US foreign policy too volatile to lead world

An article by Financial Times critiques the volatility of US foreign policy, arguing that this unpredictability undermines America’s ability to lead globally. The author uses the metaphor of New England weather to illustrate how US foreign policy shifts can leave other nations uncertain and prone to exploitation.

The piece suggests that international leaders are exploiting the inconsistent nature of US policy. For instance, leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin may be manipulating situations, anticipating a more favorable US administration, such as a potential return of Donald Trump. This underscores a lack of confidence in current US leadership.

The article highlights the significant gap between Democratic and Republican foreign policy approaches, asserting that this division is the primary reason for the Biden administration's perceived ineffectiveness. This structural issue suggests that future leaders may also struggle with the same challenges, further complicating America’s global standing.

The author discusses the implications of US unpredictability for its stature in regions like Southeast Asia. America’s inconsistent engagement, from trade policies to its stance on Taiwan, has created confusion and uncertainty among allies and potential partners.

Furthermore, the article illustrates the inconsistency of US policy through the example of climate agreements. The frequent shifts—from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement—demonstrate a lack of long-term commitment, which can be detrimental to global efforts in addressing critical issues.

The author contrasts today’s partisan volatility with a historical period of relative stability in US foreign policy, where various administrations maintained a consensus on key issues like NATO and European integration. This historical perspective emphasizes that current divisions are not an inevitable outcome of democracy but rather a product of rising partisan sentiments.

The unpredictability of US commitments, particularly in crisis situations like the war in Ukraine, raises questions about the reliability of American security guarantees. The author notes that the willingness of future US leaders to uphold such commitments is uncertain, further complicating the strategic landscape for allies.

The article concludes by emphasizing that while America’s political divisions may not have immediate economic repercussions, the geopolitical consequences are severe. The unpredictability of US leadership diminishes its ability to effectively influence global affairs, as allies and adversaries alike grapple with the changing landscape.

It argues that the volatility of US foreign policy, driven by deep partisan divisions, poses significant challenges for American global leadership. This inconsistency not only hampers US credibility but also creates uncertainty for allies and rivals alike, making it difficult for other nations to navigate their foreign relations effectively. The author calls for a recognition of the need for a more stable and predictable US foreign policy to regain influence on the world stage.