Atlantic Expedition
  • About
  • Articles
  • Expeditions
    • Expedition to Hamburg/Dresden/Berlin
    • Expedition to Chicago/Houston
    • Atlantic Basecamp and Atlantic Action Plan
    • Timeline
    • Testimonials
  • Fellows
    • 1st Expedition Fellows
    • 2nd Expediton Fellows
  • Supporters
  • Contact
  • Log In
June 21, 2017  |  By Kayla Gruber In Agenda Setting, Narrative, Values

The People-First Approach

Realigning American Dominance in Transatlantic Partnerships

The brash hardline approach that often characterizes American diplomacy is explained by this idea exactly: “How do we win new actors and allies?” While the process of recruiting new international alliances is often viewed as a win or loss, actors and allies should not be “won;” they should be cultivated, built on of a foundation of cooperation, mutual respect, the acknowledgement of individual concerns, and an unwavering effort towards common goals.

Traditionally American presence commands the international spotlight, and while this is arguably a legitimate privilege at times—with American dominance in GDP, military strength, and foreign aid donations—leaders expect their demands to be granted without compromise or appeasement.

The basis for building international partnerships has stemmed from economic incentives, assertions of political power, and promises of military reinforcement, in turn solidifying possibilities for international diplomatic, social, political, monetary, or military support. While this trend of transactional relationships is certainly popular throughout history, it raises the question of whether power—economic, social, political, or military—is truly the key to the building and maintaining of successful partnerships. Under either the threat of force and coercion, or the promise of protection, must the strongest powers monopolize international relations? Does power automatically assume equivocal status? Or, alternatively, can strategic partnerships be cultivated on a basis of multi-lateral cooperation and the acknowledgement of mutual interests?

American international predominance is often described by the strength and representativeness of their military—and the promise to protect partners in a moment of crisis. For decades, America has stood as a mentor of democracy for developing nations and as a beacon of security for those smaller and weaker. This brings great responsibility to America—a responsibility American leadership has discussed abandoning.

Maintaining international alliances requires a significant duty to lead in the interests of collectivity. The phrase “winning allies” is controversial in and of itself—“winning” is defined as “resulting in a victory,” while “ally” is defined as two or more things “connected by some mutual relationship,” often for “mutual benefit.” Continuing this logic, the act of “winning” allies inherently draws a zero-sum relationship; the partnership in question immediately becomes unequal and unbalanced, defying any “mutual” quality. When there is a “winner” and a “loser,” there must be a stronger man and a weaker man—one is responsible to lead first for the others to follow, which tempts the international community further towards the brink of hegemony. While America is traditionally viewed as one of the world’s superpowers, the “America-First” policy proposal currently characterizing the Trump Administration‘s foreign policy directly rejects such a responsibility to act on behalf of the global community’s interests.

There must be a change in the act of strategic partnership building: a realignment of national security and collective security. Stronger alliances lead to stronger stability; an international community characterized by alliances built on foundation of trust, integrity, and dignity, with a sense of commonality, cooperation, and a responsibility to work towards not just personal, but regional security and stability is the illustration of global success.

A people-first, not state-first, approach to international relations and alliance building forces us to restore the humanist perspective: we mourn, we celebrate, we all share the same burdens and achievements. This approach invites us to unite based on common interests, or better yet, unite based on our differences. Cultivating alliances on a basis of human interest and shared ideals, as compared to economic incentives and political coercion, allows for the creation of well-rounded, multi-lateral solutions—based on a robust comprehension of global issues—that hold the potential to bring positive and progressive change to all involved, not just the most armed, the wealthiest, or the most politically powerful.

Individually, states have much to learn and much to give. Establishing broad alliances with intentions of honest engagement and active effort allows for the full development of every partnership without strain and tension from economic ties and political obligations, or under the shadow of coercion.

Partnerships based on this people-first strategy not only provide international stability encouraged by common efforts and interests, but also a multifaceted tolerance, creating the foundation for an honest and inclusive effort towards international peace.

Kayla Gruber is a senior Political Science Major at Elizabethtown College. She is working to complete a double minor in International Studies and Peace & Conflict Studies, and is currently working as an International Policy and Diplomacy Fellow at United Macedonian Diaspora in Washington, DC.

Previous StoryIncrease Transatlantic Cooperation through Blue Color Apprentice Exchanges
Next StoryActing Global by Getting Local

27 replies added

  1. Angela Goulovitch June 21, 2017 Reply

    Thank you for your insightful article, Kayla. Angela Merkel has been described in the media as the “new leader of the free world.” The shift of this title from American to German leadership reflects what you point to as the American withdrawal from its role as a global mentor. It seems to me that Germany achieved this status without military dominance, though with a degree of economic dominance. What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe that Germany’s approach has been more in line with the “People First” focus you advocate for?

    • Anna Xu June 23, 2017 Reply

      Hahaha, I guess Germany hasn’t taken a “People First” approach in the EU either. Germany’s leadership position in the EU is almost entirely based on economic dominance.

      Big economy and big military are really persuasive things. Human ideals are cool too, I guess, but not nearly as persuasive.

      • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

        Anna- you’re right, my idealistic approach is not, and will not be, nearly as persuasive as money and coercive power. But, wouldn’t it be an interesting reality if we all valued collective success more than money?

        • Anna Xu June 25, 2017 Reply

          That sounds like something a small country could safely ponder in its free time, because it’s being protected militarily by the US and gets economic benefits from Germany.

    • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

      Hi Angela, thank you for commenting!
      It’s true, Germany’s military is 5 times smaller than America’s, but as you’ve pointed out, they do hold significant ties through economics and do readily command the international system through other political strengths. Their economy, status as a host country for over one million refugees, and their membership in the EU and NATO all reinforce their international strength. Additionally, it could be argued that based on the previous military strength of Germany (throughout WWI and II), has set a precedent for commanded strength and tenacity in the face of international crisis, regardless of the composition of their current military forces. While I’m not as familiar with German politics or with any state-first tendencies Germany may engage in, I do believe that without the reliance on a strong military force, Germany would be forced to engage in other “smart power” or soft power approaches more frequently, ultimately pushing Germany towards a more “people-first” approach when compared to the United States. What are your thoughts on this?

      • Angela Goulovitch June 27, 2017 Reply

        Hi Kayla, my pleasure and thanks for your response! I am also not as familiar with details of German politics, unfortunately. From what I know, I do agree with you that German security and foreign policy seem to be a bit more in line with “people first” values. I think a good example of this has been Germany’s acceptance of large numbers of refugees – a decision that seems to be based more on liberal and humanitarian ideals rather than self-interest. I think their economic policies are less reflective of these values based on their championing of austerity measures for EU countries. I do understand that these policies were likely based on sound financial calculations, but this approach is less focused on alleviating citizens’ economic hardships and likely contributed the rise of populism as a backlash.

        Is there a country that you feel is a good model for your idea? To me it seems that Canada may be a good candidate based on this article I just read: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/world/canada/canadas-secret-to-resisting-the-wests-populist-wave.html
        I think the transatlantic community could certainly take some lessons from the Canadian approach.

  2. Thomas Froehlich June 21, 2017 Reply

    Kayla, thank you for your well written piece! Unfortunately, I have little confidence in mankind to progress towards a system that you suggest. In the end, aren’t all economic interests a function of individual (people’s) interests? Does the same not account for military considerations? I wonder what the steps would be to move towards this goal.

    • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

      Thomas- Thank you! I also struggle to have confidence that such a significant shift in worldview could occur. While economic and military interests at the state level could be a positive for the public –maybe trade re-stimulates the local economy and lowers unemployment; military power offers protection –at times, I believe the opposite is also possible. Maybe money gifted as an incentive is kept to the elites and leaders; maybe the military power is used against a nation’s own citizens during a civil war; maybe political coercion drags a nation into an unnecessary war that depletes the economy, resources, and sense of security for its citizens. While such incentives theoretically appear to be within the people’s interests, there is always a chance that they could be misused or irresponsibly binding.

      As for the steps, I’m not quite sure what could or should lead to this sort of “people-first” shift—but I’d be more than open to collaborating alongside you to figure them out!

      • Leon Ryrko July 1, 2017 Reply

        Hi Kayla,
        I enjoyed reading your article. I would like to add to your comment this little « table »

        good impact ← power → bad impact
        strengthening ← economic → dependency
        enlightenment ← social → assimilation
        stabilisation ← political → intimidation
        protection ← military → oppression

        In my opinion a good mix of the different types of power helps the most to find a fruitful alliance for both sides. For instance, with the US deploying troops in the Federal Republic during the Cold War, they strengthened their influence in Germany whereas the latter benefitted from economic support.

        I do not agree with you that « winning » implies that there is necessarily a loser (though the other way round, if there is a loser, there must be a winner). I would rather say that one benefits more than the other, but that all in all both win. After all, if « winning allies » inherently draws a zero-sum relationship, it should be seen from a international perspective. The alliance in itself can be positive, and in that case some part of the world loses due to this new partnership.

  3. Brandy Svensson June 22, 2017 Reply

    Kayla,
    A very insightful look at the changing landscape in geopolitical relationships. What are your recommendations in bringing these ideas to fruition and encouraging these partnerships? A “people first” approach is very noble, but how can politicians and businesses be motivated to align with this policy? My favorite line from your article “we all share the same burdens and achievements” is poignant. If we could take on this global perspective, we could look forward to working together for the common good.

    Brandy

    • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

      Brandy, hello!
      You’ve touched on this completely: what I’m describing does require a shift in the global perspective. I know this thought piece is idealistic, but doesn’t it sound so (multilaterally) beneficial?

      I’m definitely not a policymaker, but in terms of potential motivations, the invitation for establishing (or working to establish) international peace is one most nations would not want to turn down—not only morally, but also socially. A nation that refuses to contribute to efforts towards peace garners a similar social reaction to nations that reject the idea of climate change (Trump/America), human rights (North Korea, China), or those who favor corruption or violence as a means to an end (Duterte/Philippines). However, a nation that supports climate change, human rights, political/governmental transparency may see swells of higher patriotism or national support.

      Aside from the moral and social pressure, it’s also economically and physically beneficial to stray from war (noting financial burdens from affording artillery/uniforms/ post-war retributions, human & psychological costs, physical/infrastructural damage, loss of tourists’ investment).

      Further, an open-minded, accessible, peaceful international community provides the opportunity for more robust international trade and business, which further works to stimulate the entire international community. Combining this economic “perk” with the social, moral, and political benefits of peace, I think an argument could be made for establishing a more collaborative peace. Thanks for your comments!

  4. Maria Alejandra Moscoso June 22, 2017 Reply

    Hello Kayla, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that actors and allies should be cultivated and not won, and believe that through migration, we are creating a space where new relationships between diversified communities can create that allyship we seek to move towards that “people first” mentality. However, in our currently global situation, I fear this thought is a bit idealist for our current societies. Communities are not always inclusive of new “outsider” groups, and many times see them as threats to their well-being. Since governments act for the communities and constituents they represent, civil society must first learn to accept this “people first” approach, and later push and motivate their leaders to follow. Only then can this ideal approach become a realistic one.

    • Konrad Vogt June 22, 2017 Reply

      Good evening. I can follow your view until the point where you describe that “civil society must first learn to accept this “people first” approach, and later push and motivate their leaders to follow”. This surely is one approach, but then there also is another option that governments “learn to accept” this “people-first”-perspective (in other words: that they widen their perpective from a more self-centered one towards a global, universal one). In that case they could implement actions helping the people to “learn to accept” (like not pushing them into a system where individuals are being raised into capitalist-values, where performance and efficiency is key). I believe it is hard for people to get out of a system/a perspective that they have been socialised into by themselves, at least some help can help; which could cost the governors their power… but that may be the underlying thing: widening one’s ego-centric perspective means seeing that one’s personal power does not matter so much anymore from a more global point of view.

      • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

        Maria & Konrad-

        Thanks for reading my article! And thanks for contributing to the conversation!

        Maria: I’m happy to hear you also agree on the importance (and struggles) of creating the “people-first” mentality. I also appreciate you discussing the “Agenda Setting” tendencies of the public, it’s really important to incorporate the pressing role and control of the public in current state affairs. More frequent migrations and the refugee crisis have certainly given the international community an interesting opportunity for enrichment of culture, haven’t they?

        And Konrad: Thank you for discussing the path/responsibility of the government to adapt their own views/mission. While Maria’s point definitely expresses the role of the public, I think it’s equally important to discuss the responsibility of the government/political leaders to act as a role model for such a shift in mindset and ideology. I, too, believe it to be difficult for individuals, unless partial to a larger group or organization, to adapt their beliefs freely. You add a valuable point to this argument as well: “widening one’s ego-centric perspective means seeing that one’s personal power does not matter so much anymore from a more global point of view.” It was definitely a thought in my mind while writing this piece—a more collective peace and system of alliances creates a more balanced system free of dominant (hegemonic) actors.

  5. Michael Ravitsky June 22, 2017 Reply

    Kayla – I think you hit a great point when you highlight the ideological and security leadership position that the United States has held, and that this is “a responsibility American leadership has discussed abandoning.” This point bears repeating because Americans must understand that the historical U.S. investments in European security were not charity work; the United States gained not just stability, but a Europe that respected the United States as a leader and deferred to it on a number of issues, thereby giving the United States key levers extending far beyond just military considerations.

    Thus, when the United States decides to scale back its support for Europe and NATO, it is making a decision to save money in exchange for decreased influence and increased political transaction costs in the future. It is this part that I think some Americans have forgotten when they chide the inequitable distribution of defense spending. What do you think – am I off base here?

    Best,
    Mike

    • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

      Hello, Michael!

      The ideological influence and leadership positions granted to the United States have definitely shifted the balance of power away from Europe. And you’re right, I don’t think you’re entirely off-base; I have two theories, made clearer in the wake of Trump’s election and the re-discovery of the America’s Forgotten Citizens.

      1) Americans have forgotten the importance of the role America plays in the international community—this may be because America’s power has never truly been threatened, or because America has been a superpower for so long that most of its’ citizens don’t remember a time where America didn’t lead the conversation, and;

      2) The worldview and value systems of Americans (mainly those who supported Trump) tended to focus more on redistributing money typically allotted to supporting NATO/Europe/International Organizations to economies and sector that collapsed, costing many their jobs (the coal, oil, steel, manufacturing industries). While many realize that the United States’ role in the international system is important, they’re more concerned with their personal or community’s unemployment rate, poverty, lower standard of living, and lower life expectancy.

      And that’s not to say that many believe security and international stability isn’t important—many believe America can still stand as a political, military, & ideological frontrunning power while another powerful nation—maybe Germany, maybe not—takes over the financial lending and projection of the “people-first” notions, while we focus on jumpstarting an “America-First” path.

      But this is also not to say that many Trump supporters looking to redistribute these funds don’t want to maintain or increase American defense spending. Most arguments I’ve heard are to preserve, or even at times, increase military/defense spending, while pulling the US Department of State funds (diplomacy/soft-power/smart-power funds) to be reintegrated into their dry communities.

  6. Christin Habermann June 22, 2017 Reply

    Hi Kayla
    as much as I love the idea of a people-first approach, I have to agree with the commentaries above that I don’t think such a normative approch is feasible – and even wanted by the American government. I don’t consider the United States a beacon of democracy or freedom any longer and agree with Michael who points out that security work was no “charity work”. I wonder how you would see the premise that so many security scholars recently drive, namely that economical ties, much more than democracy, promote international peace and stability.

    • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

      Christin, hello!

      While I wrote this piece to play with a more hypothetical and idealistic mindset, I definitely understand your hesitations and lack of confidence in a prospective shift towards a “people-first” community approach.

      I think there’s definitely been a shift towards economic relations surrounding the alliance-building process, which could be similarly compared to Capitalism Peace Theory and the Golden Arches Theory, both of which discuss the ideas that stable, developed capitalist economies (and nations with McDonald’s) are less likely to engage in war with each other. There’s definitely a span of legitimate incentives and positives for refraining from war with other nations in terms of monetary stability/investments and trade preservation. I also think it’s easier to support/defend arguments with quantitative numbers (money, budgets, costs, etc) than with more qualitative arguments (like democracy and measures of progress), especially as a political leader.

      • Christin Habermann June 29, 2017 Reply

        Hi Kayla,
        thank you for your insightful answer. I have come across Capitalism Peace Theory, but I wil definitely check out the Golden Arches Theory! And while I agree with you, that it’s “money, budgets, costs” that make the world go ’round, having an idealistic mindset surely helps to bring forth modern ideas!

  7. Marla van Nieuwland June 22, 2017 Reply

    Thank you for your thoughts, Kayla! It is really refreshing to read a proposal for international relations that is not based on self interest and realism. I admire that you have such a positive outlook on the system and our politicians and find it truly unfortunate that most people (as can be seen in the comments) do not see the potential of this approach. However, I do have to ask, what are your proposed first steps to implement an approach like this? Do you start with politicians personally, the system as a whole or the civil societies? What would be the best strategy with a humanist perspective in mind?

    • Kayla Gruber June 25, 2017 Reply

      Hi, Marla, thank you!
      I definitely wrote this piece as more of a prospective thought piece, toying with this alternative “people-first” idea. I know it would be difficult (to say the least) to implement and/or encourage such a public and international shift in mindset, but as a few other commenters and I have discussed above, I definitely think there needs to be not only a political/governmental effort to redirect and realign our values and missions, but also a personal/community level effort as well.

      For the most part, the citizens of a nation have an opportunity to influence the agendas of politicians. Additionally, they also have the opportunity to create viral movements through the internet (a great tool for influencing the younger generations, and therefore, the net wave of changemakers and leaders) that hold the power to reach great heights and many different regions. A strong message reaches a lot more people these days—but whether that message is strong enough to break their previous “state-first” viewpoints is the challenge.

  8. Harrison Manlove June 22, 2017 Reply

    Kayla,
    This is a smartly written piece. To me your proposal sounds like a revised version of the alliances and multilateral security/economic initiatives of Eurasia. Of course, those alliances are primarily based on topics you wrote should be replaced with a humanist approach which I find very interesting and, as mentioned by those above, a noble idea. My concern is implementation within strategic relationships in Europe. It seems to me this approach would resemble a more broadly focused NATO, where security is still imperative to the alliance but other factors weigh just as equally. Could you explain implementation and how to “sell” the idea to leaders of allied nations?

    I also agree with Thomas that security and economic interests are a part of “people’s interests” but also seem to outweigh other factors. Could you clarify where both of those equate to the rest of people’s approach, or how the approach and its factors balance?

    -Harrison

    • Konrad Vogt June 22, 2017 Reply

      Such ideals cannot really sold, they in fact contradict “selling ideas”. You can transparently describe why you see big urgency in putting them into actions, and as a “people-first”-approach usually does not harm others, there is little danger of turning former allies into enemies. They can try to understand, and if they are open and see through a global perspective they maybe will. And even if they do not, that is something that I guess would have to be taken as a cost for a change towards a “better world for everyone”. Maybe others will be reserved at the beginning, and then join when they see it working out. But therefore you of course need a supportive population, which seems utopia at the moment but should be the direction where effort goes in my opinion.

  9. Konrad Vogt June 22, 2017 Reply

    Good article! “[…] actors and allies should not be “won;” they should be cultivated, built on of a foundation of cooperation, mutual respect, the acknowledgement of individual concerns, and an unwavering effort towards common goals”, a point that if made should not only be limited to partners, but to any encounters, I would wish; where I get to the ideal, that is being criticized on this comment-section. Alongside with Marla van Nieuwland, I believe that it is important to keep certain ideals, for that they can point you a direction where to go (this may be linked to the “identity crisis “ hinted at in Tim Segler’s article http://atlantic-expedition.org/prosperity-power-and-partnership/). Having such a direction in mind it is of course essential to keep a realist look on our present reality; just as well as keeping in mind that if fundamental change actually wants to be achieved (which globally becomes more and more urgent), there needs to be someone going forward, even if this means short- and mid-term disadvantages from a capitalist-orientated perspective. And this requires a people supporting such ideals, which you may gradually achieve giving it space for actual individual and “free” development (not forcing them to go through performance-orientated institutions, not spreading the ideal-image of an effective-working person that can consume and afford status models. In general: proclaiming the idea that self-worth does not necessarily have to be drawn from actions or outer things, but from within, from our human core).

  10. Simon Schütz June 25, 2017 Reply

    Kayla, I really enjoyed reading your essay. Especially when you analyzed the term winning allies that was pretty convincing.
    As the previous comments have already pointed out – the approach is very idealistic. That itself is not a bad thing, but I feel like it would bring us from one extreme to the other – state-first to people-first. I think somewhere in between might be the right way to go, because the people first approach might also play in the hand of populists who promise easy solutions to difficult problems just to gain the votes of people who feel left behind.

    • Anna Xu June 27, 2017 Reply

      Very idealistic and also very delicate. One Serbia or Bulgaria annexing an old territory and suddenly everyone wants a NATO intervention :DDD

  11. Julian St. Patrick Clayton June 28, 2017 Reply

    Kayla,
    Though this is a bit idealistic, as many have pointed out, it’s nonetheless inspirational. We should in fact view those with shared interests as equals at the table and not replaceable subordinates. I also applaud your subtlety in highlighting the unfortunate absurdity many in the US have come to accept in that the nation’s global role is in running some sort of protection racket whereby other countries pay for the American military to provide muscle instead of, in some cases, providing rational guidance in regions where historic disagreements can turn deadly. Diplomacy and world leadership at its core are about working toward goals with mutual benefit and creating stability; which your ‘people first approach’ speaks to. I look forward to hearing more about how you’d go about convincing skeptics of such an approach as you develop this proposal from thought piece to action plan.

Leave a Reply to Julian St. Patrick Clayton Cancel Reply

(will not be shared)

If you have an account, log in here

Please keep your comment under 2500 characters.

About

Atlantic Expedition is a fellowship program aiming to empower a younger and more diverse generation of leaders in transatlantic relations.

The Atlantic Expedition is currently in its second round. After fellows of the first Expedition developed policy recommendations and created the Atlantic Memo “Transatlantic Relations in a New Era: The Next Generation Approach”, participants of the second Expedition joined forces to develop new strategies for communicating transatlantic relations to a diverse audience and consequently making the transatlantic relationship a more inclusive endeavor.

From 9-14 October, fellows of the second Atlantic Expedition traveled to Chicago and Houston to present and discuss their ideas and proposals with representatives from politics, media, business and civil society. They published their recommendations in a second Atlantic Memo titeled “Atlantic Expedition II: Towards a More Inclusive Transatlantic Partnership” .

To stay up-to date, virtually join the expedition and to add your voice to the discussion, please find us on facebook and twitter.

Search

Subscribe to our Newsletter

ABOUT US

Atlantic Expedition is a project aimed at empowering a younger and more diverse generation of leaders in transatlantic relations. The project is run by Atlantische Initiative, a Berlin based, non-profit, non-partisan NGO.

ATLANTIC EXPEDITIONS

  • Expedition to Chicago/Houston
  • Expedition to Hamburg/Dresden/Berlin
  • Atlantic Basecamp and Atlantic Action Plan
  • Timeline
  • FAQ

LEGAL

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Imprint

Social Media

Atlantic Expedition
A project by Atlantische Initiative
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. OkRead more