Thomas Paine’s Common Sense debuted in January 1776. Had it come earlier, it likely would not have helped push America toward independence from Great Britain. The reason it worked was that a few weeks earlier King George III had told Parliament that effectively he was kicking the Americans out of the empire until they surrendered completely to rule by Parliament and that he would reconquer the colonies. Prior to then the Continental Congress had carefully presented their arguments as being against Parliament and what they believed were the “wicked counselors” misleading the king. Their appeals were to King George, for him to take the Americans’ side against Westminster. When it became clear that this was not going to happen, the Founding Fathers were heartbroken, but more than anything else, they felt betrayed and that betrayal made them determined. Then Thomas Paine dropped his anti-royal diss.
In 1766 New Yorkers voted to build a statue to King George because he got Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. It was unveiled proudly in 1770, designed to resemble the famed equestrian statue of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. New Yorkers tore it down in July 1776. George III and Parliament provoked problems the British Empire did not need. They alienated their colonists, gave their enemies France and Spain the opportunity they craved to break up the British Atlantic system and Britain lost the most productive part of North America.
I teach the history of US foreign policy, including international relations theory. One theory that is often misunderstood is Realism. Now, a large part of the reason is the name—everyone wants to think of themselves as “realistic,” and living in “reality,” but the term is about a particular view of how states interact. This view of foreign relations is about competition and conflict with the idea that sovereign governments are concerned with their own security, and as they act to pursue what they think of as their national interest, they engage in an anarchic struggle. Some theorists and government leaders will act cynically and claim they are merely being realists, pursuing what is good for their state, and therefore, morality does not matter. They dismiss liberal international theory as naively focused on collaboration and rules. However, in the modern world, such cynicism is simplemindedness dressed up as sophistication.
It is dumb. Is the Russian Federation better off than it was before 2022?
I have three criteria for considering a country’s national interests from a realist perspective that accepts the idea that international relations exist in an anarchic domain with few “laws” as it were:
Are you pursuing cooperation that serves our interests rather than making unnecessary enemies—it is better to have friends than foes;
Are you cultivating strength rather than weakness—it is better to be powerful than vulnerable; and
Are you fostering wealth rather than poverty—it is better to be rich than poor.
It is better for the United States of America to do things that lead to the former consequences and not the latter ones. Being isolated, less potent, and broke is not in the national interest, and if the actions of those running the government lead to those consequences in international relations, then from a realist perspective, they are a disaster. We have to coldly assess actions and results without given in to partisanship or trying to recover the sunk costs of votes in past elections.
When assessing leaders in international relations I ask, “Are they doing things that enhance or weaken their national position?” That’s the criteria. The 47th presidential administration is making the US more isolated, less capable, and financially insecure. Our major enemies—not a small country like Venezuela, real opponents like China—are happy and our friends—maybe former friends now—are equally alarmed and angry.
There is a quiet boycott going on in Canada. The Canadian government wants trade, but the Canadian people are furious, and guess what, their government cannot make them buy US products. In many grocery stores north of the border customers identify made in the USA products and turn them upside down so that their neighbors will know not to buy them. Jack Daniels sales in Canada are down 62%. Segments of American culture have gotten used to idea of being mean and not getting put in their place. Collectively, as a country, we can see what that habit costs.
American technological dominance is now at risk because of the personal weaponization of U.S. services. Recently, the U.S. government targeted the International Criminal Court (ICC) for sanctions due to their investigation of the Gaza War. ICC staffers were predictably cut off from banking and travel to the U.S., but more invasively, the sanctions compelled Amazon to shut off their personal Alexa accounts.1 That is right: make Uncle Sam mad, and you cannot use your own smart devices in your own home overseas.
This foolish use of tech dominance sent ripples throughout the diplomatic world. To many Americans, the ICC is a court they do not recognize, so they assume this should not matter. The problem is that 125 countries do recognize the ICC, including major allies like France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Canada, and South Korea.
France and Germany are critical here. Many leaders in Europe—and even in Canada—have determined that if the Americans are willing to weaponize consumer tech, they are no longer reliable partners. Consequently, they are quietly developing tech ecosystems independent of the United States, subsidized by government funds. France, in particular, is not opposed to targeted statism. This response may take the form of building national or pan-European competitors, creating open-source systems to directly compete with American software, and eventually mandating them for government use.
If they ban U.S. products as unreliable due to their potential for political ‘kill switches,’ Silicon Valley may wake up shut out of the world’s second-largest market. Stock prices will fall, and so will American retirement savings. It would be the disastrous economic consequence of turning friends into foes.
This is not doom and gloom. It is happening in real time as what before were the typical European plans that Americans dismissed as wishful thinking now have become urgent government priorities:
The ICC ditched Microsoft Office for Open Desk, a German-developed open-source workspace.2
Thales Group, a major French multinational company that specializes in aerospace, defense, security, and digital identity, will hold the digital encryption keys for all GoogleAI in defense projects in order to lock out the American company. In the meantime, France is speeding up its own AI development, presumably so it can ditch US based systems because they are ultimately not trusted.3
France has redoubled efforts to develop is Cloud de Confiance a French/European cloud computing system whose stated purpose is to build digital sovereignty and separation from Silicon Valley.
The French President in December publicly accused the USA of attacking EU digital sovereignty.4
European “digital sovereignty” is explicitly driven by fears of US extra-territorial surveillance laws, specifically the CLOUD Act (2018) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).5
Europeans fear an American Digital Interdict and are responding accordingly.
Greenland is the final straw for the Europeans and the Canadians. The consequences are the opposite of realist strategy. Unless there is a swift course correction the Americans will end up more alone, weaker, and poorer than at any time since the 19th century. America is being judged by the world.
Happy MLK Day.