'War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft'

TL;DR

The United States must integrate economic tools into foreign policy to maintain global power.

Transcript

LINDSAY: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to tonight's Council on Foreign Relations meeting. I am Jim Lindsay, senior vice president and director of studies here at the Council on Foreign Relations. I also want to welcome everyone who's joining us via the wonders of the Internet as we livestream tonight's lively and timely discussion. It is my great... Read More

Key Insights

• Geoeconomics involves using economic tools for geopolitical purposes, distinct from using them for purely economic gains.
• China is a leading practitioner of geoeconomics, skillfully using economic incentives and disincentives to influence other nations' geopolitical positions.
• The United States has historically used economic tools for geopolitical aims but has largely abandoned this practice in recent decades.
• Sanctions are a common geoeconomic tool used by the U.S., but lack integration into a broader diplomatic strategy.
• The Trans-Pacific Partnership is often cited as a geoeconomic tool, but its negotiations focused primarily on trade, not geopolitical objectives.
• The next U.S. administration should develop a coherent geoeconomic strategy, integrating economic tools with foreign policy objectives.
• Geoeconomic strategies should be part of alliances, like NATO, to counter economic coercion from adversaries.
• Congress and the U.S. administration need to prioritize economic tools alongside military power in strategic planning.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is geoeconomics according to the speakers?

Geoeconomics is defined as the use of economic tools to achieve geopolitical objectives. Unlike using economic tools for purely economic purposes, geoeconomics focuses on leveraging economic means to advance a nation's geopolitical interests. This can include trade policies, investment strategies, and even cyber activities aimed at influencing other countries' geopolitical stances.

Q: Why is China considered a leader in geoeconomics?

China is considered a leader in geoeconomics due to its systematic use of economic incentives and disincentives to influence other countries' geopolitical positions. For instance, China has used its market size as leverage, threatening economic consequences for countries that do not align with its geopolitical interests. This approach has been effective in shaping the behaviors of nations like Japan and the Philippines.

Q: How has the U.S. historically used geoeconomics?

Historically, the U.S. has used geoeconomic strategies to achieve geopolitical aims, such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Marshall Plan. These initiatives were driven by geopolitical considerations. However, in recent decades, the U.S. has largely moved away from this approach, focusing more on military power and neglecting the strategic use of economic tools in foreign policy.

Q: What role do sanctions play in U.S. geoeconomics?

Sanctions are a prominent tool in U.S. geoeconomics, used to pressure countries like Iran and Russia. However, the speakers argue that while sanctions are effective, they are not integrated into a broader diplomatic strategy. This limits their effectiveness in achieving long-term geopolitical objectives, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach.

Q: What changes are suggested for the next U.S. administration regarding geoeconomics?

The next U.S. administration should develop a coherent geoeconomic strategy that integrates economic tools with foreign policy objectives. This involves creating a common framework for understanding geoeconomics, prioritizing economic tools within alliances like NATO, and ensuring resources are allocated effectively. The administration should also encourage Congress to support these initiatives.

Q: How can geoeconomic strategies be integrated into alliances like NATO?

Geoeconomic strategies can be integrated into alliances like NATO by establishing economic counterparts to military frameworks. This would involve creating shared understandings and responsibilities regarding economic coercion, ensuring that allies are prepared to respond to economic pressures from adversaries. Such integration would strengthen the alliance's overall strategic capabilities.

Q: Why is the Trans-Pacific Partnership considered a geoeconomic tool?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is considered a geoeconomic tool because it is often promoted as a means to set the geopolitical order in East Asia. While primarily a trade agreement, its strategic importance is emphasized in terms of countering China's influence in the region. However, the speakers argue that geopolitical objectives were not a primary focus during its negotiation.

Q: What are the challenges in implementing geoeconomic strategies in U.S. policy?

Implementing geoeconomic strategies in U.S. policy faces challenges like bureaucratic politics, the need for a shift in strategic thinking, and the requirement for Congressional support. Historically, economic considerations have been sidelined in favor of military strategies. Overcoming these challenges requires a systematic approach to integrating economic tools into foreign policy and strategic planning.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Geoeconomics is the use of economic tools for geopolitical purposes, which has been historically practiced by the U.S. but has diminished in recent decades. China excels in this area, using economic leverage to achieve geopolitical aims. The U.S. needs to revive its geoeconomic strategies to maintain global influence.

• Sanctions are a key geoeconomic tool for the U.S., but they often lack a comprehensive strategy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an example where geopolitical benefits are highlighted post-negotiation rather than being integral to the agreement. Future administrations should integrate economic tools into foreign policy planning.

• The next U.S. administration should prioritize geoeconomic strategies, ensuring economic tools are part of alliance frameworks like NATO. This approach would help counter adversaries' economic coercion. Congress and the administration must work together to systematically incorporate economic considerations into strategic planning.