Ashley J. Tellis
{
"authors": [
"Ashley J. Tellis"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"South Asia",
"India",
"East Asia",
"South Korea",
"China",
"Taiwan",
"Japan",
"Southeast Asia",
"North Korea"
],
"topics": []
}Source: Getty
Seeking Alliances and Partnerships: The Long Road to Confederationism in U.S. Grand Strategy
The United States has consistently rejected both isolationism and multilateralism as instruments for meeting its highest strategic ambitions, instead utilizing a dialectical relationship between confederationism and unilateralism to achieve hegemony.
Source: National Bureau of Asian Research
This chapter reviews how the U.S. came to treat alliances and partnerships as essential instruments of its quest for hegemony over time, what tasks U.S. alliances performed in the past, and how their functions promise to mutate in the future.Main Argument:
Despite frequent references to the U.S.’s early isolationist past, the country has consistently rejected both isolationism and multilateralism as instruments for meeting its highest strategic ambitions, instead utilizing a dialectical relationship between confederationism and unilateralism to achieve hegemony. U.S. power, no matter how formidable, benefits from the presence of partners, thanks to both their capacity to supplement American resources and their ability to bestow legitimacy to various U.S. policies. Even when these are not at issue, however, the company of confederates is undoubtedly valuable because it enhances the freedom that the U.S. enjoys to undertake unilateral actions whenever these are demanded by its global interests.
Policy Implications:
- Confederationism, as a constituent element of U.S. grand strategy, is here to stay. As Washington focuses on national rejuvenation, it does not have the luxury of jettisoning its alliances because no matter what their infirmities currently may be, they are essential to preserving U.S. global hegemony.
- In an environment characterized by both deepening interdependence and rising Chinese power, Washington’s quest for partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region is eased by the fact that a large number of nations therein value the U.S. and its protective presence because of the positive externalities accruing to them.
- The cohesion between the U.S. and its many partners is likely to be greatest when U.S. power is at its most durable and resolute. The ultimate value of confederationism as an anchor of grand strategy, thus, hinges fundamentally on the vitality of U.S. power.
This chapter is the introduction to Strategic Asia 1014-15: U.S. Alliances and Partnerships at the Center of Global Power . Read more about Strategic Asia, including information on how to order the complete book, here.
About the Author
Former Senior Fellow
Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power FuturePaper
- India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence. That Could Backfire.Commentary
Ashley J. Tellis
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran TableCommentary
As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.
Michael Young
- Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of PeaceCommentary
What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?
Zaha Hassan
- Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-IsraelCommentary
Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.
Nathan J. Brown
- Israel’s Security Means Insecurity in the Middle EastCommentary
As negotiations with Iran and Lebanon continue, chaos is at the heart of the Netanyahu government’s calculations.
Michael Young
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young