“Economic Patriotism,” American Style

In the United States, one frequently overhears someone complain that Asia-Pacific has become America’s “spending center” while China enjoys being a “profit center.” This kind of talk just serves to fan the flames of perceived “unfair competition” in the minds of Americans. But what they should bear in mind is this: Only a two-way economic street is practical, and only through bringing mutually beneficial diplomacy into razor-sharp focus can we bring about economic viability.

At his nomination hearing, new Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized that the effectiveness of current economic foreign policy is unprecedented. He said there should be cooperative bipartisan efforts in pursuit of “economic patriotism.” American foreign policy should be defined not only by unmanned drones and military deployment, he said, but also by competition for global resources and markets. Moreover, if America is unwilling to invest in the latter, it will erode the country’s power. The main priority of American diplomacy is to help restore economic order.

The reason why Kerry’s statements on American economics and foreign relations got so much press is that this is a new direction, after a long period of reassessment. The huge increase in U.S. economic power on the diplomatic front is bound to have far-reaching implications. The up-and-coming economic powers in the world will feel it most, especially China.

There is an ironclad law that states that weak countries have no diplomatic leverage. Weak countries cannot help but agonize over American exceptionalism and its air of superiority. America — a country that, accustomed to its position as the world’s great superpower, once smugly used military aggression abroad and, through its use of derivatives, created a domestic financial bubble that hollowed out its real economic power. By the time of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it had depleted its resources and overextended itself to the point that the country has finally realized it is not exempt from that very same ironclad law.

During President Obama’s first term, the economy showed an increase in key diplomatic sectors. In February 2011, the U.S. Department of State set up the Bureau of Energy Resources. The State Department anticipated the establishment of a firm global energy policy from a diplomatic perspective and with a new international structure — one in which it could exploit its available diplomatic resources, thereby ensuring the acquisition of safe, reliable and ever-cleaner energy on a global scale.

On Feb. 21, 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted the issue of “jobs diplomacy.” This notion of “jobs diplomacy” has since become a high-priority global goal in U.S. foreign affairs.

“America’s economic strength and our global leadership are a package deal; you’re not going to have one without the other. Our power in the 21st century depends not just on the size of our military but also on what we grow, how well we innovate, what we make and how effectively we sell. Rising powers like China, India and Brazil understand this as well, and we can’t sit on the sidelines while they put economics at the center of their foreign policies,” Clinton stated.

America admits that it has fallen behind certain other countries and that it must make efforts to catch up. To accomplish its diplomatic goals and serve its economic interests, the State Department is going to reform the way it “does business.” Clinton further stated, “We need to see the world like you do, crisscrossed not just by national borders but by global supply chains.”

Afterwards, Clinton was very clear about the fact that “economic statecraft” will be one of her five focal points — that is, the employment of diplomatic strategies to create job opportunities for Americans.

In May 2012, a series of actions were launched that were designed to promote the development of the travel and tourism industries, thereby creating more American jobs. The State Department indicated that, in order to implement this strategic goal while still guaranteeing national security, visa procedures would continually be improved. Since then, a series of measures aimed specifically at promoting American companies and attracting investment into the country have also been adopted.

At the time, there was still a militaristic feel to the strategic emphasis of American foreign affairs. Later this was gradually toned down, and economic factors were included on the already full plate of Asia-Pacific strategies. This just goes to show that America has no intention of being made an outsider — a hungry onlooker able to see the bounty that is the rapid development of the Asia-Pacific region, but not to taste it.

In the United States, you’ll frequently run into someone complaining that the Asia-Pacific region has become America’s “expense” while China enjoys the benefits of that economic development. These sorts of grumblings just exaggerate the idea of so-called “unfair competition” in American minds. In economic diplomacy, especially when it pertains to the mighty expansion of the Asia-Pacific region, America cannot circumvent the question of how to get along with China. With that in mind, I believe an old Chinese proverb says it best: “He ze liang li, dou ze ju shang” (“合则两利，斗则俱伤”), which means, “Cooperation yields mutual benefit, conflict yields only damage.” Again, I must stress that a positive economic state of affairs is a two-way street in which both sides emphasize mutually beneficial economic and diplomatic collaboration. Only this particular economic order will do.