According to a Pew poll last November, 52 percent of Americans believe the US "should mind its own business internationally". Some argue that the US is making strategic adjustments to its diplomacy, as manifested in the way it has dealt with issues like Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. In this article, experts from China and abroad offer their opinions regarding such perceived adjustments and the direction of future US foreign policy.

Joseph Nye, political scientist at Harvard University, former US Assistance Secretary of Defense

Yuan Peng, Vice President of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations

Ding Gang, senior reporter of People's Daily

Leonardo Valente, Professor of Internacional Relations at Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro

III. Probability of strategic expansion in the future

"The US will be more dependent not only on its close allies, but on a broad range of other countries; as the economy recovers, the US will be more assertive in enforcing its strategic foreign policies; US foreign policy will be more expansion-oriented as the country frees itself progressively from its energy constraints; the US still has a lot of potential in developing its smart power, and the economic recovery will give it more leeway in formulating its foreign policy."

Joseph Nye: As Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union address, "In a world of complex threats, our security depends on all elements of our power - including strong and principled diplomacy." The US will be more dependent not only on its close allies, but on a broad range of other countries on many issues where it is impossible for the US to solve the problem alone. Global financial stability, global climate change, transnational terrorism, or problems of proliferation of weapons of massive destruction - these cannot be addressed by one country acting alone. They require cooperation among groups of countries. That is why alliances and other cross-national arrangements will be important as a way to deal with these new types of problems, or what I call transnational problems.

Yuan Peng: It should not be underestimated that the US economy, as demonstrated by the fact that it is taking the lead in recovering after the financial crisis, is solidly grounded, flexible, and resourceful. As the economy recovers, the US will be more assertive in enforcing its strategic foreign policies. The current Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) under negotiation are both aggressive strategic plans essentially centered on the US. Self-sufficient in energy and other resources, the US is demonstrating an increasing level of confidence over issues like Ukraine and the Middle East. But overall, it is unlikely that the US will make any moves towards strategic expansion in the near future under the Obama administration. Nevertheless, beyond 2016 it is still possible that there will be a switch from contraction to expansion.

Ding Gang: Joseph Nye once said that people's thoughts and behaviors are affected by 'soft power'. I believe soft power has also left its mark on the current international "rules and regulations". In that sense, the US is not "retreating". The US is trying to lead in formulating new global trade rules by pushing forward TPP negotiations, and it releases over 600 films a year. These two contrasting elements represent an enormous influence that is felt all over the world. Even in Myanmar, where US sanctions are imposed, cinemas are playing American films.

Over the last few years, the Obama administration has scored on a couple of issues by employing its soft power, at least in terms of cost control. Two years ago, the Gaddafi government was overthrown with American money and weapons, and with manpower from NATO, the Libyan opposition, and some of Libya's neighbors. The cost to the US was only about 1 billion US dollars, and the death toll was zero, in contrast to the Iraq war where 1 trillion US dollars were spent.

The financial sanctions imposed by the US and the West over Crimea represent a combination of hard and soft power at work. Although the initial sanctions only target a group of high-level Russian officials, they still serve as a warning to companies and banks that have business and financial relationships with Russia, and are intended to defend the authority of the West.

Faster growth in the US economy will increase the probability of US diplomatic expansion, but a more important factor is energy. "Energy cuts across the entirety of U.S. foreign policy. It's a matter of national security and global stability. It's at the heart of the global economy. It's also an issue of democracy and human rights," said former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in the report on Energy Diplomacy in the 21st Century. "Energy independence" is one of the most important goals on the political agenda of the Obama administration.

Increasing availability of shale gas as a source of natural gas has reduced US dependency on foreign resources. As the US gradually frees itself from the shackles of energy security concerns, its foreign policies will evolve accordingly, and its relationship with major oil-producing countries will change too. For example, in the first 7 months of 2013, US imports of Latin American oil have fallen by 14.2 percent on a year-to-year basis. In 2011 Brazil earned 8.7 billion US dollars from oil exports to the US, while the figure in 2013 was only 3.4 billion. Therefore, the US is likely to change its foreign policy towards Latin America.

All in all, US foreign policy will be more expansion-oriented as the country frees itself progressively from its energy constraints, and it would be no surprise if in the future the US take a harder line on international issues such as setting the rules for global trade.

Leonardo Valente: Undoubtedly, smart-power-wise, the US remains the strongest nation in the world, and will remain so for many years to come. It still has a lot of potential in developing its smart power, and the economic recovery will give it more leeway in formulating its foreign policy.

The article is edited and translated from《美国外交——战略收缩还是以退为进？》, source: People's Daily.

Read more:
Where is US diplomacy going? Part I: Strategic retreat?
Where is US diplomacy going? Part II: Smart power