraine: poll MORE and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken — dwell in different circumstances but still have the burden of brokering reconciliation between the commitments of the past and the realities of the present.

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.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Youri Chassin quits CAQ to sit as Independent, second member to leave this month

Published

 on

 

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.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

‘I’m not going to listen to you’: Singh responds to Poilievre’s vote challenge

Published

 on

 

MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.

“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.

“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”

Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”

“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.

“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”

While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.

“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.

Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.

Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.

“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.

New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.

The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.

It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.

While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.

Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.

He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.

Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.

The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.

With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.

The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Social media comments blocked: Montreal mayor says she won’t accept vulgar slurs

Published

 on

 

Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.

She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.

Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.

They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.

However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.

Her statement on X is closed to comments.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version