The Expulsion of Muslims

The Expulsion of Muslims from the North by the LTTE in October 1990: Raison Détre

DBS Jeyaraj, whose chosen title is “How and Why the LTTE Evicted Muslims from the Northern Province in “Black October 1990,” when placed in DBSJeyaraj.com on 22 October 2020, …… This article was written in 2015 to mark the Twenty–Fifth Anniversary of Muslim Mass Expulsion From North by the LTTE. It is being re-posted without any changes to denote the 32nd annivrsary of the tragic event.

The Investigation launched by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has in accordance with its terms of reference probed the period of time from the 2002 February ceasefire until the end of the war in May 2009 to ascertain whether war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights violations occurred in Sri Lanka during the final phase of the war as alleged. The focus on these particular years has naturally led to the overlooking of many other terrible incidents which happened in the years preceding 2002. Notable among these horrors is the mass expulsion of Muslims from the North by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE).

The twenty-fifth anniversary of this cruel, inhuman episode in the history of Tamil –Muslim relations in Sri Lanka is being widely remembered at present. It was in October 1990 that the tiger organization (LTTE) forcibly expelled the Tamil speaking Muslim people from the Northern Province in an atrocious act amounting to ethnic cleansing. Within a few days the Muslims were chased out of their homeland where they had lived for many, many centuries.

mosque in Chavakachcheri

The mass expulsion of Muslims from the North in 1990 was a humanitarian catastrophe. Uprooting a people from their habitat at gun point and driving them away after depriving them of their cash and jewellery was despicable and unpardonable. I have often written about this tragedy in the past. I now intend to focus upon this mass expulsion on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. I shall be drawing on some of my earlier writings in a bid to revive memories of this mass expulsion by relating in brief the tale of this terrible tragedy. I also want to trace the sequence of events that led to this sordid exercise in which the Tamil speaking Muslims were chased out by their gun toting linguistic brethren.

“Black October 1990”

“Black October” 1990 began in the Jaffna peninsula with the expulsion of Muslims of Chavakachcheri on October 15th and ended with the Muslims of Jaffna town on Oct 30th. The mass eviction of Muslims on the Northern mainland began a few days before it commenced in Jaffna town and concluded a few days after the peninsula was “cleansed” of Muslims.

The bulk of Northern Muslims were then living in the Mannar district .They were sent out.Apart from Jaffna and Mannar , the Muslims of Mullaitheevu and Kilinochchi districts were also sent out .The Muslims in Vavuniya were luckier as most of their villages were in the Government controlled areas. More than 50,00 Muslims were expelled from the northern mainland by the LTTE. Together with those of the peninsula the Muslims driven out from the Northern Province numbered around 75,000 in 1990.

The northern Muslims like their Tamil counterparts were equally affected by the on going war then. They too like Tamil civilians had from time to time vacated their homes during intense shelling or bombing.They had always returned home in a few days. But the eastern province situation was taking a different turn.

Tamil – Muslim hostilities were increasing in the East. The desertion of some Muslim cadres in the LTTE and a few of them going over to the enemy incensed the Eastern LTTE under Karuna (military commander) and Karikalan (political commissar). Many other Muslim cadres in the LTTE were executed by the leadership. An anti – Muslim spirit pervaded the LTTE.

On the other hand the UNP govt of the day also exploited and aggravated these feelings. Many Muslim anti-social elements were inducted as homeguards. These sections collaborated with the security forces in promoting anti-Tamil violence. In some cases Muslim homeguards were responsible for Tamil civilian massacres. Some Tamil hamlets and villages were destroyed by Muslim homeguard led mobs. They were given covert support by sections of the security forces.

The LTTE in turn responded with terrible gruesome massacres of Muslim civilians. The Sammanthurai and Kattankudi attacks on Mosques and killing of Muslims while praying and the massacres of civilians at the Saddham Hussein model village of Eravur being notorious examples.

A diabolical aspect to this state of affairs was the deliberate attempt to foment Tamil – Muslim friction by a section of the security establishment. A case in point was the shady phenomenon of “Captain Munas”. A “unit” under the command of this Captain Munas was reportedly responsible for many disappearances and executions of Tamils in Batticaloa in 1990. The name Captain Munas was loathed and feared. It was assumed that he was a Muslim. However in later years the Soza commission of inquiry revealed that the so called capt. Munas was in actual fact an “intelligence” official named Richard Dias.

Tamil –Muslim Relations

Though Tamil-Muslim relations were at a low point in the East the situation was quite different in the North. Both communities continued to co – exist there peacefully. One reason being that Muslims were a small minority posing no threat whatsoever to the Tamil majority.

This situation of Muslims living peacefully in the North while tensions prevailed in the East was unacceptable to the Eastern tigers. A delegation led by Karikalan the then LTTE eastern political chief came to the North to persuade tiger supremo Prabhakaran that “stern” action should be taken against Muslims. Karikalan apparently wanted a lesson to be taught to the Muslims. Even as this pressure was being exerted on the tiger hierarchy an incident occurred at Chavakachcheri in the Thenmaraaatchi sector of the Jaffna peninsula.

On September 4th 1990 a group of Tamils aligned to the LTTE as “helpers” had an altercation with some Muslims near the Chavakachcheri mosque. Some tried to attack the Mosque also. Youths of the Muslim community apprehended some of the Tamils involved and handed them over to the LTTE.The tigers released them and warned the Muslim “minority” not to “offend” the Tamil “majority” .On September 25th a Muslim youth protesting the denial of a Pass by the LTTE to leave the Penisula was assaulted by tiger cadres who “arrested” him. He went “missing” thereafter.

Most of the Chavakachcheri Muslims lived on Dutch road in the town. The LTTE while investigating an incident of intra-Muslim violence discovered some swords in the house of a butcher.According to tiger “explanations” this had triggered off an alarm bell. The LTTE conducted a search of Muslim houses and businesses and found about 75 swords concealed in a shop owned by a prominent Muslim trader .This was seen as part of a deadly conspiracy. Even if this explanation were true one cannot see 75 swords being of any use against the Kalashnikovs of the LTTE.

 Children at Osmania College, Jaffna-August 2014

The shop where the swords were found belonged to a Muslim businessman whose lorries travelled to and from Colombo for trade. The LTTE intelligence known for its excessive paranoia suspected a greater conspiracy. It was suspected that the security-intelligence apparatus could be using Muslim businessmen travelling frequently to Colombo as agents to engage in sabotage or act as spies. Pre-emptive action was required it was felt.

So the Chavakachcheri Muslims concentrated mainly on Dutch road were expelled on October 15th 1990. Close upon 1000 people were forced to leave at gunpoint. They were told to go beyond Vavuniya the southern most town of the Northern province. The Chava Muslims reached Vavuniya on Oct 18th.Once the Chavakachcheri Muslims were ordered to leave the chain reaction started.

Tragedy of Expulsion

The tragedy of this expulsion was that the Muslims began fleeing the areas they had lived in for generations on the orders of an armed movement. There was no protest, no opposition. Such was the terror and power of the LTTE. Besides the Muslims were few in numbers.

Five years later Tamils too were forced into fleeing Jaffna in large numbers during the engineered exodus of 1995. Later in 2007 – 2009 Tamils in the northern mainland of Wanni had to move from place to place as the war escalated. Ultimately they were restricted to a small strip of littoral on the Mullaitheevu coast. Some would say perhaps that these are manifestations of the greater law of Karma or the universal principle of Dharma!

According to explanations provided by the LTTE later, the presence of an Eastern contingent under Karikalan in the North in October was greatly responsible for the decision of mass expulsion. Essentially it was depicted as some form of retaliatory warning to the eastern Muslims. This decision was further influenced by the exaggerated threat perception. In a blatantly racist mindset the Muslims were seen as potential fifth columnists. It was against this backdrop that the mass expulsion exercise took place.

The Muslims in Mannar district comprised 26% of the district population according to the 1981 census. They were 46% of the Mannar Island linked to the mainland by the Thalladdy causeway .The premier and relatively prosperous Muslim village on Mannar Island was Erukkalampitty. Around 300 tiger cadres encircled Erukkalampitty on Oct 21st 1990 and robbed the Muslims of cash, jewellery and valuable electronic goods. Around 800 – 850 houses were targeted.

On Oct 22nd some Muslims from Marichukkatty village near the Mannar – Puttalam district border were arrested by the LTTE for allegedly having clandestine dealings with the armed forces. On Oct 23rd the villagers of Marichukkatty were ordered to leave the place. This was followed by an eviction order on Oct 24th to all muslims in the Musali AGA division where Marichukkatty is situated. Musali incidently is a Muslim majority AGA division.

The expulsion process continued in Mannar.on Oct 24th the LTTE announced by loudspeaker that all Muslims living in Mannar Island should go out by Oct 28th and that they should report to the local LTTE office to finalise the procedures of expulsion. The helpless Muslims prepared to do so and began packing. On Oct 26th the LTTE “invaded” Erukkalampitty again and seized all the packed belongings of Muslims.

Many Tamils of Mannar including members of the Catholic clergy remonstrated with the LTTE over the expulsion order but to no avail. The LTTE then extended the expulsion deadline to Nov 2nd.

Muslims of Mannar Island

On October 28th evening the LTTE sealed off Erukkalampitty and other Muslim areas on Mannar Island. The Muslims of Mannar Island from the town and areas like Erukkalampitty, Tharapuram, Puthukkudiyiruppu, Uppukulam, Konthaipitty etc were forced to assemble enmasse on selected spots on the beach.They were left there without food or water or proper facilities for personal care. Concerned Tamil citizens from Mannar argued with the LTTE and managed to take bread and water to the thousands of people on the beach.

And then the Muslims of Mannar Island were forcibly sent 60 miles south by sea to Kalpitiya in the North Western province.Boats owned by Muslims in Mannar and Puttalam were used for this purpose. The entire exercise took more than three days. At least one child fell in the waters and died. Some infants and elderly people passed away soon after reaching Kalpitiya.

A happy returnee holds a hurricane lamp in one hand and balances aid items on her head at a UNHCR distribution point-Arippu, Mannar District (2009) pic: UNHCR/B.Baloch

If that was the pathetic plight of Muslims on Mannar Island the situation of Muslims in the Mannar district mainland was equally wretched. The Muslims from the Muslim majority Musali AGA division as well as other Muslims living in other areas such as Vidathaltheevu, Periyamadhu, Sannar, Murungan, Vaddakkandal, Parappankandal etc were ordered by the LTTE on Oct 25th to surrender their vehicles, bicycles, fuel and electronic goods to the Mosque or local school.

On October 26th they were ordered to report to the local LTTE office for instructions on how to “leave” the district.Each family was allowed possessions in five travel bags, 2000 rupees in cash and one gold sovereign. The Muslims were checked in three places –Madhu,Pandivirichaan and a location near Vavuniya town. At Madhu and Pandivirichaan ,people carrying more items than they were “allowed” found those being confiscated and “receipts” issued by cadres. But near Vavuniya many of the items including thermos flasks were arbitrarily looted. This segment of Muslims arrived on foot to Vavuniya.

The expulsion went on in other parts of the Northern Wanni mainland. On October 22nd morning a few Muslims in Neeravippitty in Mullaitheevu district were arrested on “suspicion” that they were supplying information to the armed forces. The same evening all Muslims in Mullaitheevu district were ordered to leave within a week’s time. The following day on Oct 23rd all Muslims living in Kilinochchi district were ordered to go out within five days. According to the 1981 census Muslims comprised 4.6% of Mullaitheevu and 1.6% of Kilinochchi districts respectively.

Muslims in Vavuniya district comprised 6.9% of the district according to 1981 census. The bulk of these people were living in Govt controlled areas. However the few Muslims living in LTTE controlled areas were also ordered to leave by November 1st.

Jaffna Muslims Unperturbed

Even as the expulsions were taking place in Wanni the Jaffna Muslims were unperturbed. According to the 1981 census Muslims in the Jaffna district were 1.66% of the total population. A portion of these in Chavakachcheri had been already chased out.But the Jaffna town area Muslims could not see any danger befalling them. These were things happening to others for different reasons. Jaffna Muslims saw themselves as integral to Jaffna.

Nothing could happen to them from their Tamil brethren. Like some Jewish people during the Hitler era they continued with “normal” life unmindful of the brewing disaster.

It appears in retrospect that the LTTE was more harsh on Jaffna Muslims than the others. They were given an incredibly short deadline to leave Jaffna. This may have been due to the LTTE deciding that Jaffna be “cleansed” of Muslims by November. Comparatively the tigers came “last” to the Jaffna Muslims. The LTTE D-Day for them was October 30th.

Many Jaffna Muslims left Sri Lanka after their expulsion and sought refuge in Western countries. Some came to Canada also. I have met and interacted with several of these persons in Toronto and quite a few are now close friends. I have listened to them relating harrowing tales of their horrible experiences during the expulsion and after. Their accounts saddened and depressed me greatly.

It was about 10.30 am in the morning that the LTTE vehicles with loudspeakers began plying the roads and lanes of the Jaffna Muslim residential areas. A terse announcement was repeated incessantly that representatives of each Muslim family should assemble at the Jinnah stadium of Osmania College by twelve noon. Armed tigers began patrolling the streets. Some began a house to house announcement in the thickly populated lanes and by – lanes.

The people abandoned whatever they were doing and hurried to the grounds. At 12. 30 pm a senior tiger leader Aanchaneyar addressed them. Aanchaneyar later went by another name Ilamparithy. Aanchaneyar or Ilamparithy had a brief message.The LTTE high command for reasons of security (Paathukaappu) had decided that all Muslims should leave Jaffna within two hours. Failure to do so meant punishment. No further explanation was given.

When people started to question him Ilamparithy lost his cool. He barked loudly that the Muslims should simply follow orders or face consequences. He then fired his gun several times in the air. A few of his bodyguards followed suit. The message was clear. The people thought initially that the army was going to invade Jaffna and that the LTTE was asking everyone to leave. Only belatedly did they realise that only the Muslims were being ordered to leave.

With more and more armed tigers coming into the area the perturbed Muslims began packing. Initially they were not told of any restrictions on the things they could carry. So people packed clothes, valuables, jewels and money. Buses, vans and lorries were made available for transport by the tigers. Many Muslims made their private transport arrangements too.

Long-term but temporary housing for displaced Muslims in Hidathnagar village, Puttalam District (pic: Norwegian Refugee Council-2007)

 

“Aunthumuchanthi Junction Queues

The Muslims streaming out of their homes were now given a fresh order. They were asked to queue up at the “Ainthumuchanthi” junction. As the hapless people lined up they were in for a terrible shock. Male and female cadres of the LTTE began demanding that the Muslim people hand over all their money, belongings and jewellery to them. Each person would be allowed only 150 rupees each. Each person would be allowed only one set of clothes.

Feeble protests were raised. The brandishing of sophisticated weapons and threats in aggressive tones quickly silenced them. The suitcases with clothes and other belongings were confiscated. They were opened first and selected clothes taken out. If a person wore trousers an extra set of trouser and shirt was given. If a person wore a sarong an extra sarong and shirt was given. All the money and documents including title deeds to property,cheque books and national identity cards were confiscated.

Women and girls were stripped of jewels. Some women cadres were brutal even pulling out ear studs with blood spurting in the ear lobes. The children were not spared. Not a watch was left. Jaffna Muslims reported later that Karikalan from Batticaloa was supervising the entire operation.

At least 35 wealthy Muslim businessmen were abducted. They were detained by the LTTE. Some Muslim jewellers were tortured for details of hidden gold. One jeweller was killed by the beatings in front of the others. Later huge sums of money were demanded for their release. Some paid up to 3 million. The abducted persons were released in stages over the years. 13 people however never returned and are presumed dead.

After expelling the Jaffna Muslims the LTTE cordoned off the area with ropes. The “Virakesari” of Nov 2nd 1990 reported that this was done to protect the property till the Muslims returned. Some of the dazed Muslims too thought that their expulsion was only temporary. It took months for them to understand the true state of affairs. As time went on some of the once rich – now pauperised – Muslims found themselves unable to adjust to the new situation. They have declined greatly over the years.

The LTTE was particularly cruel in the case of Jaffna Muslims. The Jaffna Muslims were concentrated in two or three densely populated wards of the Jaffna Municipality. Sonaka theru, Ottumadam and Bommaively etc were their areas. They were an integral part of Jaffna society. There was a time when the Jaffna new market built by Mayor Alfred Duraiappah was virtually dominated by Muslims. Two of the three blocks were monopolised by Muslims. The hardware, lorry transport, jewellery and meat trades in Jaffna were dominated by Muslims. The Muslims of Jaffna like the Jaffna Tamils had also built up a proud educational tradition. Former civil servant and Zahira Principal AMA Azeez, Supreme Court Judge Abdul Cader, Appeal Court Judge MM Jameel. Education Director Munsoor etc being some leading lights of the Jaffna Muslims. There were Municipal Councillors and two MMCs Basheer and Sultan had been deputy – mayors and acting mayors of Jaffna.

Most of the Muslims expelled from the North were temporarily re- settled in the Puttalam district. Many found their way to Vavuniya, Negombo and Colombo districts. Others relocated to the Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, Gampaha , Matale and Kandy districts. Quite a lot of Jaffna Muslims went abroad as refugees.

Kalpitiya and Pulichakulam Areas

The largest concentrations of displaced Muslims from the northern mainland are in Kalpitiya and Pulichakulam areas. The largest concentration of displaced Jaffna peninsula Muslims are in the Thillaiyaddy area of Puttalam. More than 20,000 Muslims are still languishing in camps set up for Internally displaced persons.

Meanwhile the LTTE looted almost all possessions left in the Muslim houses. Many houses were stripped of tiles, wooden frames, doors, windows, etc. Much of the looted furniture was sold to Tamils through the LTTE Shops or “Makkal Kadai”. Some Muslims returning to the North after the ceasefire recognized their possessions in other houses and businesses. Many Muslim houses,lands and vehicles were sold illegally to Tamils by the LTTE.

The regaining of Jaffna peninsula in 1995 -96 and the Wanni in 2009 after the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009 has resulted in furthering Muslim re-settlement in the Northern Province. Despite the end of war the resettlement pace leaves much to be desired.

The total Muslim population of the Northern Province according to the 1981 census was 50,991 or 4.601%.Muslim community leaders say the Northern province Muslim population at the time of expulsion in 1990 numbered about 81,000. This consisted of about 20,000 in Jaffna ,45,000 in Mannar,7000 in Mullaitheevu,8000 in Vavuniya and around 1000 in Kilinochchi. Of these about 75,000 barring those in Vavuniya and Nainatheevu were forcibly expelled. 67,000 Muslim people were registered at IDP camps immediately after the mass expulsion. The remainder stayed outside camps with relatives and friends.

After 25 years this population is expected to have almost doubled due to natural increase.After the war ended, bout 75 % of the Northern Muslims registered their willingness to go back to the North and be resettled. But the 2012 census indicates that only a small number of Northern Muslims have returned permanently to their homelands despite consenting to do so.

The Muslim population in the Northern Province and their percentage in the respective districts according to the 2012 census is as follows. Mannar 16,087 -16.2%; Vavuniya 11,700 -6.8; Jaffna 2139 -0.4% ;Mullaitheevu 1760 – 1.9% ; and Kilinochchi 678 -0.6%. When compared to the estimates at the time of expulsion in 1990, the Muslim population has shown a marked decrease except in Vavuniya which was not totally affected then.The Muslim population in the Northern province according to the 2012 census was only 32,396 or 3.061%.

“Floating Population” Still.

Many of the displaced Muslims who returned are yet to put down firm roots in their places of origin. They remain a “floating population” still. There are many social, cultural, economic and political reasons for this poor performance in Northern Muslim resettlement. These complex reasons have to be analysed and elaborated upon in detail on a future occasion. As for now I would like to conclude by reiterating a few points made by me earlier in several articles.

One of the greatest attributes of some expelled Muslims that I have come across is their lack of visible bitterness with Tamils. They realise that it was the LTTE which was responsible for their predicament and the reasons for it. They do not blame the ordinary Tamil for it. They also retain sympathy for the Tamil plight at the hands of both the state and the LTTE. Above all their fondness for the Tamil language, its literature and media have not decreased. Furthermore they are wistfully nostalgic about Jaffna asserting proudly that the North is their homeland too.

This magnanimity in spite of the injustice meted out to them shames the Tamil community at large. Except for a few voices there has been no powerful outcry against the LTTE for perpetrating this atrocity against the Muslims. A greater and vigorous demand has to be made by the Tamils that all expelled Muslims be resettled in their former homes with full compensation and restoration of property and awarded alternate provisions wherever necessary.

In that context what pains me greatly is the resentment and hostility shown by some sections of the Tamils in the North towards the return and re-settlement of Muslims in the North. Several Tamil religious dignitaries, bureaucrats, professionals, businessmen and politicians are guilty of harassing those who have returned and placing obstacles to prevent permanent resettlement.

One understands that psycho – social as well as socio – economic problems are likely to rise when a body of people uprooted for decades return to their original places of domicile and attempt to re-establish themselves. A new economy and order of life prevails in the places they were forced to vacate while the returnees themselves are used to a new way of life as internally displaced people. There is inevitable friction in such a situation. There is also commercial competition as the more entrepreneurial Muslims seek to establish or expand business activity in competition with their Tamil counterparts.

North is our Homeland Too

The situation is further compounded by the fact that many Muslim families which were a single family unit at the time of expulsion have now multiplied into plural family units. Those who were children or unmarried are now married with children of their own. The original homestead of “one family” is not adequate for “many families” now. So more land is needed. When action is taken to acquire more state land and re-settle the returning displaced Muslims there are protests and objections. What troubles me greatly is the lack of understanding and empathy displayed by many prominent Tamils towards the plight of the Muslims who want to return to the North. As the expelled Northern Muslims constantly reminded the Tamils “Vadakku Engalin Thaayagamum Kooda” (The North is our Homeland too)

The TNA that won the Northern provincial council elections in 2013 appointed a Muslim Bonus seat councillor to demonstrate its positive approach towards the Muslim people of the North. The TNA should stretch this extended hand of friendship further by constructing a fitting monument both expressing regret for the expulsion of Muslims as well as emphasising unity and inter-ethnic amity among all communities living in the Northern province.This would be a far better exercise for the newly elected TNA administration to embark upon than engaging in futile efforts to reconstruct war memorials for fallen tigers alone. More importantly the Northern provincial council and the Northern province Tamil parliamentarians should cooperate with and assist in the on going efforts to fully re-settle Muslims in the north

A female explains the prevailing sanitary problems at the IDP camp to HE Peter Hayes, High Commissioner of UK in Sri Lanka, visiting Puttalam in Dec, 2008-pic: UK in Sri Lanka

Northern Chief Minister CV Wigneswaran introduced a resolution early this year calling for an international investigation into alleged genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka over the past years.It was approved unanimously by the Northern Provincial council. Against that backdrop the question posed by many is “What about the mass Muslim expulsion amounting to ethnic cleansing in the North”? Will Chief Minister Wigneswaran and his Northern provincial council pass a unanimous resolution expressing remorse over the incidents and seeking genuine Tamil – Muslim reconciliation?

In an environment where reconciliation is being talked about nationally and globally there is an imperative need for rapprochement between the Tamils and Muslims of the North. A strong sincere hand of friendship should be stretched towards the Muslims.A genuine and humble mass apology should be extended towards the Muslims by the Tamil National Alliance controlled Northern Provincial Council for the mass expulsion twenty-five years ago by the LTTE”.

This article written for the “DBS Jeyaraj Column” appears in the “Daily Mirror” of October 24, 2015, it can be reached via this link:

http://www.dailymirror.lk/dbs-jeyaraj-column

 DBS Jeyaraj can be reached at dbsjeyaraj@yahoo.com

   ***************

A NOTE from Thuppahi, 14 August 2023

I sought out an article on the expulsion of Muslims from the north because my knowledge about the events and the reasons for the LTTE action were extremely limited.  The incentive to do so has arisen tangentially from a quest relating to the Muslim Moors in the Eastern Province (one which will be given air in due course). That I should head imediaely for DBS’s column in this quest is hardly surps=ising. I had heard him deleiver a seminar at the ICEs in the 198s andknew that he was relatively independent and not in the LTTE’s good books. This does not mean that his essay exhausts our understanding of the motivations for  the LTTE decision. I encourage knowledgeable observers to comment on the several issues surrounding this awesome set of events.  

சீனாவின் 14வது ஐந்தாண்டுத் திட்டம்

புதிய அட்லாண்டிசிஸ்ட் அக்டோபர் 24, 2025 

சீனாவின் அடுத்த ஐந்தாண்டுத் திட்டத்தின் வெற்றியாளர்களும் தோல்வியாளர்களும்

ஜெர்மி மார்க் எழுதியது

இந்த வாரம், சீனத் தலைமை நாட்டின் பதினைந்தாவது ஐந்தாண்டுத் திட்டத்தை அதிகாரப்பூர்வமாக முடித்து வைத்தது, இது அடுத்த தசாப்தத்தில் அதன் பரந்த பொருளாதார, அரசியல், சமூக மற்றும் இராணுவ இலக்குகளை கோடிட்டுக் காட்டுகிறது. சாராம்சம் பெரும்பாலும் ஒரே மாதிரியாக இருக்கிறது. பொருளாதாரத்தைப் பொறுத்தவரை, உயர் தொழில்நுட்பத் தொழில்கள் மற்றும் அறிவியல் வளர்ச்சிக்கு அதிக பணம் மற்றும் கடந்த ஐந்து ஆண்டுகால ரியல் எஸ்டேட் மற்றும் உள்ளூர் அரசாங்கக் கடன் நெருக்கடிகளில் சீனப் பொருளாதாரத்தை மிதக்க வைத்த ஏற்றுமதித் தொழில்களுக்கு அதிக ஆதரவு ஆகியவற்றைக் குறிக்கிறது. இது நூற்றுக்கணக்கான மில்லியன் நுகர்வோரின் அன்றாடப் போராட்டங்களுக்கு உதட்டளவில் சேவை செய்வதைத் தவிர வேறில்லை.

சீன கம்யூனிஸ்ட் கட்சி தனது மத்திய குழுவின் இந்த வார நான்காவது கூட்டத்திற்குத் தயாராகி வருவதால், கடந்த சில மாதங்களாக இவை அனைத்தும் தந்தி மூலம் அனுப்பப்பட்டன. கூட்டத்தின் வெளிநாட்டு செய்திகளில் ஆரம்ப தலைப்புச் செய்திகள் பல மூத்த இராணுவ மற்றும் மாகாண அதிகாரிகளின் தூய்மைப்படுத்தலில் கவனம் செலுத்தியிருந்தாலும், அறிக்கை , வடிவத்திற்கு உண்மையாக, கடந்த ஐந்தாண்டுத் திட்டத்தின் சாதனைகள் மற்றும் அடுத்த அரை தசாப்தத்திற்கான கட்சியின் தொலைநோக்குப் பார்வையில் கவனம் செலுத்தியது. வழக்கம்போல, வரைபடம் எவ்வாறு செயல்படுத்தப்படும் அல்லது நிதியளிக்கப்படும் என்பது பற்றிய விவரங்கள் குறைவாகவே இருந்தன. அந்தக் கொள்கைகள் 2026 ஆம் ஆண்டின் தொடக்கத்தில் அதன் வருடாந்திரக் கூட்டத்தில் தேசிய மக்கள் காங்கிரஸில் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்படும் சட்டத்தில் விரிவாகக் கூறப்படும் என்று கூறப்படுகிறது. ஆனால் ஒட்டுமொத்தமாக, ஆவணத்தில் உள்ள "முக்கிய பணிகள்", RAND கார்ப்பரேஷனின் ஜெரார்ட் டிபிப்போ ஒரு அட்டவணையில் கோடிட்டுக் காட்டியுள்ளபடி, 2021 இல், கடந்த ஐந்தாண்டுத் திட்டத்தின் தொடக்கத்தில் கோடிட்டுக் காட்டப்பட்டவற்றுடன் குறிப்பிடத்தக்க வகையில் ஒத்திருந்தன .

"உயர்தர வளர்ச்சி" மற்றும் "அறிவியல் மற்றும் தொழில்நுட்பத்தில் தன்னம்பிக்கை மற்றும் சுயவலிமை" ஆகியவற்றில் அரசாங்கம் கவனம் செலுத்துவதன் மையமாக இருக்கும் சீனப் பொருளாதாரத் துறைகளுக்கு இவை அனைத்தும் ஒரு நல்ல செய்தி . இந்தக் கொள்கை, சூரிய சக்தி மற்றும் மின்சார வாகனங்கள் போன்ற பசுமை தொழில்நுட்பங்களில் உலகளாவிய தலைமைத்துவத்தை நோக்கி சீனாவின் வெற்றிகரமான பயணத்தையும், மூலோபாய ரீதியாக முக்கியமான அரிய-பூமி விநியோகச் சங்கிலிகளில் அதன் ஆதிக்கத்தையும் உந்தியுள்ளது. இப்போது பெய்ஜிங் அந்த சாதனைகளை மேம்பட்ட குறைக்கடத்திகள், உயிரி தொழில்நுட்பம் மற்றும் குவாண்டம் கணினி போன்ற துறைகளுக்கு விரிவுபடுத்துவதை நோக்கமாகக் கொண்டுள்ளது.

உண்மை என்னவென்றால், பெய்ஜிங்கின் செலவு முன்னுரிமைகள் என்று வரும்போது சீன மக்கள் அதிகளவில் புறக்கணிக்கப்படுகிறார்கள்.

கடந்த தலைமுறையில் சீனா ஒரு ஏற்றுமதி சக்தியாக மாறுவதற்கு உதவிய பரந்த அளவிலான சீன உற்பத்தியாளர்களுக்கும் இது ஒரு நல்ல செய்தியாகும், ஆனால் இப்போது பாரிய தொழில்துறை அதிகப்படியான திறன் , உள்நாட்டு தேவை குறைதல் , உற்பத்தியாளர் விலைகள் வீழ்ச்சி மற்றும் இரத்த சோகை இலாபங்களை எதிர்கொள்ளும் பொருளாதாரத்தில் தங்கள் இடத்தைப் பற்றி கவலைப்படுகிறார்கள் . பெய்ஜிங்கின் லட்சியங்கள் இப்போது அதிநவீன தொழில்களுக்கு அப்பால் வீழ்ச்சியால் அச்சுறுத்தலுக்கு உள்ளாகும் துறைகளுக்கு நீட்டிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன என்பதை இந்த பிளீனம் நிரூபிக்கிறது. "உற்பத்தியில் நியாயமான விகிதத்தை பராமரிப்பது அவசியம்" என்று பிளீனம் அறிக்கை அறிவிக்கிறது. "பாரம்பரிய தொழில்களை மேம்படுத்துவதும் மேம்படுத்துவதும் அவசியம்." வரிகளுக்கு இடையில் படித்தால், தலைமை போராடும் உற்பத்தியாளர்களுக்கும் - மற்றும் அவர்களை ஆதரிக்கும் உள்ளூர் அரசாங்கங்களுக்கும் - தங்கள் முதுகில் இருப்பதாக சமிக்ஞை செய்கிறது. 

அரசாங்கத்தின் ஊதுகுழலான பீப்பிள்ஸ் டெய்லியில், சீன ஜனாதிபதி ஜி ஜின்பிங் சமீபத்திய மாதங்களில் "பாரம்பரிய" உற்பத்தியாளர்களின் மேம்படுத்தல் முயற்சிகளை ஆய்வு செய்ய மேற்கொண்ட வருகைகளை சிறப்பித்துக் காட்டிய முதல் பக்கக் கட்டுரையில் அந்த ஆதரவு சிறப்பிக்கப்பட்டது . "உண்மையான பொருளாதாரத்தை இழக்க முடியாது" என்று ஜி ஒரு தொழிற்சாலை வருகையின் போது அறிவித்ததாகக் கூறப்படுகிறது.

இத்தகைய உயர் மட்ட ஆதரவு சீனாவின் வர்த்தக கூட்டாளிகளுக்கு மோசமான செய்தியாக மட்டுமே இருக்கும், ஏனெனில் அவர்கள் இப்போது ஏற்றுமதிகளை நம்பியிருப்பதன் தாக்கத்தை தாங்க வேண்டியிருக்கும். அந்த வாய்ப்பு அடுத்த வாரம் தென் கொரியாவில் அமெரிக்க ஜனாதிபதி டொனால்ட் டிரம்ப் மற்றும் ஜி இடையே நடைபெறவிருக்கும் சந்திப்புக்கு அதிக முக்கியத்துவம் கொடுக்கும். 

கடந்த சில ஆண்டுகளாக சீனாவின் பொருளாதாரம் மந்தமாகி வருவதால், அதன் ஏற்றுமதிகள் இந்த ஆண்டு அதன் உலகளாவிய வர்த்தக உபரி $1.2 டிரில்லியனை எட்டக்கூடும் என்ற அளவிற்கு உயர்ந்துள்ளன, இது 2021 இல் அதன் $676 பில்லியன் உபரியை கிட்டத்தட்ட இரட்டிப்பாக்கக்கூடும். வர்த்தக பதட்டங்கள் மற்றும் டிரம்ப் நிர்வாக வரிகள் காரணமாக சீனப் பொருட்களுக்கான அமெரிக்க தேவை கடுமையாகக் குறைந்துள்ள தருணத்தில் இந்த ஏற்றுமதிகள் வெள்ளமென வந்துள்ளன - இவை அனைத்தும் மற்ற நாடுகளுக்கான ஏற்றுமதியில் கூர்மையான அதிகரிப்புக்கு வழிவகுக்கின்றன. இதன் விளைவாக, பல அரசாங்கங்கள் சீன ஏற்றுமதிகளுக்கு எதிராக நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க தங்கள் சொந்த உற்பத்தியாளர்களிடமிருந்து அழுத்தத்தை உணர்கின்றன, மெக்சிகோ ஆட்டோமொபைல் வரிகளை விதிக்க அச்சுறுத்துகிறது. அதிகரித்த அரசாங்க ஆதரவால் இயக்கப்படும் தொடர்ச்சியான சீன ஏற்றுமதி எழுச்சி, போட்டியற்ற சீன நிறுவனங்கள் கைவிட வேண்டிய கட்டாயத்தில் இருக்கக்கூடிய சந்தை இடங்களை ஆக்கிரமிக்க முயற்சிக்கும் வளர்ச்சி ஏணியில் கீழே உள்ள நாடுகளில் உள்ள உற்பத்தியாளர்களுக்கு பேரழிவை ஏற்படுத்தும்.

2020 ஆம் ஆண்டில் சீனாவை COVID-19 தொற்றுநோய் தாக்கியதிலிருந்தும், 2021 ஆம் ஆண்டில் அரசாங்கக் கொள்கைகள் சொத்துச் சந்தையின் கீழ் இருந்து விரிசல்களை அகற்றியதிலிருந்தும், பிளீனத்திலிருந்து மற்றொரு தோல்வியுற்றவர் சீன நுகர்வோர் என்று தோன்றுகிறது. தொற்றுநோய்களின் போது அரசாங்கத்தின் கடுமையான பூட்டுதல்கள் நுகர்வோர் நம்பிக்கையை குறைமதிப்பிற்கு உட்படுத்தின, மேலும் சொத்து குமிழியின் சரிவு கணிசமான வீட்டுச் செல்வத்தை அழித்துவிட்டது. வேலையின்மை - குறிப்பாக மில்லியன் கணக்கான சமீபத்திய கல்லூரி பட்டதாரிகளிடையே - அதிகரித்துள்ளது, மேலும் பல உழைக்கும் மற்றும் நடுத்தர வர்க்க மக்கள் தங்கள் வாழ்க்கையைச் சமாளிக்க போராடி வருகின்றனர். இந்த வார அறிக்கை, அரசாங்கம் "உயர்தர மற்றும் முழு வேலைவாய்ப்பை ஊக்குவிக்க வேண்டும், வருமான விநியோக முறையை மேம்படுத்த வேண்டும், மக்களை திருப்திப்படுத்தும் கல்வியை வழங்க வேண்டும், சமூகப் பாதுகாப்பு அமைப்பை வலுப்படுத்த வேண்டும், ரியல் எஸ்டேட் துறையின் உயர்தர வளர்ச்சியை ஊக்குவிக்க வேண்டும், ஆரோக்கியமான சீனாவின் வளர்ச்சியை துரிதப்படுத்த வேண்டும், உயர்தர மக்கள்தொகை வளர்ச்சியை ஊக்குவிக்க வேண்டும் மற்றும் அடிப்படை பொது சேவைகளின் சமநிலையை சீராக முன்னெடுக்க வேண்டும்" என்று கூறுகிறது. 

ஆனால் இன்றைய உயர்மட்டக் கூட்டங்களில் இருந்து வரும் பெரும்பாலான பொது அறிக்கைகளில் இதே போன்ற வாக்குறுதிகள் சேர்க்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. பெய்ஜிங்கின் செலவு முன்னுரிமைகள் விஷயத்தில் சீன மக்கள் அதிகளவில் புறக்கணிக்கப்படுகிறார்கள் என்பதுதான் உண்மை. மேலும், பல ஆண்டுகளாக அதிக அளவில் கடன் வாங்கி, செலுத்தப்படாத பில்களுக்குப் பிறகு உள்ளூர் அரசாங்கங்கள் ஏற்கனவே கடுமையான நிதி நெருக்கடியில் உள்ள நிலையில், பல அடிமட்ட அதிகாரிகள் சந்தேகத்திற்கு இடமின்றி, ஜின்பிங்கின் தொழில்துறை மேம்பாட்டிற்கான முக்கியத்துவத்திற்கு பெருமை சேர்க்கிறார்கள் என்பதைக் காண்பார்கள் - எதிர்காலத்தில் சீன குடிமக்களின் வாழ்க்கையை மேம்படுத்தக்கூடிய சீர்திருத்தங்களுக்கு அல்ல.

________________________________

ஜெர்மி மார்க் அட்லாண்டிக் கவுன்சிலின் புவி பொருளாதார மையத்தில் ஒரு வெளிநாட்டு மூத்த உறுப்பினராக உள்ளார். அவர் முன்பு சர்வதேச நாணய நிதியம் மற்றும் ஆசிய வால் ஸ்ட்ரீட் ஜர்னலில் பணியாற்றினார்.

 

A Grand Strategy of Reciprocity

How to Build an Economic and Security Order That Works for America

Oren Cass

November/December 2025Published on October 17, 2025

Ricardo Tomás

Print

Save

The United States has pursued two grand strategies in the 80 years since World War II. One was an extraordinary success: the policy of “containment” that guided American economic investments, foreign relations, and military deployments during the Cold War, which led to the defeat an collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the United States as the world’s lone superpower.

The same cannot be said, unfortunately, about the strategy adopted at the Cold War’s conclusion: an attempt to leverage superpower status to establish a “liberal world order” that Washington would secure and dominate. That strategy went by names including “enlargement,” as defined by President Bill Clinton’s first national security adviser, Anthony Lake, and “benevolent hegemony,” in the words of the neoconservative thinkers William Kristol and Robert Kagan, writing in these pages. This vision promised an enduring Pax Americana in which no other country could or would challenge U.S. supremacy, all evolved inevitably toward liberal democracy, and the global free market’s warm embrace rendered borders irrelevant while spreading prosperity worldwide.

By some measures, the strategy worked. U.S. GDP and stock prices steadily rose. Technology and trade stitched the world closer together. World War III did not start. But a clear-eyed appraisal of the post–Cold War era reveals a less rosy reality. Far from producing a utopia of shared prosperity and stable peace, American strategy in the past three decades has instead yielded a global economic order that allows other countries to exploit Washington’s largess, an ascendant authoritarian adversary in China, and simmering conflicts around the globe in which expectations of American commitment far outstrip the reality of American capacity—all of which have contributed to economic and social decay in the United States.

Any grand strategy is, in part, a bet on a particular theory of political economy. The bet on investing to rebuild a bulwark of market democracies whose prosperity would eventually overwhelm Soviet communism was a wise one. The subsequent bet, on the ability of globalization and free markets to render political economy irrelevant, was not. The time has come for a new wager. The best way to create a sustainable trading and security bloc is a strategy of reciprocity: an alliance among countries committed to engaging with each other on comparable terms while jointly excluding others that will not fulfill the same obligations.

Demanding reciprocity would counteract the beggar-thy-neighbor policies that have created unsustainable imbalances with U.S. trading partners, curtail Washington’s dependence on adversaries for critical goods, and limit the free-riding that has slowly eroded U.S. alliances and partnerships. By embracing reciprocity, the United States would also be rejecting an asymmetric order featuring a dominant power and its clients in favor of one in which participants all stand on equal footing with equal expectations. This would represent a healthy development in how the nation conceives of itself, moving away from an American empire and back toward an American republic.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the relative decline in American power has strengthened Washington’s hand when it comes to negotiating the terms of a new global order. The status quo is predicated on an American commitment to hegemony that precludes the possibility of pulling back. That commitment made sense as long as the United States remained dominant. But owing to the self-enfeeblement of its allies and the ascent of China, the United States can no longer maintain its predominance.

And so it seems plausible that a dramatic retrenchment—pulling back from global economic and military engagement and relying chiefly on the strategic depth and sizable market provided by the North American continent—could produce a better outcome than the ongoing descent into late-imperial exhaustion. Simply put, Washington can now consider walking away from the table if the terms of its relationships do not improve. Allies and partners know this and want to avoid that outcome, because the U.S. market and military remain indispensable to their own prosperity and security. Which means that, for the first time in the lives of contemporary policymakers, the United States is in a position to frame its demands around narrow self-interest, back them with credible consequences, and expect them to be taken seriously. The question that will define the next era of American statecraft is, What should those demands be?

In his second term, President Donald Trump has made progress toward developing a strategy of reciprocity. He and his administration deserve credit for recognizing the need for change, and they have been persuasive in signaling that they see walking away from the table as preferable to tolerating the status quo. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has conceded that European countries have been “free-riders,” taking advantage of the United States, and the most recent NATO summit concluded with an unprecedented commitment by members to raise their defense spending from at least 2.0 percent of GDP to at least 3.5 percent. Credibly threatened with tariffs, Canada and Mexico have begun reducing their economic ties with China; Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the European Union have all worked toward agreements to reduce their trade imbalances with the United States.

But even though Trump defines U.S. interests and weighs costs and benefits differently than did his predecessors, he has not yet translated his “America first” instincts into a coherent vision of a new global settlement. His trade agenda has appeared haphazard, and confronting all countries suddenly, simultaneously, and harshly has needlessly antagonized allies and heightened uncertainty. On China, the administration has oscillated unpredictably, pursuing a sharp decoupling one day and a grand bargain the next. And it has been difficult to discern the logic behind moves such as imposing stiff tariffs on India, purportedly in response to that country’s oil purchases from Russia.

To reset relationships and forge new ones on new premises requires communicating the reasons for the change, the shape of the new strategy, the character of American demands, and the consequences for failure to reach agreement. Reciprocity can provide those premises, on terms fair to both the United States and prospective allies. But Washington needs to establish and articulate those premises and terms as clearly as possible.

A BAD BET

For a brief moment after the defeat of Soviet communism, Americans debated whether they should return to the humble and noninterventionist foreign policy tradition that a bounty of natural resources and the protection of two oceans had enabled in the republic’s early years. But officials and politicians were exhilarated by victory, possessed of an astonishing hubris, and seduced by visions of empire offered by scholars and pundits. The United States, they decided, could and should dominate global affairs indefinitely.

The seminal Defense Planning Guidance developed by the George H. W. Bush administration in 1992 called for the United States to “promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems,” and to “retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.” The following year, Clinton ratified this bipartisan consensus in a speech at the United Nations. “We cannot solve every problem,” he said, “but we must and will serve as a fulcrum for change and a pivot point for peace.” Four years later, in his second inaugural address, Clinton went further, anointing the United States the world’s “indispensable nation.”

Within a remarkable 12-month period surrounding that speech, a chorus of prominent thinkers cheered on this new credo. Kristol and Kagan assigned the American people “fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and democratic governance, an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade,” and a “responsibility to lead the world.” The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman published his observation that “no two countries that both have a McDonald’s have ever fought a war against each other.” And the economist Paul Krugman asserted that “a country serves its own interests by pursuing free trade regardless of what other countries may do.”

Embedded in these declarations were three interlocking assumptions. First, that the United States, standing alone as the world’s sole economic and military superpower, would have the ability and will to dictate global events when and where it chose. Second, that all countries of geopolitical significance would move inexorably toward market capitalism and democratic governance and thus would have interests and systems compatible with a U.S.-led liberal world order. And finally, that free markets would automatically generate prosperity, for the United States most of all, and thus the expansion and integration of markets would reinforce the American position.

To allies, Washington has said “do this” and “stop that”—but rarely “or else.”

As long as those assumptions held, the costs incurred by the United States to preserve the status quo could yield it far larger benefits. Domination of global affairs allowed Washington to push other countries toward economic and political liberalization, which further expanded markets that the United States could then dominate and orient toward its own priorities. Outspending the rest of the world, combined, on defense and tolerating market abuses on the part of other countries—including currency manipulation, industrial subsidies, regulatory barriers, and wage suppression—were small prices to pay, and ones that the United States could easily afford.

For a time, these core assumptions seemed to hold. The 1990s began with the triumph of the U.S.-led coalition in the Persian Gulf War. Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization signed the Oslo accords, South Africa transitioned from apartheid to democracy, and NATO intervened successfully in the Balkan wars. The North American Free Trade Agreement took effect, the World Trade Organization launched, and the European Union adopted a common currency. At the decade’s end, the United States arrived at the crest of an economic boom, with a federal budget comfortably in surplus, unchallenged in any sphere of global leadership.

But in 2000, the Russian Federation elected Vladimir Putin as president, and he has led the country ever since. That October, the United States granted “permanent normal trade relations” to China with the expectation that the embrace would “increase the likelihood of positive change in China and therefore stability throughout Asia,” as Clinton had explained earlier that year at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. “What some call globalization,” elaborated President George W. Bush the following July, “is in fact the triumph of human liberty across national borders.” Two months later, the Twin Towers fell, and the U.S. military plunged into Afghanistan.

In the years that followed, systems bearing no resemblance to market democracy gained traction, and countries that adopted them grew stronger, undermining international institutions built to serve liberal states, violating international law with impunity, and making a mockery of the global trading system. Washington failed to build stable democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the invasions of those countries accomplished little besides miring the United States in “forever wars” that cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Elsewhere, few young democracies consolidated their gains, while countries such as Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela slid further backward into authoritarianism.

A NATO exercise in Wierzbiny, Poland, September 2025Kacper Pempel / Reuters

More than 40 U.S. military bases and some 80,000 American troops in Europe did nothing to deter Russia from invading Georgia in 2008, then Crimea in 2014, then the rest of Ukraine in 2022. The only perceptible effect of these massive deployments was to discourage Washington’s European allies from investing in their own defense. Meanwhile, China chipped away at the military dominance that was the prerequisite for American hegemony. By some estimates, its defense spending is equivalent to that of the United States, and it fields the world’s largest active-duty fighting force and largest naval fleet. China’s industrial power allows it to influence foreign conflicts—for instance, bolstering the war machine that powers Russia’s assault on Ukraine—and would give China an advantage in a lengthy war of attrition. U.S. shipbuilding capacity trails China’s by a factor of 1,000.

China’s growing advantages are a symptom of the broader failure of globalization. For the past three decades, the unfettered flow of goods and capital devastated American industry, helped drive up federal deficits, and provided the fuel for the financial meltdown that led to the global financial crisis of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed. The manufacturing sector’s crown jewels, from Intel to Boeing to General Electric, became laggards—overtaken not by new American entrepreneurs but by foreign state-subsidized enterprises. The sector has atrophied so badly that, according to data on productivity published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, factories today need more workers than they did a decade ago to produce the same output.

Although the U.S. service sector’s rise in relative importance was natural for an advanced economy, the stagnation in manufacturing was not. The abandonment of production, typified by Apple’s “designed in California, made in China” strategy, sent factory jobs overseas first—but the innovation soon followed. In the mid-2000s, the United States was ahead of China on 60 of 64 “frontier technologies” identified by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. By 2023, China led on 57.

In the twenty-first century, American military leadership and economic forbearance neither achieved an “enlargement” of the community of market democracies nor boosted American security and prosperity. It merely consumed the physical, financial, and social capital that the country had painstakingly accumulated. For global superpowers as much as for families, it turns out, one generation builds the wealth, the second enjoys it, and the third destroys it or sees it squandered.

NO MORE FREE RIDES

The hallmark of U.S. strategy during hegemony was the unconditionality of its vision, providing benefits to other countries regardless of how they exploited the arrangement. When NATO allies refused to meet their defense spending commitments, the United States might cajole, but its own commitment to defending every NATO country from any possible attack remained rock solid. If China manipulated its currency, subsidized its national champions, stole intellectual property, and denied U.S. firms access to its market, Washington might complain, but the American market would remain open to Chinese companies. When it came to its allies and partners, the United States would say “do this” and “stop that”—but it rarely said “or else.”

Over time, what developed among the expert class in Washington was a belief that open markets and alliances were ends unto themselves, so valuable that they were worth pursuing at any price, regardless of how other countries behaved. That belief was unfounded even when the United States was the predominant power; in the post-hegemony world, it is unmoored from reality. The country needs a new path.

One alternative would be retrenchment: taking advantage of the strategic depth afforded by geography to build a “Fortress America” with only Canada and Mexico as close partners. This would be a dramatic transformation but an entirely plausible one, and preferable to a status quo in which the United States continues to absorb the costs of attempting to preserve hegemony while enjoying none of the benefits that depend on preserving it. But that would be far from ideal: the country would lose the capacity to influence events around the world in situations that involved critical U.S. interests. Retrenchment would also shrink the scale of the broad open market in which American businesses innovate and grow.

The expert class came to see open markets and alliances as ends unto themselves.

At the same time, although the days of incurring costs in pursuit of benevolent hegemony are over, it would also be a mistake for the United States to pursue a nakedly coercive empire that leverages its economic and military power to exploit putative allies. Doing so would corrode the country’s democratic republic by elevating the interests of elites over those of ordinary citizens and would corrupt the country’s ethos of liberal governance and self-determination. It would also trigger resentments that would make U.S. alliances less stable and conflicts within them more likely.

Instead of pursuing either of those extremes, the United States should pursue reciprocity, focused on a set of commitments that allies must make to each other for the alliance to function well. Going forward, the question Washington should pose to any ally or potential partner is this: If each member were behaving the way you are, would the alliance be a strong one benefiting all members, or would it collapse?

On this basis, the United States should make three core demands of any prospective participant in a U.S.-led trading and security bloc. First, Washington should insist that its allies and partners are prepared to take primary responsibility for their own security. A country that does not even attempt to defend itself brings a security deficit to a coalition and acts as a drain on the collective defense, imposing obligations on others that it cannot reciprocate.

Trump speaking with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, July 2025Evelyn Hockstein / Reuters

Consider Germany, which has relied on the United States for security in its region since the end of World War II. “We cannot substitute or replace what the Americans still do for us,” Merz conceded in May. The same cannot be said about what, if anything, the Germans still do for the United States. The basing of so many American troops on German soil, at American expense, serves the Germans, the rest of Europe, and the dreams of empire that some in Washington still harbor. But it does not serve the interests of the typical American. The U.S.-German relationship is not an alliance in any meaningful sense of the term: in reality, Germany is a client and the United States is a patron, although one that gets little in exchange for its patronage. The bases in Germany should be German bases, hosting German troops paid by the German government to maintain comparable capabilities.

Conversely, a country that can take responsibility for deterring and defeating common foes in its own region while contributing intelligence and technology to its partners is invaluable. In June, the Israeli air campaign against Iran provided a concrete illustration. Israel hoped the United States would join, but had little leverage to make it do so. U.S. leaders were able to assess their options and decide which best advanced American interests. When Trump opted to take part, American B-2s were able to follow a path already cleared and strike targets already softened by Israeli forces. Iran found it unwise to attempt more than a symbolic retaliation.

A strategy of reciprocity would call for ending direct U.S. aid to Israel; it is wholly unnecessary given Israel’s wealth and strategic position, and it does not deliver a clear benefit to the United States. But Washington should gladly continue selling arms to Israel, and even providing financing for those sales, as it should for other allies that take primary responsibility for their own regions. Israel generally allocates more than five percent of its GDP to defense spending even when not engaged in active conflicts, and it mandates conscription for a majority of citizens. Israel does these things not to secure Washington’s blessing but to secure itself. Imagine what the United States would save, and how much more secure from Russian and Chinese aggression the world would be, if countries such as Germany and Japan were equally determined to deter their regional adversaries.

IN OR OUT?

If it pursued reciprocity, Washington would also make a second demand: balanced trade. Economists have long understood that the benefits of free trade are undermined if countries adopt beggar-thy-neighbor policies that shift productive capacity to themselves at the expense of partners. In its efforts to achieve benevolent hegemony, the United States tolerated being beggared by its neighbors. For example, major trading partners such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea have pursued aggressive industrial policies and export-led growth strategies that shifted productive capacity from the United States and created persistent trade imbalances.

The United States tolerated this state of affairs partly for the sake of securing the loyalty of its allies and partners, and partly out of a mistaken belief that making things did not matter anymore and offshoring American industry would lead to cheaper goods for American consumers and better jobs in high-value service industries. Those tradeoffs have become untenable, as a weakened manufacturing sector has frayed the social fabric by eliminating millions of good blue-collar jobs, shattered the foundations of local economies across broad swaths of the country, reduced investment and innovation, imperiled supply chains, and eliminated the strategic depth afforded by a robust industrial base.

The United States should be a strong advocate for a large and open market as a core feature of an alliance, but it must insist that all participants foster the mutual benefit that a well-functioning trading system provides. In practice, this requires that each country commit to maintaining balance in its own trade, buying as much from others in the bloc as it sells to them. In the global trading system today, the United States operates as the consumer of last resort, absorbing surpluses from all who wish to run them. No other country can match China’s abuse of the global trading system, but Germany, Japan, and South Korea all rely on export-led growth and expect the U.S. economy to absorb their massive export surpluses, too, to the benefit of their producers and the detriment of American competitors.

Although a bilateral imbalance between any two countries is not necessarily problematic, an alliance cannot tolerate members pursuing large overall surpluses, which by definition necessitate others to run large deficits. Reciprocity would require using tariffs, quotas, or other regulatory barriers to discipline any country that is creating a structural imbalance. Countries running persistent surpluses could also commit to voluntary restraints on their own exports and could encourage their companies to build capacity in allied markets, as Japan did in the 1980s after the Reagan administration objected to Japanese automakers pouring cheaper cars into the American market. Countries that refused to play by the rules and pursue balance would be pushed out of the common market and face a high, uniform tariff from all members of the bloc.

In an era when the United States guaranteed open access to its market regardless of whether participants followed the rules, other countries quite rationally took advantage. If the United States instead conditioned access to its market on trading relationships that are balanced and thus mutually beneficial, countries will find it in their interest to adjust accordingly. The shock waves triggered by the Trump administration’s tariffs are educating both economists and U.S. allies on this point. Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have all altered their own trade policies—lowering barriers for U.S. exporters and raising barriers for China’s, in various combinations—and some have also made large commitments to invest in expanding U.S. capacity.

CONSCIOUS UNCOUPLING

The third demand of a reciprocity strategy is simple: “China out.” The strategy of benevolent hegemony atop a liberal world order assumed the United States would remain the lone superpower, all countries would move toward market democracy, and free trade among them would foster prosperity for all. But China didn’t follow the script. How would U.S. leaders in 1997 react if a time traveler could go back and tell them that China—whose GDP per capita was then lower than that of the Republic of the Congo—would remain an authoritarian country with a state-run economy yet rise to match the United States geopolitically and outcompete it in industrial power? Presumably, they would laugh. But anyone who believed it would surely abandon the blind embrace of China on the spot. The United States, after all, had triumphed in a Cold War during which not even the most orthodox free-market libertarians advocated that the United States pursue trade with the Soviet Union or otherwise entangle the American and Soviet economic and political systems.

U.S. producers will not be able to enjoy the benefits of free trade if they are forced to compete against state-subsidized Chinese competitors in the Japanese market, or face imports from Malaysia into the U.S. market that rely on Chinese materials and components sold below cost. Thus, other countries’ access to the American market must be conditioned on their willingness to exclude China. The requirement of balanced trade would itself push countries in this direction, as many are discovering in the wake of the escalating U.S.-Chinese tariff war. The American refusal to continue absorbing China’s surplus has led to import surges into Europe, for instance, creating enormous headaches for leaders there. With the United States maintaining an unconditionally open market, Mexico might want to welcome enormous investment from BYD, the Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer, in factories that would then export cars into the United States. But if Mexico cannot run an enormous trade surplus with the United States, the proposition loses its appeal.

The China challenge goes far beyond trade imbalances, of course. As Chinese leader Xi Jinping shuts off the global supply of rare-earth magnets, the world is seeing the cost of letting the Chinese Communist Party manipulate and corner vital strategic markets. China makes investments abroad to usurp critical technologies and exercises political leverage over investors in the Chinese market. Governments and corporations will repeatedly see advantage in accepting what China offers, even as the cumulative effect of those bargains weakens both. If Washington pursued a strategy of reciprocity, the security of the United States and its allies and partners, and the freedom of the open market they would share, would depend on holding all participants accountable for disavowing that course.

The idea of spheres of influence offends liberal internationalist sensibilities.

Investment flows likewise require decoupling. The United States and its allies and partners should prohibit inbound investment from China (including foreign direct investment that results in China-based firms operating within their borders) and also prohibit their own citizens and firms from holding assets or making investments within China’s borders. Technology ecosystems will also need to diverge, especially as the United States leads efforts to restrict China’s access to cutting-edge artificial intelligence chips and chip-making equipment. On all fronts, the principle must be that one can do business in the Chinese sphere or the American one, but not both.

After decades during which Washington entangled the U.S. and Chinese economies, abandoned expertise and neglected to invest in domestic manufacturing, and accepted dependence on Chinese supply chains, the process of decoupling will impose real costs on the United States. In the short run, some consumer products will become more expensive. Some businesses will suffer from the loss of suppliers or customers. Reindustrialization will require substantial new investment, which implies some reductions in consumption.

But these results are best understood as the price of losing the bet on globalization. Climbing back out of that hole was always going to be expensive. The longer that policymakers refuse to acknowledge reality and insist on doubling down on the failed status quo, the more expensive it will become. Conversely, paying those costs now represents an investment in reindustrialization that will pay enormous dividends for decades.

RECIPROCITY TO THE RESCUE

The United States retains considerable leverage to redefine its role in the world and shape a new U.S.-led alliance system accordingly. Other countries will sulk when they realize that the old deal is no longer available. But if Washington can make clear that the options are a new alliance or no alliance, other market democracies will rationally accept the offer.

The deal would be a fair one. The United States would hold other countries only to the same conditions to which it would expect to be held. Obviously, it would remain a heavy spender on its own defense and the common defense; it would not expect other countries to pay the full cost. In seeking balanced trade, it would be asking others to meet it in the middle, not to accept a role reversal in which American producers get to dominate global markets.

These new American demands would disrupt the status quo and impose short-term costs on allies and partners. But they, too, would ultimately benefit. Those in Asia surely wish they could credibly defend Taiwan without wondering whether the United States would truly do so if push came to shove. Those in Europe surely wish they could have credibly warned Putin away from invading Ukraine. In Germany and Japan, especially, export-led growth models appear to have run their course and have given way to stagnation. Both countries would do well to turn toward strategies that boost domestic consumption. And while the lure of cheap Chinese goods and capital has repeatedly proved irresistible in the short run, all are aware of the long-term risks. Any market democracy should be excited to accept a partnership on those terms over the alternative of falling into a Chinese sphere of influence, and the United States can afford to hold firm on the terms.

American cars at a port in Yokohama, Japan, July 2025Kim Kyung-Hoon / Reuters

The idea of spheres of influence offends liberal internationalist sensibilities. “During the cold war,” The Economist argued in July, “American- and Soviet-led blocs amounted to spheres of influence. After the USSR fell, both Democratic and Republican administrations repudiated such spheres as deplorable artefacts of the past, calling instead for a liberal world order, open to all.” That is true as a descriptive matter, but it only underscores the wishful thinking that underpinned the repudiation. What happens to a liberal world order “open to all” when some accept the invitation to join but not the terms of membership? They can be welcomed anyway, leading to a world order that is far from liberal, or they can be excluded, preserving the prospects for a liberal order that excludes some of the world. The former has been tried, and it failed. The latter, by insisting on reciprocity and accepting spheres as inevitable in a world of competing and incompatible economic and political systems, gives the United States a much better chance of achieving its goals and advancing its values.

Reciprocity holds the promise of improved economic prospects, reduced foreign commitments, and a return to the politics of a republic focused foremost on the interests of its own citizens. But adopting such a strategy will require American leaders—and ordinary Americans—to accept a more limited role for their country on the world stage. Patriotism demands realistic assessments of abilities and interests, not the outlandish embrace of goals the country has no power to achieve.

The gambler who responds to frustrating losses by placing bigger and riskier bets is said to be “on tilt.” In the United States, too many analysts are still assessing the hypothetical benefits of a hyperpower status that does not exist; too many politicians are still giving speeches about their affection for various forms of imagined empire. With a humbler and more realistic strategy of reciprocity, Washington would finally be placing a bet that the United States can win.