Predictability is an important feature of the international system. States behave predictably to augment their own international standing, reputation, and forge working relationships with other nations. (Note: surely a country that consistently violates international norms develops a reputation for being predictably unreliable and untrustworthy). Liberal International Relations theorists compare reputation (undoubtedly influenced by predictability) to a currency that prompts nations to ally with each other in order to secure mutually beneficial outcomes. Nations then, like long-term borrowers, are incentivized to consider the “the shadow of the future,” when weighing aggressive decisions that may disrupt the status quo.
President Trump’s foreign policy has catalyzed a robust debate analyzing the effectiveness of unpredictability as a viable foreign policy strategy. Unpredictability has played a sizable part of President Trump’s foreign policy calculus since 2016, “We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops. We tell them. We’re sending something else. We have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now.”
Unpredictable behavior can confuse, disorient, or lend credibility to escalatory threats. National strategy implicates every lever of power available to states: diplomacy, trade, military assets, intelligence services, and financial power. Strategies of unpredictability, then, can range from unexpected military action (covert action, grey zone aggression, large troop movements) to unforeseen economic measures (currency manipulation, tariffs, sanctions). Unpredictability extends further than policy surprises, though. Official statements, posts on social media, and interviews provide cheaper means of communicating unpredictability than mobilizing military assets or implementing tools of financial coercion.
While unpredictable behavior may yield short-term results, long-term strategies of deliberate unpredictability jeopardize America’s collective security guarantees. These agreements are both multilateral (NATO) and bilateral (Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Korea). Not only are America’s treaty allies critical elements of its power, but important actors that sustain regional security architectures in Europe, the Middle East, and South East Asia. Security arrangements depend on predictability. The logic is simple: “If X is attacked, Y will respond.” What happens when Y’s resolve is shaky? Conventional wisdom says that X will outsource its protection to another state that can provide a more credible commitment in crisis.
Security partnerships are contingent on a sustained confidence that, if necessary, countries will uphold the letter and spirit of the treaty. “Leaders with a reputation for unpredictability—or who encourage the perception that they might do almost anything, regardless of the consequences—often struggle to make credible guarantees,” says Roseanne McManus, a Professor at Penn State University. America’s international reputation (a product of its penchant for predictability) anchors the vast network of alliances forged in the wake of World War II, unpredictability as national doctrine threatens to upend these systems.
There is a time and utility to deploy unpredictability tactically. American strategic doctrine vis a vis Taiwan, for example, is intentionally unpredictable. Tactical unpredictability could help the United States maintain escalation dominance, although more further academic research would be necessary to carefully determine exactly how.
It is important to note that assuming a strategy of unpredictability is a privileged one. Powerful nations have the latitude and reputational capital to behave unpredictably without fear of sustained consequences. Most countries, however, tactfully cultivate a stable and predictable posture, or run the risk of repudiation from international institutions. If America is to remain a credible guarantor of security arrangements around the globe, it must end its strategy of unpredictability and forge more durable and sustained partnerships with critical allies.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent the views or positions of CISES, its leadership, or affiliated organisations
Leave a Reply