What You Allow Will Continue: US Relationships

The pervasive nature of systemic issues, evident in entities like the United Nations, highlights the critical importance of addressing harmful patterns in international relations. Diplomatic strategies, much like the policies enacted within Washington D.C., often reflect a willingness to tolerate certain behaviors, inadvertently reinforcing cycles of conflict and injustice. A lack of decisive action against human rights abuses, for instance, can erode the effectiveness of international law. Just as the principles of game theory suggest that repeated interactions shape future behavior, in geopolitics, what you allow will continue, influencing the trajectory of US relationships on the global stage.

The Domino Effect of Inaction in Global Affairs

International relations are governed by a complex interplay of actions and reactions. All actions have consequences.

Perhaps less obvious, but equally significant, is the impact of inaction.

The choices nations make – and, crucially, the choices they avoid making – reverberate across the global stage, shaping the behavior of other actors and the very fabric of international order.

The principle is simple yet profound: What you allow will continue. Tolerated behaviors set precedents.

Inaction: A Seed of Destructive Patterns

When aggressive actions go unchallenged, they not only harm the immediate victims but also send a signal to other potential aggressors.

It suggests that such behavior is permissible or, at least, that the costs of intervention are deemed too high.

This creates a domino effect, where one act of unchecked aggression paves the way for further transgressions, eroding international norms and destabilizing the global landscape.

Imagine a neighbor consistently violating property lines without facing consequences.

This emboldens them to encroach further, and may even invite others to do the same.

The same applies to nations. A failure to respond to violations of international law or norms can embolden further violations, leading to a downward spiral of instability.

The Erosion of Deterrence

Inaction undermines deterrence.

Deterrence relies on the credible threat of a response.

When that threat is absent, or perceived as hollow, potential aggressors are more likely to take risks, miscalculate, and initiate conflicts.

This doesn’t necessarily mean military intervention is always the answer.

Rather, it underscores the importance of clearly defined red lines and a willingness to impose costs on those who cross them, whether through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or other measures.

A Call for Proactive and Principled Foreign Policy

The alternative to reactive firefighting is proactive and principled foreign policy.

This means anticipating potential threats, engaging in preventative diplomacy, and upholding international norms, even when it is difficult or unpopular.

It requires a nuanced understanding of power dynamics, strategic interests, and the lessons of history.

A proactive, principled foreign policy, informed by Balance of Power, Realpolitik, and lessons of Appeasement, prevents negative international behavior.

By embracing this approach, nations can prevent the "domino effect" of inaction and cultivate a more stable, secure, and just world for all.

Decoding International Relations: Key Concepts and Theories

To fully grasp the principle that “what you allow will continue” in international relations, it is essential to understand the fundamental concepts and theories that govern state behavior.

These provide a framework for analyzing the dynamics at play and predicting the consequences of both action and inaction.

By understanding these principles, we can move beyond reactive responses and embrace a more proactive, strategic approach to foreign policy.

Codependency in International Relations

Codependency, often discussed in interpersonal relationships, has a compelling parallel in international affairs.

It describes a situation where one nation enables the destructive actions of another, perpetuating a cycle of harmful behavior.

This enabling can take many forms, from providing unconditional economic aid to turning a blind eye to human rights abuses or territorial aggression.

The core dynamic of codependency is that the enabler, despite potentially suffering negative consequences, continues to support the destructive behavior.

Examples of Codependent Relationships

Historically, some argue that certain relationships between major powers and smaller, less stable states exhibit codependent characteristics.

For example, a powerful nation might consistently bail out a struggling economy without demanding meaningful reforms, effectively enabling continued fiscal irresponsibility.

Similarly, providing unwavering military support to an authoritarian regime, regardless of its internal repression or external aggression, can foster a codependent dynamic.

Recognizing and breaking these patterns requires a willingness to set firm boundaries and condition support on positive change.

Game Theory and Strategic Interactions

Game theory offers a powerful lens through which to analyze the strategic implications of inaction in international relations.

It posits that nations, like players in a game, make decisions based on calculations of costs, benefits, and the likely responses of other actors.

In this context, failing to respond to provocation can be interpreted as weakness, inviting further aggression.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a classic game theory scenario, illustrates this point.

Two actors, acting in their own self-interest, may both choose a course of action that leads to a worse outcome for both, if they had cooperated.

Similarly, in international relations, if states consistently prioritize short-term gains over collective security, the result can be a destabilized global order.

By contrast, demonstrating a willingness to respond decisively to violations of international norms can alter the strategic calculus of potential aggressors, making them less likely to act in the first place.

The Perils of Appeasement

Appeasement, the policy of making concessions to an aggressor in the hope of avoiding conflict, is perhaps the most cautionary tale in international relations.

History is replete with examples of appeasement strategies that backfired spectacularly, emboldening aggressors and ultimately leading to greater conflict.

Munich Agreement: A Textbook Example

The Munich Agreement of 1938, in which Britain and France ceded territory to Nazi Germany in exchange for promises of peace, stands as a stark reminder of the dangers of appeasement.

Rather than satisfying Hitler’s ambitions, the agreement only fueled his appetite for further expansion, accelerating the slide toward World War II.

Appeasement fails because it misjudges the motivations of the aggressor, assuming that concessions will lead to moderation.

In reality, it often reinforces the aggressor’s belief that aggression pays, leading to further demands and escalating conflict.

Deterrence Theory as a Preventative Measure

Deterrence theory offers a contrasting approach to managing international relations, emphasizing the importance of discouraging unwanted actions through the credible threat of retaliation.

It rests on the principle that potential aggressors are less likely to act if they believe the costs of doing so will outweigh the benefits.

Effective deterrence requires three key elements: capability, credibility, and communication.

The Three Pillars of Deterrence

Capability refers to the actual means to inflict unacceptable damage on a potential aggressor, whether through military force, economic sanctions, or other measures.

Credibility refers to the willingness to use those capabilities, which is often demonstrated through clear declarations of intent and a track record of following through on commitments.

Communication refers to the clear and unambiguous articulation of red lines and the consequences of crossing them, leaving no room for miscalculation.

When these three elements are in place, deterrence can be a powerful tool for preventing conflict and maintaining stability.

The Role of National Interest

National interest, the pursuit of a nation’s security, prosperity, and well-being, is a primary driver of foreign policy decision-making.

Understanding how national interest is defined and prioritized is crucial to understanding a nation’s actions on the global stage.

However, the pursuit of national interest can be complex, requiring a careful balancing of short-term gains and long-term goals.

Balancing Short-Term and Long-Term Goals

Sometimes, pursuing immediate national interests can have unintended consequences that undermine long-term stability.

For example, supporting an authoritarian regime for short-term economic or strategic gains may create resentment and instability that ultimately threatens regional security.

Therefore, a wise foreign policy requires a nuanced understanding of how national interests intersect with broader global concerns, and a willingness to prioritize sustainable, long-term solutions over short-sighted gains.

This involves recognizing that a stable and just world order ultimately serves the national interests of all nations.

Historical Case Studies: Lessons Etched in Time

History serves as a vital laboratory for international relations, offering invaluable lessons about the consequences of action and inaction. By examining pivotal moments, we can discern patterns and gain insights into how the principle of "what you allow will continue" has shaped global events.

These historical analyses provide a crucial foundation for informed policy-making, reminding us that our choices today echo through time.

The Munich Agreement (1938): A Cautionary Tale of Appeasement

The Munich Agreement of 1938 remains a stark warning about the dangers of appeasement. In their eagerness to avoid war, Britain and France ceded the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany.

This concession, based on the flawed premise that it would satisfy Hitler’s ambitions, had the opposite effect. Rather than securing "peace for our time," it emboldened Hitler, convincing him that aggression would be met with minimal resistance.

The agreement accelerated the slide towards World War II, demonstrating that appeasement often reinforces an aggressor’s belief that aggression pays.

The Cold War: A Delicate Balance of Power

The Cold War, a period of intense ideological rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, provides a study in managing conflict without resorting to direct military confrontation.

Both superpowers understood the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war.

They engaged in a complex dance of deterrence and containment, establishing clear red lines and acceptable behaviors to prevent escalation.

This delicate balance, while fraught with tension, ultimately prevented a global conflagration. It also demonstrated the importance of communication and a clear understanding of an adversary’s capabilities and intentions.

The Vietnam War: The Perils of Incremental Escalation

The Vietnam War illustrates the dangers of incremental escalation and the difficulty of extricating oneself from a costly conflict. The United States, driven by the Domino Theory and a fear of communist expansion, gradually increased its involvement in Vietnam.

This escalation, characterized by a lack of clear objectives and a misjudgment of local dynamics, led to a protracted and divisive war. The Vietnam War serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully considering the long-term consequences of intervention and the need for a clearly defined exit strategy.

The Rwandan Genocide: A Failure of Humanitarian Intervention

The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 stands as a tragic example of the international community’s failure to act in the face of mass atrocities. Despite clear warning signs and overwhelming evidence of systematic killings, the world stood by as Hutu extremists slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Tutsi civilians.

This failure to intervene highlights the moral and strategic implications of inaction, demonstrating that indifference can have devastating consequences. It also underscores the responsibility of the international community to protect vulnerable populations from genocide and other mass atrocities.

The Iraq War: A Case of Preemptive Action

The 2003 Iraq War, justified in part by the claim that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), remains a contentious issue.

While no WMDs were ultimately found, the rationale for the war was rooted in the idea that allowing a potentially hostile regime to develop such weapons posed an unacceptable risk.

The Iraq War raises complex questions about the justification for preemptive action and the challenges of assessing potential threats.

It highlights the importance of accurate intelligence and a careful consideration of the potential consequences of military intervention.

The Rise of Nazi Germany: The Cost of Initial Leniency

The rise of Nazi Germany offers a chilling lesson in the dangers of underestimating an aggressor and failing to confront early signs of expansionism.

The Allies’ initial leniency towards Hitler’s violations of the Treaty of Versailles, driven by a desire to avoid another war, inadvertently emboldened him.

This initial leniency allowed Hitler to consolidate power, rearm Germany, and pursue his expansionist ambitions, ultimately leading to World War II.

The episode demonstrates that early and decisive action can be crucial in preventing aggression from escalating into a larger conflict.

The Rise of ISIS: The Vacuum of Instability

The rise of ISIS serves as a contemporary example of how instability and perceived failures in intervention can create a vacuum for extremist groups to flourish.

The group’s emergence in the aftermath of the Iraq War, fueled by sectarian tensions and a lack of effective governance, highlights the challenges of post-conflict stabilization.

The rise of ISIS underscores the importance of addressing the root causes of conflict, including poverty, inequality, and political marginalization, to prevent the emergence of extremist groups.

It also suggests that intervention strategies must be carefully designed to promote long-term stability and prevent unintended consequences.

By studying these historical case studies, we can gain a deeper understanding of the principle of "what you allow will continue" and its implications for international relations. These lessons, etched in time, serve as a guide for navigating the complex challenges of the 21st century and shaping a more stable and just world.

Contemporary Challenges: Navigating Today’s Hotspots

The principle of "what you allow will continue" resonates profoundly in today’s turbulent international landscape. Several hotspots demand immediate attention, requiring careful consideration of policy choices and their potential consequences. Our actions, or inactions, will inevitably shape the future trajectory of these critical regions.

China: A Relationship in Need of Constant Calibration

The US-China relationship is multifaceted, encompassing trade, human rights, and geopolitics. Each area presents unique challenges and opportunities. Tolerating certain behaviors, such as intellectual property theft or human rights abuses, can inadvertently embolden further transgressions.

How the United States navigates these complexities will significantly impact the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. Maintaining a firm stance on principles while seeking avenues for cooperation is vital.

The Asia-Pacific Balance of Power

China’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea, its growing military capabilities, and its economic influence across the region all demand careful consideration. Ignoring these developments, or failing to articulate clear red lines, risks destabilizing the existing order. Allies must be reassured, and international norms must be upheld.

Russia: Confronting Aggression and Interference

Russia’s actions in Ukraine, its interference in foreign elections, and its broader pattern of aggressive behavior pose a significant threat to international security. Allowing these actions to go unchecked sends a dangerous signal, potentially encouraging further destabilization.

Appropriate responses are essential to deter future aggression. These responses must be carefully calibrated to avoid escalation while effectively communicating resolve. Economic sanctions, coupled with robust diplomatic efforts, can be valuable tools.

Deterrence Through Strength and Diplomacy

A strong and united NATO alliance is crucial in deterring Russian aggression in Europe. Simultaneously, open channels of communication should be maintained to manage potential misunderstandings and prevent unintended conflicts. A balance of strength and diplomacy is vital for managing this complex relationship.

North Korea: Addressing the Nuclear Threat

North Korea’s nuclear program remains a persistent threat to regional and global security. The international community’s approach to this challenge requires a delicate balance of pressure and diplomacy. Allowing North Korea to continue developing its nuclear arsenal unchecked poses unacceptable risks.

Strategies for Non-Proliferation

Preventing further proliferation requires a multifaceted strategy. This includes robust sanctions, diplomatic engagement, and credible deterrence. Working closely with regional partners, such as South Korea and Japan, is essential. Furthermore, exploring avenues for dialogue, while maintaining a firm stance on denuclearization, is also needed.

Iran: Preventing Nuclear Weapons Development

Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its destabilizing regional activities are major concerns. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must be a top priority. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite its imperfections, offered a framework for monitoring and limiting Iran’s nuclear program.

The Imperative of Verifiable Agreements

A verifiable agreement that prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is essential for regional stability. Diplomatic efforts should focus on achieving such an agreement, while simultaneously addressing Iran’s support for proxy groups and its other destabilizing activities.

Afghanistan: Lessons of Intervention and Withdrawal

The situation in Afghanistan serves as a stark reminder of the complexities of intervention and the potential consequences of withdrawal. The rapid collapse of the Afghan government following the withdrawal of US forces highlights the challenges of building sustainable institutions in conflict-affected countries.

Long-Term Stability Requires Regional Cooperation

Addressing the root causes of instability in Afghanistan, including poverty, corruption, and lack of governance, is crucial. Regional cooperation and a commitment to long-term development are essential to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorism again.

In each of these contemporary challenges, the principle of "what you allow will continue" holds true. Informed by a nuanced understanding of history and guided by a commitment to promoting stability and justice, our choices today will determine the shape of the international order tomorrow.

Shaping International Behavior: Tools and Mechanisms

The principle of “what you allow will continue” necessitates a proactive approach to shaping international behavior. The United States possesses a diverse toolkit to influence other nations, each with its own strengths, weaknesses, and potential unintended consequences. Understanding these tools and their limitations is crucial for crafting effective foreign policy.

The Double-Edged Sword of Sanctions

Economic sanctions are a frequently employed tool, designed to pressure nations into altering their behavior by restricting access to international markets and financial systems. Sanctions can be effective in achieving specific, limited goals, such as compelling a nation to negotiate or release political prisoners.

However, they are rarely a panacea.
Broad-based sanctions can inflict significant harm on civilian populations, potentially leading to humanitarian crises and undermining the legitimacy of the U.S.
Moreover, sanctions can incentivize targeted nations to seek alternative trading partners, develop domestic industries, or even resort to illicit activities, thereby diminishing their effectiveness.

The key to successful sanctions lies in careful calibration, clear objectives, and multilateral support.
Targeted sanctions, aimed at specific individuals or sectors, are generally more effective and less harmful than broad-based measures.

Military Aid: Investing in Stability or Fueling Conflict?

Providing military aid, including weapons, training, and financial assistance, is another tool used to shape international behavior.
The rationale behind military aid is often to bolster allies, enhance their capacity to defend themselves, and promote regional stability.

However, military aid is not without its risks.
It can inadvertently fuel conflict, empower authoritarian regimes, and contribute to human rights abuses.
Moreover, the provision of military aid can create dependencies, undermining the long-term sustainability of security arrangements.

Careful vetting of recipients, robust oversight mechanisms, and a clear understanding of the local context are essential to mitigate these risks.
Military aid should be part of a broader strategy that prioritizes good governance, respect for human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution.

The Art of Diplomacy: Navigating Complex Relationships

The U.S. Department of State plays a vital role in shaping international behavior through diplomacy. Diplomacy encompasses a wide range of activities, including negotiation, mediation, public diplomacy, and cultural exchange.

Effective diplomacy requires a deep understanding of other cultures, a commitment to dialogue, and a willingness to compromise.
The State Department uses various means of diplomacy to signal, coax, and influence.
This may include using foreign aid to signal U.S. goodwill and expectations of cooperation.

While diplomacy can be a powerful tool for preventing conflict and promoting cooperation, it is not always successful.
Some nations may be unwilling to negotiate in good faith, or may view diplomacy as a sign of weakness.

In such cases, diplomacy must be backed by credible threats and a willingness to use other tools, such as sanctions or military force, if necessary.

Congress: Shaping Foreign Policy from Within

The U.S. Congress plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy, through its power to declare war, ratify treaties, and appropriate funds.
Congressional committees, such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, hold hearings, conduct investigations, and draft legislation that can significantly impact international relations.

Congress can also shape foreign policy through resolutions and statements that express the sense of the body on particular issues.
While these resolutions are not legally binding, they can send powerful signals to other nations and influence public opinion.

The influence of Congress on U.S. foreign policy can be both a strength and a weakness.
A strong and unified Congress can provide crucial support for the President’s foreign policy initiatives, but a divided Congress can create gridlock and undermine U.S. credibility on the world stage.
Effective communication and collaboration between the executive and legislative branches are essential for crafting a coherent and effective foreign policy.

So, take a good, hard look at your relationships. Are you happy with the patterns you’ve established? Remember, what you allow will continue. It’s up to you to decide what you’re willing to accept and what you’re not. Good luck out there!