Foreign Affairs January Feburary 2019

ELIZABETH WARREN: A FOREIGN POLICY FOR ALL
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019
Who Will
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 • VOLUME 98 • NUMBER 1 •
Run the World?

America, China, and
Global Order
WHO WILL RUN THE WORLD?
F O R E I G N A F F A I R S .C O M
DOWNLOAD
CSS Notes, Books, MCQs, Magazines
www.thecsspoint.com
 Download CSS Notes
 Download CSS Books
 Download CSS Magazines
 Download CSS MCQs
 Download CSS Past Papers
The CSS Point, Pakistan’s The Best

Online FREE Web source for All CSS
Aspirants.
Email: info@thecsspoint.com
BUY CSS / PMS / NTS & GENERAL KNOWLEDGE BOOKS
ONLINE CASH ON DELIVERY ALL OVER PAKISTAN
Visit Now:
WWW.CSSBOOKS.NET
For Oder & Inquiry
Call/SMS/WhatsApp
0333 6042057 – 0726 540316
CSS Solved Compulsory Papers Guide Latest 2019
Edition
By Dogar Brothers
Fully Solved Papers from 2014 to 2018
Call/SMS 03336042057
CSS Solved Compulsory MCQs 2005 to 2018 Updated
Call/SMS 03336042057
Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power & Peace
By Hans Morgenthau
Volume 98, Number 1

The Fourth Founding 10
The United States and the Liberal Order
Gideon Rose
How a World Order Ends 22

And What Comes in Its Wake
Richard Haass
The Stealth Superpower 31

How China Hid Its Global Ambitions
Oriana Skylar Mastro
The Age of Uneasy Peace 40

Chinese Power in a Divided World
Yan Xuetong
ESSAYS
C O V E R I L L U S T R A T I O N : T AV I S C O B U R N
A Foreign Policy for All 50

Strengthening Democracy—at Home and Abroad
Elizabeth Warren
The Eroding Balance of Terror 62

The Decline of Deterrence
Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr.
Januar y/Februar y 2019

How Congress Can Take Back Foreign Policy 76
A Playbook for Capitol Hill
Brian McKeon and Caroline Tess
America’s Middle East Purgatory 88

The Case for Doing Less
Mara Karlin and Tamara Cofman Wittes
The Crisis of Peacekeeping 101

Why the UN Can’t End Wars
Séverine Autesserre
The Free-Trade Paradox 119

The Bad Politics of a Good Idea
Alan S. Blinder
Trump Versus the Government 129

Can America Get Its Story Straight?
Elliott Abrams
America’s Long Goodbye 138

The Real Crisis of the Trump Era
Eliot A. Cohen
Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War 147

The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics
Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron
The Unhackable Election 156

What It Takes to Defend Democracy
Michael Chertoff and Anders Fogh Rasmussen
ON FOREIGNAFFAIRS.COM
Natalie Letsa on the Michael Auslin on the Madawi al-Rasheed
conflict in Cameroon. AI arms race. on the U.S. and MBS.

REVIEWS & RESPONSES
More, Less, or Different? 168
Where U.S. Foreign Policy Should—and Shouldn’t—Go From Here
Jake Sullivan
Snake-Oil Economics 176

The Bad Math Behind Trump’s Policies
N. Gregory Mankiw
When Empires End 181

The Last Days of British India
Maya Jasanoff
Life After Liberation 187

The Long Shadow of Eastern Europe’s Communist Past
Timothy Garton Ash
Recent Books 193

Letters to the Editor 217
“Foreign Affairs . . . will tolerate wide differences of opinion. Its articles will not represent any consensus
of beliefs. What is demanded of them is that they shall be competent and well informed, representing honest
opinions seriously held and convincingly expressed. . . . It does not accept responsibility for the views in any
articles, signed or unsigned, which appear in its pages. What it does accept is the responsibility for giving
them a chance to appear.”
Archibald Cary Coolidge, Founding Editor
Volume 1, Number 1 • September 1922

January/February 2019 · Volume 98, Number 1
Published by the Council on Foreign Relations
GIDEON ROSE Editor, Peter G. Peterson Chair
DANIEL KURTZ-PHELAN Executive Editor
STUART REID, JUSTIN VOGT Managing Editors
LAURA SECOR Web Editor
NAT BROWN Deputy Web Editor
PARK M AC DOUGALD, ALASDAIR PHILLIPS-ROBINS Staff Editors
LAUREL JAROMBEK Social Media and Audience Development Editor
ANNA BOOTS, VICTOR BRECHENMACHER Assistant Editors
ANN TAPPERT Copy Chief
LORENZ SKEETER Production Manager
IB OHLSSON Contributing Artist
SARAH FOSTER Business Operations Director
JACQUELINE SHOST Editorial Assistant
Book Reviewers
RICHARD N. COOPER, RICHARD FEINBERG, LAWRENCE D. FREEDMAN, G. JOHN IKENBERRY,
ROBERT LEGVOLD, WALTER RUSSELL MEAD, ANDREW MORAVCSIK, ANDREW J. NATHAN,
NICOLAS VAN DE WALLE, JOHN WATERBURY
STEPHANIE SOLOMON Chief Revenue Officer

JONATHAN CHUNG Circulation Operations Director
RICKY FERRER Director of Product
NORA REVENAUGH Marketing Director
EDWARD WALSH Advertising Director
MICHAEL PASUIT Senior Manager, Advertising Accounts and Operations
ELENA TCHAINIKOVA Senior Manager, Events and Business Development
ELOISE GOLDSMITH Publishing Associate, Circulation
GRACE FINLAYSON Publishing Associate, Advertising
CARLOS A. MORALES Senior Manager, Digital Analytics and Audience Development
ERIC SPECTOR Deputy Director, Digital Development
ANGEL TRAJKOV Senior Web Developer
TIM WASSON Front End Web Developer
KAREN MANDEL Quality Assurance Manager
PROCIRC LLC Circulation Services
LISA SHIELDS, IVA ZORIC, ZACHARY HASTINGS HOOPER Media Relations
Board of Advisers
JAMI MISCIK Chair
JESSE H. AUSUBEL, PETER E. BASS, JOHN B. BELLINGER, DAVID BRADLEY, SUSAN CHIRA,
JESSICA P. EINHORN, MICHÈLE FLOURNOY, FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, THOMAS H. GLOCER, ADI IGNATIUS,
CHARLES R. KAYE, WILLIAM H. M C RAVEN, MICHAEL J. MEESE, RICHARD PLEPLER, COLIN POWELL,
KEVIN P. RYAN, MARGARET G. WARNER, NEAL S. WOLIN, DANIEL H. YERGIN
SUBSCRIP TION SERVICES: Foreign Affairs

ForeignAffairs.com/services 58 E. 68th Street, New York, NY 10065
T ELEPHONE: ADVERT IS IN G: Call Edward Walsh at 212-434-9527 or visit
800-829-5539 U.S./Canada www.foreignaffairs.com/advertising
845-267-2017 All other countries WEB SIT E : ForeignAffairs.com
EMAIL: foreignaffairs@cambeywest.com N EWSLET T ER S: ForeignAffairs.com/newsletters
MAIL: P.O. Box 324, Congers, NY 10920 FAC EBOOK : Facebook.com/ForeignAffairs
REPRODUCTION: The contents of Foreign Affairs are copyrighted. No part of the magazine may be reproduced, hosted
or distributed in any form or by any means without prior written permission from Foreign Affairs. To obtain permission, visit
ForeignAffairs.com/permissions
Foreign Affairs is a member of the Alliance for Audited Media and the Association of Magazine Media.
GST Number 127686483RT
Canada Post Customer #4015177 Publication #40035310
Buy CSS Books Online 03336042057
CONTRIBUTORS
A leading foreign policy thinker in China, YAN XUETONG
heads the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua
University, one of China’s most influential academic
institutions. Yan’s work focuses on China’s grand strategy
and global influence and the ancient philosophical
underpinnings of its foreign policy. In “The Age of
Uneasy Peace” (page 40), he lays out China’s foreign
policy goals and considers what they will mean in a world
increasingly shaped by U.S.-Chinese competition.
In her years as a law professor, ELIZABETH WARREN re-

searched bankruptcy, commercial law, and social mobility.
In 2012, after driving the creation of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, she was elected as a Demo-
cratic senator from Massachusetts, and in 2017, she
joined the Senate Armed Services Committee. In “A
Foreign Policy for All” (page 50), Warren argues that in
today’s struggle between open and closed societies, the
United States needs to embrace policies that strengthen
the foundations of democracy—at home and abroad.
SÉVERINE AUTESSERRE started her career working for

Doctors Without Borders, which took her to Afghanistan
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her experi-
ences on the ground drove her into academia, where she
has focused on trying to understand how societies move
from war to peace. Autesserre has conducted fieldwork in
Burundi, Colombia, Congo, Cyprus, East Timor, Israel
and the Palestinian territories, Somaliland, and South
Sudan. In “The Crisis of Peacekeeping” (page 101), she
argues that international efforts to end wars have oper-
ated with a flawed assumption of what makes peace.
A U T E S S E R R E P H O T O : C O P Y R I G H T E VA N M A N N
One of the foremost chroniclers of modern European

history, TIMOTHY GARTON ASH covered the final years of
communism on the continent as a journalist, watching the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the region’s transition to
democracy. Now at the University of Oxford and Stanford
University, Garton Ash leads a research program on free
speech and continues to write about the arc of European
history. In “Life After Liberation” (page 187), he reviews
the Polish journalist Witold Szablowski’s rollicking account
of eastern Europeans’ nostalgia for communist rule—and
considers what it means for the region’s fractious present.
T
wo decades ago, the U.S.- managing its deterioration. The demise
sponsored liberal international of the Concert of Europe, the world’s
order seemed to be going from last great order-building effort, showed
strength to strength. Now, both order the risks of catastrophe—and offers
and sponsor are in crisis, and the future is lessons for policymakers today who want
up for grabs. There are many elements to avert one. Washington needs to be
of the story—military and economic selective in its commitments, avoid
blunders, stagnation for the middle and unforced errors, and shed its reflexive
lower classes in the developed world, a opposition to multilateralism.
populist backlash against globalization, Oriana Skylar Mastro argues that
dizzying technological change—but a China is not trying to replace the
shifting balance of power may be the United States as a hegemon; it is trying
most important of all. That’s why we’ve to check the United States globally
focused on how the troubled hegemon while expelling it from a Chinese
and the confident challenger are trying sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific.
to write the story’s next chapter. Beijing has so far managed to avoid
We’ve chosen four takes, two on the undue attention and unwanted confron-
United States and two on China. Collec- tation by quietly focusing on regional
tively, they map a range of possibilities diplomacy, the issuance of carefully
for world order in the coming years. orchestrated threats and promises, and
Readers can decide which they find attempts to Finlandize U.S. allies. By
persuasive now, pending history’s actual the time Washington pays attention and
verdict later. responds appropriately, the chance to
I kick things off by arguing that avert disaster may be lost.
rumors of the liberal order’s demise are Yan Xuetong, finally, offers a view
greatly exaggerated. The order is the from Beijing. The temporary U.S.
deeply entrenched outcome of a century hegemony of the post–Cold War era
of U.S. efforts to promote a better kind has vanished, and bipolarity is set to
of international relations, and it has return. Chinese leaders understand this,
delivered more benefits than any but they haven’t yet worked out detailed
alternative could. The next U.S. presi- plans for how to use their newfound
dent is likely to try to revive it, with the strength to shape the world. Whether
support of U.S. allies. But whether Washington tries to restart the old
Washington can muster domestic order or not is irrelevant, because it
backing for a constructive foreign policy can’t be done. Nuclear deterrence should
remains unclear. keep hot war at bay, but look for rising
Richard Haass sees the glass half tensions and fierce competition at the
empty and getting emptier. The order levels just below.
can’t be revived; Washington must Happy New Year!
accept that fate and put its efforts into —Gideon Rose, Editor
Buy CSS Books Online https://cssbooks.net

Both the order

and its sponsor
are in crisis,
and the future
is up for grabs.
The Fourth Founding The Stealth Superpower

Gideon Rose 10 Oriana Skylar Mastro 31
T AV I S C O B U R N
How a World Order Ends The Age of Uneasy Peace

Richard Haass 22 Yan Xuetong 40
Return to Table of Contents
So how should the nation behave during

The Fourth the lengthy transition?
Coming at the problem a few decades

Founding into the experiment, Adams reasoned
that the top priorities for the fledgling
republic should be protecting the revolu-
The United States and the tion and perfecting the union. And so
Liberal Order just as President George Washington had
warned about the dangers of alliances
Gideon Rose and balance-of-power politics, Adams
warned about the dangers of ideological
crusades. The United States stood for
T
he United States began as a universal principles, but it need not always
radical experiment with grandi- export those principles or enforce them
ose ambitions. Its founders abroad. It could be the “well-wisher to
believed in Locke’s idea that free indi- the freedom and independence of all”
viduals could escape the perils of anarchy while being the “champion and vindica-
by joining together and cooperating for tor” only of its own.
mutual benefit—and they created a country The American grand strategy that
to show it wasn’t just talk. The signers of emerged in this era—continental expan-
the Declaration of Independence bound sion and internal development combined
themselves in a common political project, with self-righteous aloofness from the
establishing a limited government to world beyond the seas—suited a commer-
secure their rights and advance their cial republic deep in the global periphery.
interests. That act, noted Secretary of It could work, however, only because the
State John Quincy Adams in 1821, “was United States was protected by geography
the first solemn declaration by a nation and British naval supremacy. The country’s
of the only legitimate foundation of civil long rise during the nineteenth century
government. It was the corner stone of a was made possible by its calm external
new fabric, destined to cover the surface environment, a public good provided by
of the globe.” the liberal hegemon of the day.
From the start, the United States By the twentieth century, things had
was understood to be both country and changed. British power had declined;
cause, a distinct national community and American power had risen. The United
the standard-bearer of a global political States now dominated the Western
revolution. Destiny would take a long Hemisphere, patrolled the oceans, drove
time to play out. Until it did, until the the global economy, and needed a new
surface of the globe was covered with a grand strategy appropriate to its new
fabric of democratic republics, the good situation. American interests had once
new country would have to survive in the been served by keeping apart from the
bad old international system. “Probably world. Now those interests called for
for centuries to come,” Adams guessed. engaging with it. But what kind of engage-
ment was possible for a country built on a
GIDEON ROSE is Editor of Foreign Affairs. fundamental rejection of the old game?
10 F O R E I G N A F FA I R S
The Fourth Founding
After some experimentation, over Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman

the course of the century, the answer tried again during and after World War II,
gradually emerged, in fits and starts, by and this time, the order took hold, at least
trial and error. It proved oddly familiar: in part of the world. Then, Presidents
apply lessons from the country’s domes- George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton
tic founding to its foreign policy, taking refounded it for the post–Cold War era,
the logic of the social contract to the next extending it from the West to the rest.
level. If autonomous individuals in the As the cooperative arrangements
state of nature could find ways to cooper- developed in one period prove inadequate
ate for mutual benefit, why couldn’t for the next, the order’s forward progress
autonomous countries? They didn’t have stalls, and pessimism spreads. In the past,
to love one another or act saintly; they the obvious benefits of continued coop-
just needed to have some common eration have ultimately led new genera-
interests and understand the concept of a tions to create new arrangements so the
positive-sum game. The more countries good times keep rolling. Whether that
played such games, the more opportuni- pattern will continue is unclear.
ties they would have to benefit by In 2016, Anglosphere voters rang
cooperation as well as conflict. And down the curtain on the third phase of
gradually, interactions could turn into the order’s history with Brexit and the
relationships and then communities— election of U.S. President Donald Trump,
first functional, eventually institutional, and for two years, the world has drifted.
maybe one day even heartfelt. Conventional wisdom says the order is
This approach promised to resolve finished, has failed, was always a naive
the tension between American interests fantasy or a mere epiphenomenon of
and American ideals by achieving them temporary surplus power.
simultaneously, on the installment plan. And yet still, it moves. The order’s core
The United States would protect its insight about the potential for mutual
interests by amassing power and using it gains from voluntary, rules-based interna-
as necessary, and it would serve its ideals tional cooperation remains sound. Most
by nurturing an ever-growing commu- of the world has bought into the project
nity of independent countries that and wants to stick with it. No alternative
played nicely with one another. Coop- approach offers as many benefits, and
eration would lead to integration and most carry grave risks—for both the
prosperity, which would lead to liberal- United States and the world at large. So
ization. Slowly but steadily, Locke’s the conventional wisdom is likely wrong,
world would emerge from Hobbes’. and the administration after Trump’s will
The new grand strategy produced the almost certainly tack backward somewhat
dense web of benign reciprocal interac- and try to revive the order yet again.
tions now known as the liberal interna- A fourth founding will be difficult.
tional order. That order developed in But it can be done and needs to be done,
three stages. President Woodrow Wilson because the stakes are huge. The catch
first tried to found it after World War I. is that it will take a sincere commitment
He failed but gave his successors a model by the world’s dominant power to lead
and some cautionary lessons. Presidents rather than win.
Januar y/Februar y 2019 11

Gideon Rose
FIRST FOUNDING racies would be less warlike in general.

When the Great War broke out, in 1914, The administration planned to reinforce
the United States instinctively dove for its institutionalized democratic peace
cover. That was the standard nineteenth- with an open international trading order,
century playbook: not our problem. so benign commercial interactions would
Yet it didn’t last long in the twentieth gradually bind the world together in
century, because the country had grown peace and prosperity. (That free trade
too strong to be ignored. As the fight- would benefit the dominant United
ing in Europe settled into a grinding war States most of all went without saying.)
of attrition, the outcome increasingly International security, international
depended on the Allies’ access to the economics, domestic politics abroad—all
U.S. economy. So in 1917, Germany tried would have to be transformed before the
to cut off transatlantic shipping. Unre- United States could be secure. But when
stricted submarine warfare was designed it was, the world would be, too. This
to squeeze the Allies into submission. was a postwar vision grand enough to
Instead, it pulled the United States into justify the war’s carnage. Pulling it off
the war, and the world, for good. would be a long shot, however. Wilson
Watching the slaughter as a neutral, needed to get his own country behind
Wilson had refused to normalize it. The him, keep the British and the French in
whole enterprise of war was evil, he was check, and bring a revived, democra-
sure, not just any one belligerent. The tized Germany back into the European
root problem was the ruthless jockeying balance. Talleyrand or Bismarck might
for advantage that all European countries have had a chance; Wilson didn’t.
considered normal foreign policy behav- In the event, the cynical British and
ior. That whole mindset had to change. French pocketed American help during
So from the sidelines, Wilson called on the war, paid lip service to Wilson’s
the belligerents to declare the stalemated pieties, and kept on pursuing their
war a draw and move to a new kind of individual short-term interests just as
postwar order based on collective security before. The American people turned out
rather than competitive self-interest. to want not a negotiated truce and a
Soon afterward, Germany started postwar balance of power but complete
torpedoing all the U.S. ships it could submission and just the sort of harsh
find. This convinced Wilson that his treatment of Germany that Wilson
vision couldn’t be realized unless Ger- sought to avoid. And then, as the guns
many was reformed from the inside fell silent, the Kaiser’s regime collapsed,
out. So when the United States entered to be followed eventually by a weak,
the war, it sought not only a postwar unstable democratic successor unable to
collective security system but also the defend itself at home or abroad. The
removal of “Prussian autocracy.” British and the French happily took
Wilson thought regime change was advantage of the situation, imposing a
necessary because dictatorships could more punitive settlement at Versailles
not be trusted to participate in his than Wilson wanted or the Germans
collective security system. His secretary felt they had been promised, and things
of state, Robert Lansing, thought democ- went south from there.
The Fourth Founding
The peacemakers: at the World War I peace conference in Paris, 1919

The first attempt to found the order interests, beggaring their neighbors, and
was in trouble by the end of 1918, was on so forth. This led to a downward spiral of
life support by the end of 1919, and died mistrust, predation, depression, and war.
slowly and painfully in the years after. In 1941, just as in 1917, the United States
was attacked and dragged in because it
SECOND TRY was too powerful to be ignored. And
Wilson’s failure seemed to confirm the once again, roused from its geopolitical
wisdom of Adams’ prudence, and so slumber and driving to victory, Wash-
during the 1920s and 1930s, the United ington had to decide what to do next.
States turned inward again. Just as The Roosevelt administration was
before, however, the realities of power stocked with rueful Wilsonians. They
E D WA R D J A C K S O N / L I B R A R Y O F C O N G R E S S
made such a course impractical. The continued to believe that the best way
strongest country in the world necessar- to protect American interests was to use
ily affected, and was affected by, what American power to transform interna-
happened everywhere else. Retreating tional politics. If anything, they believed
into isolation now was like a toddler it even more passionately than before,
putting his head under a blanket: it given what had happened since. Still,
made things look better, but the outside having bungled the job once, they knew
world didn’t go away. they would have to up their game the
Sure enough, within a generation, the second time around.
other great powers were back to their old They agreed among themselves about
tricks, pursuing short-term individual what had gone wrong. The Wilson admin-

Gideon Rose
istration had tried to be soft on Germany to different constituencies. Because

and hard on Russia. It had permitted Roosevelt had allowed no succession
the United Kingdom, France, and Italy planning, the job of implementing his
to make secret agreements and hold ambitious agenda in the actually exist-
acquisitive war aims. It had waited until ing postwar world fell to his successor,
after the war to set up the League of Truman. And the job was tough.
Nations, designed it badly, and failed The United Kingdom was weaker than
to secure congressional approval of expected and rapidly shedding its remain-
American participation. Because of ing global commitments. Europe was in
these mistakes, the victorious wartime ruins, revolutionary nationalism was rising,
alliance fractured, the league foundered, the Soviets were playing hardball, and the
trade barriers deepened the Depression, American public was quickly turning
and eventually a despotic Germany rose inward again. After two years of watch-
up again and dragged the world back ing the situation deteriorate, Washington
into the maelstrom. decided to shift course, putting aside the
This remembered nightmare lay grand universal institutional framework it
behind the entire complex of U.S. plan- had just constructed and building a
ning for the postwar order. This time, smaller, more practical one in its place.
the thinking ran, Germany and the other The Bretton Woods system was thus
defeated Axis powers would be occupied supplemented by the Truman Doctrine,
and democratized. The Soviet Union the Marshall Plan, and NATO, a new set
would be courted. A better-designed of arrangements designed to revive and
league would be set up during the war, protect an American sphere of influence
with American participation locked in run along liberal lines.
from the start. And eventually, postwar
harmony and prosperity would be main- EXTENDING THE GAINS
tained through a combination of demo- Cooperation is difficult, especially with
cratic peace, great-power concert, institu- other people. Put together a group for a
tionalized multilateral cooperation, and stag hunt, Rousseau noted, and somebody
free trade. will run off to chase a hare, letting the
By early 1945, the new framework stag escape and the others go hungry.
seemed largely in place. Some things, Humans find it easier to bond over fear
such as Germany’s future status, were than hope. So a crucial moment for the
left undecided because Roosevelt wanted order came when hope and fear got
it that way. (He liked to improvise.) But yoked together to pull it forward.
the gaps did not seem crucial. Although In 1947, the Truman administration
somewhat concerned about Soviet behav- moved forward with its plan to pump
ior in eastern Europe and the transition American capital into a revived and
from a wartime to a peacetime economy, newly integrated European economy
the president died in April confident his centered on Germany and France. It
hopes would be realized. offered generous aid to any country in
Actually, there were lots of big prob- the region willing to play by the rules
lems looming, not least how to square the of the new system, and most grabbed
great juggler’s own conflicting promises the chance. But Moscow had no desire
to be part of any American system, so it

refused and ordered its minions to do
PARDEE SCHOOL
the same. A relieved Washington then
began building its order in the western
half of the continent, as Moscow did Your global
the same in the East. And so the second
phase of the order’s history came to journey
coincide with the geopolitical conflict
known as the Cold War. begins
American policymakers did indeed
come to see the Soviet Union as a threat
during the late 1940s. But that threat was
not to the U.S. homeland. It was to the
order they were trying to build, which
FOR
extended well beyond American borders
M
ER PRESIDENT OF LATV
to the major industrial power centers of
Europe and Asia and the global com-
mons and required a sustained forward
presence to maintain. Neither Congress
nor the American public was clamoring IA,
for the launch of such a grand new
VA
I RA
postwar project. They had their own

VI
KE
FR
EIB
problems and were skeptical about
-
ER
GA
, VI
authorizing large amounts of money to SITS
THE PA L.
RDEE SCHOO
get Europe back on its feet. So the
Truman administration cleverly flipped
Offering a
the story, presenting its new approach
not as an independent project of Ameri- ONE YEAR MA
can order building but as a response to in International
a growing Soviet threat. This got the
Relations.
Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan,
and other measures approved. But it
distorted what was really going on.
Containment was necessary to
protect the order. But once containment
was established as Washington’s strategic
frame, it dominated the narrative. Coop-
erative integration was sold as something
that was done to bind the American bu.edu/PardeeSchool @BUPardeeSchool
alliance together to win the conflict
rather than as something valuable in its
own right. This went on so long that Frederick S. Pardee
when the Cold War finally ended, many School of Global Studies
were surprised that the order continued.
15
Gideon Rose
Nobody expected the fall of the Bush’s comment: “Brent—I read this
Berlin Wall in 1989 or the collapse of with interest!”
the Soviet Union two years later. It was During the 1990s, therefore, the Bush
the sudden realization of the vision and Clinton administrations refounded
that the diplomat George Kennan had the order for the post–Cold War era.
put forth decades earlier: the United They weren’t sure how long unipolarity
States had held the line, waited, and would last and faced a skeptical public
eventually watched its opponent cede and Congress. So the technocrats impro-
the field. vised and muddled through as best they
What should come next for American could. Bush skillfully managed the Soviet
foreign policy? At the time, this seemed collapse, made a reunified Germany a
like an open question, and much ink was pillar of the order, led a coalition to
spilled in the “Kennan sweepstakes” as stabilize the Persian Gulf after Iraq’s
people proposed replacements for contain- invasion of Kuwait, nudged Israel and
ment. But the question was not really the Arabs toward peace, and managed
open, because there was an obvious U.S. finances responsibly.
answer: stay the course. Clinton continued the same general
The George H. W. Bush administra- course. He advanced North American
tion recognized that the Cold War had economic integration, renewed the
really been a challenge to the order, and U.S.-Japanese alliance, expanded NATO
so when the challenger gave up, the order to eastern Europe, contained regional
was free to expand and flourish. Washing- security threats in the Middle East and
ton’s mission now wasn’t to write a new Asia, promoted the Arab-Israeli peace
story. It was to write another chapter in process, and also managed U.S. finances
the old one, as Brent Scowcroft, Bush’s responsibly. By the turn of the millen-
national security adviser, told the presi- nium, the United States and the order
dent in a memo in 1989: were stronger, richer, and more secure
than ever.
In his memoirs, Present at the
Creation, Dean Acheson remarked
THE GREAT UNRAVELING
that, in 1945, their task “began to
appear as just a bit less formidable Two decades on, it’s complicated. By
than that described in the first chapter providing international public goods
of Genesis. That was to create a such as global and regional security,
world out of chaos; ours, to create freedom of the commons, and a liberal
half a world, a free half, out of the trading system, the United States created
same material without blowing the what was by any historical standard a
whole to pieces in the process.” When stable and benign global environment, a
those creators of the 1940s and 1950s planet-sized petri dish for human and
rested, they had done much. We national development. From 1989 to
now have unprecedented opportuni- 2016, global product more than tripled.
ties to do more, to pick up the task Standards of living skyrocketed. More
where they left off, while doing what
than a billion people were lifted out of
must be done to protect a handsome
inheritance. poverty. Infant mortality plummeted.
New technologies continuously im-
The Fourth Founding
proved daily life and connected people in wasn’t working for them, and they
extraordinary new ways. increasingly saw no reason to defer to
We did not go back to the future or dysfunctional establishments bent on
miss the Cold War. Europe was primed lining their own pockets. As one reader
for peace; Asian rivalries did not ripen. of Foreign Affairs recently commented,
Anarchy did not come; post–Cold War “I’ll simplify it for you: the average
chaos was a myth. On the big-ticket American rejects your Globalist, anti-
items—great-power peace and global American, anti-constitution, politically
prosperity—the realist pessimists were correct VOMIT.”
wrong, and the liberal optimists were right. By the 2010s, the old arrangements
But macrostability coexisted with were clearly broken, but thanks to politi-
regional disorder. The signal was hard to cal gridlock, nothing changed. President
detect in all the noise. And the architects Barack Obama’s foreign policy focused
of the current phase of globalization on trying to protect the order’s core by
forgot that the spread of capitalism is a retrenching from overextension in the
net good, not an absolute one. Along periphery. And then came Trump, a
with its gains come losses—of a sense of self-taught political genius who rode
place, of social and psychological stabil- to office as an outsider denouncing all
ity, of traditional bulwarks against life’s existing government policy.
vicissitudes. Absent some sort of state Foreign policy experts scoffed at
intervention, its benefits are not distrib- Trump’s instinctive embrace of “Amer-
uted steadily or evenly, producing anger ica first” as a campaign theme, because
and turbulence along with rising expecta- everybody knew that was the approach
tions. Washington turbocharged global- that had failed disastrously just before the
ization even as it cut back the domestic order succeeded brilliantly. But Trump
safety net, shifting risk from the state didn’t care. The order is a positive-sum
back to the public just as the gales of game, and he lives in a zero-sum world.
creative destruction started to howl. It is based on sustained cooperation for
More money created more prob- mutual benefit, which is not something
lems. Roman-level power led to Roman- Trump does. Ever.
level decadence. Uncontested dominance Trump’s election thus created an inter-
led to unnecessary, poorly planned esting situation. The person now tasked
crusades. Unregulated elites stumbled with running U.S. foreign policy wanted
into a financial crisis. And the techno- to take it back to the halcyon days of the
crats running things got so wrapped up 1930s. He favored competition rather than
in their cosmopolitan dream palaces cooperation, protectionism rather than free
that they missed how bad things were trade, authoritarianism rather than democ-
looking to many outside. racy. And he felt that his election allowed
As a result, liberalism’s project ended him to control the entire government by
up getting hijacked by nationalism, just fiat and whim, the same way he controlled
as Marxism’s project had back in the his company. Others disagreed, and the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. tensions have never been resolved. At one
Large segments of many Western popu- point, Trump’s entire national security
lations came to think that the order apparat gathered in the basement of the

Gideon Rose
Pentagon to explain the order to him. The It might seem that the cleverest
president was bored and implacable. (That post-Trump foreign policy would be a
was the meeting his then secretary of kinder, gentler Trumpism. The new
state left calling him “a fucking moron,” president could pocket whatever gains
according to Bob Woodward.) Trump extracted, drop the trash talk for
Over his first two years in office, the sweet talk, offer some concessions, and
president gradually worked out func- nod toward the old ideals—even while
tional power-sharing arrangements with continuing to bargain hard with every-
Republicans in Congress, producing an body about everything. The world would
administration devoted to tax cuts, deregu- be relieved to get past the crazy and
lation, conservative courts, military would praise the new occupant of the
spending, and restrictions on immigra- Oval Office just for not being Trump.
tion and trade. Missing from the agenda: With some token apologies for the
what one undocumented alien from the unpleasantness and a renewal of vows,
last century famously referred to as life could go on sort of as before. (Maybe
“truth, justice, and the American way.” even better, now that everybody remem-
In external affairs, torn between a bers that the United States has claws
volatile amateur president pulling one beneath its mittens.)
way and a sullen professional bureaucracy That would be a huge mistake. For by
pulling the other, lacking a grand strategy the time Trump leaves office, the dial on
or even strategists, the administration has U.S. foreign policy will have moved from
offered little more than photo ops and supporting the order to undermining it.
irritable gestures. The routine operations During Trump’s tenure, the United
of global-order maintenance continue, but States will have broken the bonds of
to increasingly less effect, because every- trust needed to keep the common project
body can see that the commander in chief moving forward, and without trust, the
scorns the underlying mission. Living in order will gradually start to come apart.
a constant transactional present, Trump Unless there is a major change in course,
deploys national power instinctively to other countries will follow Washington’s
grab whatever is in reach. Call it foreign lead and chase after hares, and nobody
policy as anti–social work. will get to eat venison for a long time.
Repairing the damage will require
NOW WHAT? more than being not Trump. It will
The next two years are likely to follow require being reverse Trump: telling the
the same pattern, with Trump’s in- truth, thinking for others as well as
creasing control of the executive oneself, playing for the long term.
branch offset by the Democrats’ con- Trumpism is about winning, which is
trol of the House of Representatives. something you do to others. The order
The order will not explode, but it will requires leading, which is something you
continue to corrode, heading toward do with others. If the next administration
what the political scientist Barry Posen appreciates that distinction, it will get the
has called “illiberal hegemony.” And opportunity to restart it yet again.
eventually, another president will come in Inconceivable, cry skeptics. Even if
and have to figure out what to do next. one buys this fairy-tale view of what
the order once accomplished, its day

is done. Americans don’t want it. The
world doesn’t want it. U.S. power is
declining; China’s is rising. A return to
great-power conflict is inevitable; the
only question is how far things will go. AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS of
Such bold pronouncements, how- Russia’s economy at a critical juncture.
ever, are rooted in an outdated concep- By Sergey Kulik, Nikita Maslennikov
tion of national power. Realists focus and Igor Yurgens
their analysis exclusively on material
factors such as military forces and shares
of global economic output. That might
make sense in a world of billiard-ball
states constantly knocking one another
around. But it turns out that large parts
of modern international life resemble
not perfect competition but its oppo-
site, what the political scientists Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye have called
“complex interdependence.” In those
areas, countries are knit together in lots
of relationships and networks, and life
is an endless series of stag hunts.
Survival is not just about winning
individual immunity challenges; it
requires a social game, the ability to
bring groups together. And the United
States turns out, ironically, to have a
pretty good social game—so good that it
has long since stopped conforming to
realist theory and developed its own
idiosyncratic approach, one academics
scramble afterward to capture with
theoretical griffins: empire by invitation,
consensual hegemony, liberal leviathan.
The United States’ hard power has A CRITICAL LOOK at the
indeed declined in relative terms from its major international dynamics
postwar peak. But this fact does not have at play in Eurasia affecting peace and
the significance realists assume, because prosperity in the region.
the country’s absolute hard power is Edited by Fen Osler Hampson and
greater than ever and is multiplied by its Mikhail Troitskiy
soft power. For generations, the United
States has done what realist theory said CIGI Press books are distributed by McGill-Queen’s University Press (mqup.ca)
and can be found in better bookstores and through online book retailers.
was impossible, playing international
19
Gideon Rose
politics as a team sport, not an individual communist China to beat Soviet Russia.
one. On balance, it has considered its Now it needs to lead a still larger group
role in the order to be the protector of a in a dance with contemporary China.
community, not the exploiter of hapless But some things are different now.
marks; it has participated in alliances, During the Cold War, the United States
not run a protection racket. Thanks to traded with its capitalist allies and
that, when it comes time for crucial tasks glowered at its communist enemies. The
of system maintenance, it can add its modern fields of international economics
friends’ power to its own. and security studies emerged during this
China’s situation is different. The period as separate tool kits for each set of
speed and scale of its rise over the last relationships. Now that China has risen
40 years have been astonishing. China, to be an economic peer without liberal-
too, took full advantage of the calm izing its regime, it is playing a mixed
external environment and open trading game of cooperation and competition,
order provided by the liberal hegemon something that Washington has never
of its day. And now it, too, has grown to had to deal with before at this level.
become a global player, requiring a new Neither engagement nor containment
strategy appropriate to its status. Yet alone is a viable approach. The question
because China plays as an individual, its is how to mix them without sliding into
own hard power is pretty much all it has conflict. That means combining measures
to offer. Apart from North Korea, it has across issue areas into a coherent strategy,
few allies; the cooperation it gets from prioritizing objectives, and working
others is purchased or commanded. But closely with allies and regional partners,
love is not for sale. bringing them along not through bully-
Squinting only at the bilateral ing but by patiently working out a
material balance, one might see a power mutually acceptable compromise.
transition in the offing. But in the real The order features an array of coop-
world, Team Washington versus Team erative bilateral, regional, and functional
Beijing is a lopsided contest, with the groupings. Because it has so many aspects
order backed by three-quarters of global and points of entry, countries not ready
defense spending, most of the largest to sign up for the whole package at once
economies, and the world’s reserve cur- can ease into it over time, starting on the
rency. What theorists call “the Thucydides margins and progressing toward the core
trap” has been pried open by the possi- at their own pace. That’s what the United
bilities of modernity. States and its allies should try to get
Dealing with the Chinese challenge China to do, in hopes that one day, it
will involve the familiar task of herding may indeed play the role of responsible
international cats. The United States stakeholder in the system. If the ap-
joined with the United Kingdom, proach succeeds, great. If not, blame
France, and Russia to beat Wilhelmine for any future conflict will fall on
Germany. It got the band back together Beijing, not Washington.
plus nationalist China to beat Nazi Policymakers will also need to address
Germany and imperial Japan. Then it the other great challenge of the day, the
brought together a larger group plus turbulence and anxiety produced by the
The Fourth Founding
rapid advance of markets in the post– Since it is easier to mobilize on fear

Cold War era. One of the lessons from than on hope, some supporters of the
the 1930s was that for economic liberalism order find a silver lining in the growing
to be politically sustainable in a democ- Chinese threat, reasoning that it might
racy, the state had to step in to help shield be possible to re-create a neo–Cold War
citizens from being whipsawed by market consensus in yet another long, twilight
forces. The Europeans insisted on ac- struggle against a new opponent. That
knowledgment of this as the price of their could be where things are heading
participation in the postwar system, and regardless. But it would be far better for
as a result, national economies were not Washington to listen to the better angels
forced to open up rapidly or completely. of its nature and try to avert, rather than
Today’s policymakers should recog- hasten, such an outcome.
nize the wisdom of that earlier bargain, In 1945, at the peak of its relative
pairing their international cooperation power, when it could have done any-
with a commitment to repairing their thing it wanted, the United States
torn domestic social safety nets and giving rejected isolation and realpolitik and
their societies time and space to catch chose to live in a world of its design. It
their breath and regain a sense of control did so, the dying Roosevelt explained,
over the pace of onrushing economic, because:
social, and technological change.
We have learned that we cannot live
This domestic side of the project is
alone, at peace; that our own well-
both valuable on its own and necessary being is dependent on the well-being
to maintain public support for the of other nations far away. We have
foreign policy side. For the real chal- learned that we must live as men, not
lenge to a fourth founding lies not in as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.
theory or policy but in politics. The We have learned to be citizens of the
order is not a nation-building project, world, members of the human commu-
just a functional set of cooperative nity. We have learned the simple truth,
arrangements designed to reduce the as Emerson said, that “The only way
downsides of anarchy. As such, it attracts to have a friend is to be one.”
minds, not hearts. Moreover, although
the story told here is true, the narrative When Roosevelt said it, he meant it—
thread is clearer in retrospect, so its and because he meant it, others believed
truth is not universally acknowledged. and joined him. The strategy of paying
Many Americans never bought into the it forward worked. Three-quarters of a
project, and many still don’t. Without century later, the team of free countries
the Cold War, it has proved ever more he assembled now runs the world in a
difficult to generate popular support for loose, patchy, inefficient consortium.
the country’s actual foreign policy. And When its members meet the next U.S.
so each president since the collapse of president, they will expect to hear the
the Soviet Union has come into office usual rhetoric, and will clap politely
promising to do less abroad than the when they do. And then they’ll watch to
previous one—only to be dragged by see whether there is anything left
events into doing more. beyond words.∂

But if the end of every order is

How a World inevitable, the timing and the manner of
its ending are not. Nor is what comes

Order Ends in its wake. Orders tend to expire in a
prolonged deterioration rather than a
sudden collapse. And just as maintaining
And What Comes in Its the order depends on effective statecraft
Wake and effective action, good policy and
proactive diplomacy can help determine
Richard Haass how that deterioration unfolds and what
it brings. Yet for that to happen, some-
thing else must come first: recognition
A
stable world order is a rare that the old order is never coming back
thing. When one does arise, it and that efforts to resurrect it will be in
tends to come after a great vain. As with any ending, acceptance
convulsion that creates both the condi- must come before one can move on.
tions and the desire for something new. In the search for parallels to today’s
It requires a stable distribution of power world, scholars and practitioners have
and broad acceptance of the rules that looked as far afield as ancient Greece,
govern the conduct of international where the rise of a new power resulted
relations. It also needs skillful statecraft, in war between Athens and Sparta,
since an order is made, not born. And no and the period after World War I, when
matter how ripe the starting conditions an isolationist United States and much
or strong the initial desire, maintaining of Europe sat on their hands as Ger-
it demands creative diplomacy, function- many and Japan ignored agreements
ing institutions, and effective action to and invaded their neighbors. But the
adjust it when circumstances change and more illuminating parallel to the
buttress it when challenges come. present is the Concert of Europe in the
Eventually, inevitably, even the nineteenth century, the most important
best-managed order comes to an end. and successful effort to build and
The balance of power underpinning it sustain world order until our own time.
becomes imbalanced. The institutions From 1815 until the outbreak of World
supporting it fail to adapt to new War I a century later, the order estab-
conditions. Some countries fall, and lished at the Congress of Vienna defined
others rise, the result of changing many international relationships and
capacities, faltering wills, and growing set (even if it often failed to enforce)
ambitions. Those responsible for basic rules for international conduct.
upholding the order make mistakes It provides a model of how to collectively
both in what they choose to do and in manage security in a multipolar world.
what they choose not to do. That order’s demise and what
followed offer instructive lessons for
RICHARD HAASS is President of the Council today—and an urgent warning.
on Foreign Relations and the author of A World
in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Just because an order is in irreversible
Crisis of the Old Order. decline does not mean that chaos or
How a World Order Ends
Concert crashers: British officers during the Crimean War, 1855

calamity is inevitable. But if the dete- tionary movements never again threat-
rioration is managed poorly, catastrophe ened their monarchies. The victorious
could well follow. powers also made the wise choice to
integrate a defeated France, a course
OUT OF THE ASHES very different from the one taken with
The global order of the second half of the Germany following World War I and
twentieth century and the first part of somewhat different from the one chosen
the twenty-first grew out of the wreck- with Russia in the wake of the Cold War.
age of two world wars. The nineteenth- The congress yielded a system known
century order followed an earlier as the Concert of Europe. Although
international convulsion: the Napoleonic centered in Europe, it constituted the
Wars, which, after the French Revolu- international order of its day given
R O G E R F E N T O N / L I B R A RY O F C O N G R E S S
tion and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, the dominant position of Europe and
ravaged Europe for more than a decade. Europeans in the world. There was a set
After defeating Napoleon and his armies, of shared understandings about relations
the victorious allies—Austria, Prussia, between states, above all an agreement
Russia, and the United Kingdom, the to rule out invasion of another country
great powers of their day—came together or involvement in the internal affairs of
in Vienna in 1814 and 1815. At the another without its permission. A rough
Congress of Vienna, they set out to military balance dissuaded any state
ensure that France’s military never again tempted to overthrow the order from
threatened their states and that revolu- trying in the first place (and prevented

Richard Haass
any state that did try from succeeding). Christians living within the Ottoman
Foreign ministers met (at what came to Empire, in actuality it was much more
be called “congresses”) whenever a major about who would control territory
issue arose. The concert was conserva- as that empire decayed. The conflict
tive in every sense of the word. The pitted France, the United Kingdom,
Treaty of Vienna had made numerous and the Ottoman Empire against
territorial adjustments and then locked Russia. It lasted two and a half years,
Europe’s borders into place, allowing from 1853 to 1856. It was a costly
changes only if all signatories agreed. war that highlighted the limits of the
It also did what it could to back monar- concert’s ability to prevent great-power
chies and encourage others to come war; the great-power comity that
to their aid (as France did in Spain in had made the concert possible no
1823) when they were threatened by longer existed. Subsequent wars be-
popular revolt. tween Austria and Prussia and Prussia
The concert worked not because and France demonstrated that major-
there was complete agreement among power conflict had returned to the
the great powers on every point but heart of Europe after a long hiatus.
because each state had its own reasons Matters seemed to stabilize for a time
for supporting the overall system. after that, but this was an illusion.
Austria was most concerned with resist- Beneath the surface, German power
ing the forces of liberalism, which was rising and empires were rotting.
threatened the ruling monarchy. The The combination set the stage for
United Kingdom was focused on World War I and the end of what had
staving off a renewed challenge from been the concert.
France while also guarding against
a potential threat from Russia (which WHAT AILS THE ORDER?
meant not weakening France so What lessons can be drawn from this
much that it couldn’t help offset the history? As much as anything else, the
threat from Russia). But there was rise and fall of major powers deter-
enough overlap in interests and consen- mines the viability of the prevailing
sus on first-order questions that the order, since changes in economic
concert prevented war between the strength, political cohesion, and mili-
major powers of the day. tary power shape what states can and are
The concert technically lasted a willing to do beyond their borders.
century, until the eve of World War I. Over the second half of the nineteenth
But it had ceased to play a meaningful century and the start of the twentieth,
role long before then. The revolution- a powerful, unified Germany and a
ary waves that swept Europe in 1830 modern Japan rose, the Ottoman
and 1848 revealed the limits of what Empire and tsarist Russia declined, and
members would do to maintain the France and the United Kingdom
existing order within states in the face grew stronger but not strong enough.
of public pressure. Then, more conse- Those changes upended the balance
quentially, came the Crimean War. of power that had been the concert’s
Ostensibly fought over the fate of foundation; Germany, in particular,
came to view the status quo as inconsis-

tent with its interests.
Changes in the technological and
political context also affected that
underlying balance. Under the concert,
popular demands for democratic partici-
pation and surges of nationalism threat-
ened the status quo within countries,
while new forms of transportation,
communication, and armaments trans-
formed politics, economics, and warfare.
The conditions that helped give rise
to the concert were gradually undone.
Yet it would be overly deterministic “Bravo to Jim Krane for his thoughtful and well-
researched book that explains the important roles oil
to attribute history to underlying
has played in the domestic economies and internal
conditions alone. Statecraft still mat- politics of the Persian Gulf states, and the hard choices
ters. That the concert came into exis- they will have to make as they try to wean their citizens
tence and lasted as long as it did under- from a troubling reliance on it.”
scores that people make a difference. —James A. Baker, sixty-first U.S. secretary of state
under President George H.W. Bush
The diplomats who crafted it—Metter-
nich of Austria, Talleyrand of France,
Castlereagh of the United Kingdom—
were exceptional. The fact that the
concert preserved peace despite the
gap between two relatively liberal
countries, France and the United
Kingdom, and their more conservative
partners shows that countries with
different political systems and prefer-
ences can work together to maintain
international order. Little that turns out
to be good or bad in history is inevi- “A much-needed insider view from an important
table. The Crimean War might well have political figure and reform economist.”
been avoided if more capable and —Jack Matlock Jr., former U.S. ambassador
careful leaders had been on the scene. “Grigory Yavlinsky’s book is of great importance.
It is far from clear that Russian actions He gives us a clear-eyed diagnosis of Putinism,
a phenomenon that exacerbates the crisis in
warranted a military response by democracy and casts a shadow over the
France and the United Kingdom of the world order in the 21st century.”
nature and on the scale that took place. —Strobe Talbott, Brookings Institution
That the countries did what they did
also underscores the power and dangers
of nationalism. World War I broke out
in no small part because the successors to CUP.COLUMBIA.EDU
German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck
25
Richard Haass
were unable to discipline the power theirs was an order based on means
of the modern German state he did so rather than ends. That there were only
much to bring about. two power centers made reaching such
Two other lessons stand out. First, it an agreement easier.
is not just core issues that can cause an The other post–World War II order
order to deteriorate. The concert’s was the liberal order that operated
great-power comity ended not because alongside the Cold War order. Democ-
of disagreements over the social and racies were the main participants in this
political order within Europe but effort, which used aid and trade to
because of competition on the periphery. strengthen ties and fostered respect for
And second, because orders tend to the rule of law both within and between
end with a whimper rather than a bang, countries. The economic dimension of
the process of deterioration is often not this order was designed to bring about a
evident to decision-makers until it has world (or, more accurately, the non-
advanced considerably. By the outbreak communist half of it) defined by trade,
of World War I, when it became development, and well-functioning
obvious that the Concert of Europe no monetary operations. Free trade would
longer held, it was far too late to save be an engine of economic growth and
it—or even to manage its dissolution. bind countries together so that war
would be deemed too costly to wage;
A TALE OF TWO ORDERS the dollar was accepted as the de facto
The global order built in the aftermath global currency.
of World War II consisted of two The diplomatic dimension of the
parallel orders for most of its history. order gave prominence to the UN. The
One grew out of the Cold War between idea was that a standing global forum
the United States and the Soviet Union. could prevent or resolve international
At its core was a rough balance of disputes. The UN Security Council,
military strength in Europe and Asia, with five great-power permanent mem-
backed up by nuclear deterrence. The bers and additional seats for a rotating
two sides showed a degree of restraint in membership, would orchestrate
their rivalry. “Rollback”—Cold War international relations. Yet the order
parlance for what today is called “regime depended just as much on the willing-
change”—was rejected as both infea- ness of the noncommunist world
sible and reckless. Both sides followed (and U.S. allies in particular) to accept
informal rules of the road that included American primacy. As it turns out,
a healthy respect for each other’s back- they were prepared to do this, as the
yards and allies. Ultimately, they reached United States was more often than not
an understanding over the political viewed as a relatively benign hegemon,
order within Europe, the principal arena one admired as much for what it
of Cold War competition, and in 1975 was at home as for what it did abroad.
codified that mutual understanding in Both of these orders served the
the Helsinki Accords. Even in a divided interests of the United States. The core
world, the two power centers agreed on peace was maintained in both Europe
how the competition would be waged; and Asia at a price that a growing U.S.
How a World Order Ends
economy could easily afford. Increased the same might be said of NATO en-
international trade and opportunities largement, an initiative clearly at odds
for investment contributed to U.S. with Winston Churchill’s dictum “In
economic growth. Over time, more victory, magnanimity.” Russia also
countries joined the ranks of the democ- judged the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011
racies. Neither order reflected a perfect NATO military intervention in Libya,
consensus; rather, each offered enough which was undertaken in the name of
agreement so that it was not directly humanitarianism but quickly evolved
challenged. Where U.S. foreign policy into regime change, as acts of bad faith
got into trouble—such as in Vietnam and illegality inconsistent with notions
and Iraq—it was not because of alliance of world order as it understood them.
commitments or considerations of order The liberal order is exhibiting its own
but because of ill-advised decisions to signs of deterioration. Authoritarianism
prosecute costly wars of choice. is on the rise not just in the obvious
places, such as China and Russia, but
SIGNS OF DECAY also in the Philippines, Turkey, and
Today, both orders have deteriorated. eastern Europe. Global trade has grown,
Although the Cold War itself ended long but recent rounds of trade talks have
ago, the order it created came apart in a ended without agreement, and the World
more piecemeal fashion—in part because Trade Organization (WTO) has proved
Western efforts to integrate Russia into unable to deal with today’s most pressing
the liberal world order achieved little. challenges, including nontariff barriers
One sign of the Cold War order’s dete- and the theft of intellectual property.
rioration was Saddam Hussein’s 1990 Resentment over the United States’
invasion of Kuwait, something Moscow exploitation of the dollar to impose
likely would have prevented in previous sanctions is growing, as is concern over
years on the grounds that it was too the country’s accumulation of debt.
risky. Although nuclear deterrence still The UN Security Council is of little
holds, some of the arms control agree- relevance to most of the world’s conflicts,
ments buttressing it have been broken, and international arrangements have
and others are fraying. failed more broadly to contend with the
Although Russia has avoided any challenges associated with globalization.
direct military challenge to NATO, it has The composition of the Security Coun-
nonetheless shown a growing willing- cil bears less and less resemblance to the
ness to disrupt the status quo: through real distribution of power. The world
its use of force in Georgia in 2008 and has put itself on the record as against
Ukraine since 2014, its often indiscrimi- genocide and has asserted a right to
nate military intervention in Syria, intervene when governments fail to live
and its aggressive use of cyberwarfare up to the “responsibility to protect” their
to attempt to affect political outcomes citizens, but the talk has not translated
in the United States and Europe. All into action. The Nuclear Nonproliferation
of these represent a rejection of the Treaty allows only five states to have
principal constraints associated with the nuclear weapons, but there are now nine
old order. From a Russian perspective, that do (and many others that could

Richard Haass
follow suit if they chose to). The EU, by climate change and cyberattacks, have
far the most significant regional arrange- come up short. Mistakes within the
ment, is struggling with Brexit and EU—namely, the decisions to establish a
disputes over migration and sovereignty. common currency without creating a
And around the world, countries are common fiscal policy or a banking union
increasingly resisting U.S. primacy. and to permit nearly unlimited immigra-
tion to Germany—have created a power-
POWER SHIFTS ful backlash against existing govern-
Why is all this happening? It is instruc- ments, open borders, and the EU itself.
tive to look back to the gradual demise The United States, for its part, has
of the Concert of Europe. Today’s committed costly overreach in trying to
world order has struggled to cope with remake Afghanistan, invading Iraq, and
power shifts: China’s rise, the appear- pursuing regime change in Libya. But
ance of several medium powers (Iran and it has also taken a step back from main-
North Korea, in particular) that reject taining global order and in certain cases
important aspects of the order, and the has been guilty of costly underreach.
emergence of nonstate actors (from In most instances, U.S. reluctance to act
drug cartels to terrorist networks) that has come not over core issues but over
can pose a serious threat to order within peripheral ones that leaders wrote off as
and between states. not worth the costs involved, such as the
The technological and political strife in Syria, where the United States
context has changed in important ways, failed to respond meaningfully when
too. Globalization has had destabilizing Syria first used chemical weapons or to
effects, ranging from climate change to do more to help anti-regime groups.
the spread of technology into far more This reluctance has increased others’
hands than ever before, including a propensity to disregard U.S. concerns
range of groups and people intent on and act independently. The Saudi-led
disrupting the order. Nationalism and military intervention in Yemen is a case
populism have surged—the result of in point. Russian actions in Syria and
greater inequality within countries, the Ukraine should also be seen in this light;
dislocation associated with the 2008 it is interesting that Crimea marked the
financial crisis, job losses caused by trade effective end of the Concert of Europe
and technology, increased flows of and signaled a dramatic setback in
migrants and refugees, and the power of the current order. Doubts about U.S.
social media to spread hate. reliability have multiplied under the
Meanwhile, effective statecraft is Trump administration, thanks to its
conspicuously lacking. Institutions have withdrawal from numerous international
failed to adapt. No one today would pacts and its conditional approach to
design a UN Security Council that looked once inviolable U.S. alliance commit-
like the current one; yet real reform is ments in Europe and Asia.
impossible, since those who would lose
influence block any changes. Efforts to MANAGING THE DETERIORATION
build effective frameworks to deal with Given these changes, resurrecting the
the challenges of globalization, including old order will be impossible. It would
also be insufficient, thanks to the emer-

gence of new challenges. Once this is
acknowledged, the long deterioration of
the Concert of Europe should serve as a
lesson and a warning.
For the United States to heed that
warning would mean strengthening
certain aspects of the old order and
supplementing them with measures that
account for changing power dynamics Bring the
and new global problems. The United
States would have to shore up arms REAL WORLD
control and nonproliferation agree-
ments; strengthen its alliances in Europe
to your classroom
and Asia; bolster weak states that
cannot contend with terrorists, cartels,
and gangs; and counter authoritarian Case Studies
powers’ interference in the democratic
process. Yet it should not give up trying
to integrate China and Russia into
regional and global aspects of the order. American foreign policy
Such efforts will necessarily involve a Global institutions
mix of compromise, incentives, and
pushback. The judgment that attempts
to integrate China and Russia have Terrorism & security
mostly failed should not be grounds for International trade
rejecting future efforts, as the course
of the twenty-first century will in no Women, peace and security
small part reflect how those efforts fare. Health and science
The United States also needs to and more...
reach out to others to address problems
of globalization, especially climate
change, trade, and cyber-operations. Join our Faculty Lounge for
These will require not resurrecting the premier access to this unique
old order but building a new one. online library of nearly 250
Efforts to limit, and adapt to, climate case studies and simulations
change need to be more ambitious. The
WTO must be amended to address the — and make diplomacy part
sorts of issues raised by China’s appro- of your course
priation of technology, provision of
subsidies to domestic firms, and use of
nontariff barriers to trade. Rules of the https://c ases tudies.isd.georgetown.edu/
road are needed to regulate cyberspace.
Together, this is tantamount to a call for
29
Richard Haass
a modern-day concert. Such a call is nate its region, likely resulting in clashes
ambitious but necessary. with other regional powers, such as
The United States must show re- India, Japan, and Vietnam, which would
straint and recapture a degree of respect probably build up their conventional or
in order to regain its reputation as a even nuclear forces.
benign actor. This will require some sharp A new democratic, rules-based order
departures from the way U.S. foreign fashioned and led by medium powers
policy has been practiced in recent in Europe and Asia, as well as Canada,
years: to start, no longer carelessly however attractive a concept, would
invading other countries and no longer simply lack the military capacity and
weaponizing U.S. economic policy domestic political will to get very far.
through the overuse of sanctions and A more likely alternative is a world with
tariffs. But more than anything else, the little order—a world of deeper disarray.
current reflexive opposition to multilat- Protectionism, nationalism, and popu-
eralism needs to be rethought. It is one lism would gain, and democracy would
thing for a world order to unravel lose. Conflict within and across borders
slowly; it is quite another for the coun- would become more common, and
try that had a large hand in building it rivalry between great powers would
to take the lead in dismantling it. increase. Cooperation on global chal-
All of this also requires that the lenges would be all but precluded. If
United States get its own house in this picture sounds familiar, that is
order—reducing government debt, because it increasingly corresponds to
rebuilding infrastructure, improving the world of today.
public education, investing more in the The deterioration of a world order
social safety net, adopting a smart can set in motion trends that spell
immigration system that allows talented catastrophe. World War I broke out some
foreigners to come and stay, tackling 60 years after the Concert of Europe
political dysfunction by making it less had for all intents and purposes broken
difficult to vote, and undoing gerry- down in Crimea. What we are seeing
mandering. The United States cannot today resembles the mid-nineteenth
effectively promote order abroad if it is century in important ways: the post–
divided at home, distracted by domestic World War II, post–Cold War order
problems, and lacking in resources. cannot be restored, but the world is not
The major alternatives to a modern- yet on the edge of a systemic crisis.
ized world order supported by the Now is the time to make sure one never
United States appear unlikely, unap- materializes, be it from a breakdown in
pealing, or both. A Chinese-led order, U.S.-Chinese relations, a clash with
for example, would be an illiberal Russia, a conflagration in the Middle
one, characterized by authoritarian East, or the cumulative effects of climate
domestic political systems and statist change. The good news is that it is far
economies that place a premium on from inevitable that the world will
maintaining domestic stability. There eventually arrive at a catastrophe; the
would be a return to spheres of influ- bad news is that it is far from certain
ence, with China attempting to domi- that it will not.∂
has no interest in establishing a web of

The Stealth global alliances, sustaining a far-flung

global military presence, sending troops
Superpower thousands of miles from its borders, lead-
ing international institutions that would
constrain its own behavior, or spreading
How China Hid Its Global its system of government abroad.
Ambitions But to focus on this reluctance, and the
reassuring Chinese statements reflecting
Oriana Skylar Mastro it, is a mistake. Although China does
not want to usurp the United States’
position as the leader of a global order,
C
“ hina will not, repeat, not repeat its actual aim is nearly as consequential.
the old practice of a strong In the Indo-Pacific region, China wants
country seeking hegemony,” complete dominance; it wants to force
Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, said the United States out and become the
last September. It was a message that region’s unchallenged political, economic,
Chinese officials have been pushing and military hegemon. And globally,
ever since their country’s spectacular even though it is happy to leave the
rise began. For decades, they have been United States in the driver’s seat, it
at pains to downplay China’s power and wants to be powerful enough to counter
reassure other countries—especially the Washington when needed. As one
United States—of its benign intentions. Chinese official put it to me, “Being a
Jiang Zemin, China’s leader in the 1990s, great power means you get to do what
called for mutual trust, mutual benefit, you want, and no one can say anything
equality, and cooperation in the country’s about it.” In other words, China is
foreign relations. Under Hu Jintao, who trying to displace, rather than replace,
took the reins of power in 2002, “peace- the United States.
ful development” became the phrase of The way that China has gone about
the moment. The current president, Xi this project has caused many observers
Jinping, insisted in September 2017 that to mistakenly conclude that the country
China “lacks the gene” that drives great is merely trying to coexist with American
powers to seek hegemony. power rather than fundamentally over-
It is easy to dismiss such protestations turn the order in Asia and compete with
as simple deceit. In fact, however, Chinese U.S. influence globally. In fact, ambiguity
leaders are telling the truth: Beijing truly has been part of the strategy: Chinese
does not want to replace Washington at leaders have recognized that in order to
the top of the international system. China succeed, they must avoid provoking an
unfavorable response, and so they have
ORIANA SKYLAR MASTRO is Assistant
Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown refrained from directly challenging the
University and Jeane Kirkpatrick Visiting United States, replicating its order-
Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. building model, or matching its globally
She is the author of the forthcoming book The
Costs of Conversation: Obstacles to Peace Talks active military. Although Beijing has
in Wartime. pursued an indirect and entrepreneurial

strategy of accumulating power, make In the political realm, China has

no mistake: the ultimate goal is to push undertaken a combination of covert
the United States out of the Indo-Pacific actions and public diplomacy to co-opt
and rival it on the global stage. and neutralize foreign opposition. To
Until now, China has succeeded in shape the discourse on sensitive topics,
growing without provoking. Yet there is it has set up hundreds of Confucius
a limit to how powerful a country can get Institutes at universities around the
without directly challenging the incum- world and launched English-language
bent power, and China is now reaching media outlets to disseminate the Chinese
that point. Under Xi, China has begun Communist Party’s narrative. Chinese
confronting American power head-on. intelligence agents have even recruited
Given the country’s internal challenges, Chinese citizens studying abroad to
China’s rise could still stall. But history act as informants and pass along what
has shown that in the vast majority of Chinese students and professors are
cases in which a country was able to saying about their country. In Australia
sustain its rise, the rising power ended and New Zealand, China has sought to
up overtaking the dominant power, influence politics more directly, secretly
whether peacefully or through war. donating money to preferred candidates.
That does not mean that the United Beijing has been especially innovative
States cannot buck the historical trend. in its use of economic power. The strategy
To remain dominant, Washington will here has been to finance infrastructure
have to change course. It will have to in the developing world in order to create
deepen, rather than lessen, its involve- dependent, and thus compliant, foreign
ment in the liberal international order. It governments. Most recently, those efforts
will have to double down on, rather than have taken the form of the Belt and Road
abandon, its commitment to American Initiative, a massive regional infrastructure
values. And perhaps most important, it project launched in 2013. China has spent
will have to ensure that its leadership about $400 billion on the initiative (and
benefits others rather than pursue a pledged hundreds of billions of dollars
strategy based on “America first.” more), and it has convinced 86 countries
and international organizations to sign
HOW CHINA ROSE some 100 related cooperation agreements.
Throughout history, would-be powers Chinese aid, which primarily takes the
have invented new ways of growing. form of loans from banks controlled by the
The Mongol Empire connected lands Chinese Communist Party, doesn’t come
through trade, the Qing dynasty built a with the usual Western strings attached:
tributary system, the United Kingdom there are no requirements for market
collected colonies, the Soviet Union reforms or better governance. What China
created ideologically linked spheres of does demand from recipients, however, is
influence, and the United States estab- allegiance on a number of issues, including
lished an institutionalized order and a the nonrecognition of Taiwan.
global military presence. China, too, has As the analyst Nadège Rolland has
looked for new sources of power and has written, the Belt and Road Initiative “is
used it in ways not previously attempted. intended to enable China to better use
The Stealth Superpower
Containing a superpower: at the Port of Shanghai, January 2011

its growing economic clout to achieve its China’s entrepreneurialism is not
ultimate political aims without provoking limited to the economic and political
a countervailing response or a military realms; it also has a hard-power compo-
conflict.” The key is that Beijing has left nent. Indeed, perhaps nowhere has
the military dimensions of this project Beijing been more entrepreneurial than
ambiguous, generating uncertainty within in its military strategy. Its “anti-access/
Washington about its true intentions. area-denial” (A2/AD) doctrine, for one
Many observers have wondered whether thing, was a masterstroke of innovation:
the Belt and Road Initiative will eventu- by developing relatively low-cost asym-
ally have a strong military component, but metric military capabilities, the country
that misses the point. Even if the initia- has been able to greatly complicate any
tive is not the prelude to an American- U.S. plan to come to the aid of Japan,
style global military presence—and it the Philippines, or Taiwan in the event
probably isn’t—China could still use the of war. For another thing, instead of
economic and political influence gener- confronting the United States to push its
ated by the project to limit the reach of military out of the Asia-Pacific region,
A LY S O N G / R E U T E R S
American power. For instance, it could China has engaged in subtler activities,
pressure dependent states in Africa, the such as harassing U.S. ships and aircraft
Middle East, and South Asia to deny with nonmilitary means, which allow it
the U.S. military the right to enter their to maintain a degree of deniability and
airspace or access their ground facilities. discourage a U.S. response. Thanks to

such tactics, China has made significant that its forces would focus more on
political and territorial gains without peacekeeping and humanitarian relief
crossing the threshold into open conflict than on war. Even China’s infamous
with the United States or its allies. A2/AD doctrine was initially framed as
China has also avoided sparking a con- a way of limiting the United States’
certed response from the United States ability to intervene in Asia rather than
by deliberately delaying the modern- as a method for projecting Chinese
ization of its military. As Chinese leader power. China didn’t launch its first
Deng Xiaoping famously put it, “Hide aircraft carrier until 2012, and not
your strength, bide your time.” Since until 2013 did it undertake the struc-
countries tend to draw inferences about a tural reforms that will eventually allow
challenger’s intentions from the size and its military to contest U.S. primacy in
nature of its armed forces, China opted the Indo-Pacific region in all domains.
to first build up other types of power—
economic, political, and cultural—in MINDING THE GAP
order to project a less threatening image. Another key part of China’s strategy of
When, in the 1970s, Deng started accumulating power concerns its rela-
pursuing the “four modernizations”—of tionship with the U.S.-led global order.
agriculture, industry, science and technol- Beijing has created uncertainty about its
ogy, and national defense—he saved ultimate goals by supporting the order in
military modernization for last. Through- some areas and undermining it in others.
out the 1980s, China focused first on This pick-and-choose approach reflects
building its economy; it then supple- the fact that China benefits greatly from
mented its burgeoning economic power parts of the current order. Permanent
with political influence, joining interna- membership in the UN Security Council
tional institutions throughout the 1990s allows it to help set the international
and the first decade of this century. At the agenda and block resolutions it disagrees
turn of the millennium, China’s military with. The World Bank has lent China
was still remarkably backward. Its ships tens of billions of dollars for domestic
didn’t have the capability to sail safely infrastructure projects. The World Trade
far beyond visual range of the coastline, Organization, which China joined in
its pilots were not adept at flying at night 2001, dramatically opened up the coun-
or over water, and its nuclear missiles try’s access to foreign markets, leading
relied on outmoded liquid fuel. Most of its to a surge in exports that drove a decade
ground units did not have modern, mecha- plus of impressive economic growth. But
nized equipment, such as up-to-date tanks. there are parts of the global order that
It was not until the late 1990s that China wants to alter. And the country
China began modernizing its military has discovered that by exploiting existing
in earnest. And even then, it focused on gaps, it can do so without triggering
capabilities that were more appropriate immediate concern.
for dominating Taiwan than projecting The first type of gap in the order is
power more broadly. China also signaled geographic. Some parts of the world fall
that it sought to use its military for the largely outside the order, either because
global good, with Hu publicly announcing they have chosen to absent themselves
Diverse voices.
Common purpose.
Climate change. Political unrest. Rising Master of Arts in
Conflict Resolution and Coexistence
inequality. Today’s global challenges
are more urgent than ever, and tackling Master of Arts in
them requires fresh ideas and new Sustainable International Development
approaches. At Heller, we arm students
Master of Science in
with the cutting-edge theoretical skills Global Health Policy and Management
and on-the-ground experience they
need to tackle tough challenges, so Social Impact MBA
they have exactly what it takes to make
Master of Public Policy
meaningful global impact.
Doctor of Philosophy in Social Policy
Learn more at heller.brandeis.edu

or because they have been low priorities its own annual World Internet Confer-
for the United States. In those places, ence, which promulgates the Chinese
where the U.S. presence tends to be weak view of Internet regulation.
or nonexistent, China has found that it In the maritime realm, China is
can make significant inroads without exploiting a lack of international consen-
provoking the hegemon. Thus, China sus on the law of the sea. Although the
initially chose to focus on leveraging its United States insists that naval vessels’
economic power to build influence in freedom of navigation is enshrined in
Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast international law, many other countries
Asia. It also doubled down on close contend that warships have no auto-
relationships with unsavory regimes matic right of innocent passage through
that the international community had a country’s territorial waters—an argu-
ostracized, such as Iran, North Korea, ment made not just by China but also
and Sudan, which allowed it to increase by U.S. allies such as India. By taking
its political power without threatening advantage of these discrepancies (and
the United States’ position. the United States’ failure to ratify the
The second type of gap is thematic. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea),
In issue areas where the established China is able to contest U.S. freedom-of-
order is weak, ambiguous, or nonexis- navigation operations within the rubric
tent, China has sought to establish new of the existing international order.
standards, rules, norms, and processes
that advantage it. Consider artificial THE NEW COMPETITION
intelligence. China is trying to shape Thanks to this novel strategy, China has
the rules governing this new technology been able to grow into one of the most
in ways that favor its own companies, powerful countries in the world, second,
legitimizing its use for domestic surveil- perhaps, only to the United States. And
lance and weakening the voice of civil if it had chosen to persist with this strat-
society groups that inform the debate egy, the country would have continued
about it in Europe and North America. to stay off the United States’ radar screen.
When it comes to the Internet, But rising powers can delay provocation
meanwhile, China has been pushing the for only so long, and the bad news for
notion of “cyber-sovereignty.” In this the United States—and for peace and
view, which contrasts with the Western security in Asia—is that China has now
consensus, cyberspace should be gov- entered the beginning stages of a direct
erned primarily by states, rather than a challenge to the U.S.-led order.
coalition of stakeholders, and states have Under Xi, China is unabashedly
the right to regulate whatever content undermining the U.S. alliance system
they wish within their borders. To shift in Asia. It has encouraged the Philip-
the norm in this direction, China has pines to distance itself from the United
put the brakes on U.S. efforts to include States, it has supported South Korea’s
civil society groups in the UN Group of efforts to take a softer line toward North
Governmental Experts, the main norm- Korea, and it has backed Japan’s stance
setting body for Western governments in against American protectionism. It is
cyberspace. Since 2014, it has also held building offensive military systems
capable of controlling the sea and for unmanned drones. It should also create
airspace within the so-called first island new treaties aimed at preventing warfare
chain and of projecting power past the in cyberspace (and in outer space, too,
second. It is blatantly militarizing the for that matter). And when China sets
South China Sea, no longer relying on up its own institutions, as it did with the
fishing vessels or domestic law enforce- Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in
ment agencies to exercise its conception 2016, the United States should join the
of sovereignty. It has even started engag- new organizations early on to influence
ing in military activities outside Asia, their development rather than attempt
including establishing its first overseas to undermine them. The goal should be
base, in Djibouti. All these moves suggest to build a more comprehensive interna-
one thing: China is no longer content to tional order that cannot be pulled in
play second fiddle to the United States China’s illiberal direction.
and seeks to directly challenge its posi- The United States also needs to step
tion in the Indo-Pacific region. up its economic game. China has nearly
For the United States, competing as many formal trade agreements in place
with China today cannot be a matter of as does the United States, which, in Asia,
confronting the country or, as Secretary has struck bilateral free-trade agreements
of State Mike Pompeo said in October with only Australia, Singapore, and South
2018, opposing it “at every turn.” Wash- Korea. The Trans-Pacific Partnership,
ington should focus on building U.S. signed by 12 countries in 2016, was a step
power and influence everywhere else in in the right direction, but the Trump
the world—making the United States administration withdrew from the pro-
more attractive as a political, economic, posed deal, thus dooming what would
and military partner—instead of under- have been the world’s largest free-trade
mining China’s attempts to do the equiv- agreement, covering 40 percent of the
alent. By focusing on self-improvement global economy. Instead, the administra-
over confrontation, Washington can tion has preferred protectionist policies,
reduce the risk of creating an enemy and which will serve only to facilitate Chinese
triggering unnecessary conflict. economic dominance in Asia. As if on cue,
The first step is for the United States China has launched its own version of
to expand the reach of the order it leads, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional
thus reducing the gaps China can exploit. Comprehensive Economic Partnership,
Contrary to the worldview of U.S. which is set to include 16 Asian countries.
President Donald Trump, the world Washington should also rethink the
needs more order, not less. Washington way it offers economic assistance. To
should add new institutions to cover get more bang for its buck, it will need
the parts of the order that have none to coordinate more closely with its allies.
and revise old ones for the parts that are In the Pacific Islands, for example, the
outdated. It should, for example, lead an United States lags well behind China in
effort to update the Missile Technology terms of trade, investment, and devel-
Control Regime, a 1987 partnership to opment assistance. But by pooling its
stop the proliferation of nuclear delivery resources with Australia, which has
systems, to better account for the advent announced a massive infrastructure

project there, the United States could agree that the United States should try
multiply its influence in the region. to maintain its preeminence in the region
The same goes for Central Asia: if the through competitive but peaceful means.
United States coordinated its priorities The irony, however, is that if the United
with Japan, Switzerland, and the United States succeeds in doing that, the likeli-
Kingdom (all of which are major investors hood of conflict with China may go up.
in the region), it could more effectively That’s because Chinese leaders emphati-
promote liberal political and economic cally believe that the failure to rejuvenate
policies there. Cooperation is not enough their nation is a fate worse than war, and
on its own, however; Washington also they will not shy away from a conflict if
needs to increase its own unilateral aid. that is what it takes to succeed. As a
Another way the United States can result, if U.S. leaders deem primacy in
maintain its edge is to take a cue from Asia worth protecting, they should brace
China and become more entrepreneurial themselves for the possibility that doing
in how it acquires and exercises power. so may require the use of military force.
The standard playbook Washington has The worst of all worlds would be to fail
been following since the end of the Cold to compete in peacetime, thus accommo-
War will no longer do. If the United dating Chinese power by default, and
States is upset with a country over its then—once a conflict erupts—decide
human rights abuses, for example, reduc- that U.S. primacy is important, after all.
ing or even cutting off economic and By that time, however, the United States
diplomatic ties as punishment risks would be in a poor position to prevail.
ceding influence to a less discriminating The United States must also consider
China. Instead, Washington should what costs it is willing to bear to defend
increase its engagement with the unsa- the countries in Asia that are not its allies
vory government, pursuing U.S. interests yet whose subjugation would threaten
not just on a diplomatic level but also the bedrock principles of the interna-
on a people-to-people level. Similarly, tional order. In the South China Sea,
when it comes to military relations, the for example, the United States claims
United States needs to upgrade its tool that its naval operations are aimed at
kit. Port visits, air shows, and even foreign defending the general principle of free-
military sales and joint exercises are often dom of navigation, but in practice, it has
merely symbolic and fail to demonstrate proved willing to physically protect the
the United States’ commitment to a passage rights only of U.S. and allied
country. Far more effective in preparing ships. Washington’s failure to stand up
for conflict would be efforts to create for non-allies whose rights to sail freely
common threat perceptions through are being restricted puts its preeminent
enhanced intelligence sharing and joint position at risk. So the United States
contingency planning. should start laying the groundwork for a
U.S. policymakers must also under- coalition, similar to the antipiracy task
take a thorough consideration of what force it developed in the Gulf of Aden,
costs would (and would not) be worth whose ships would escort any vessel in
bearing in order to maintain the United need of protection in the South China
States’ dominant position in Asia. Most Sea, regardless of nationality.
Other scenarios are even more dire. work with weak partners that can be
When China’s first round of military easily controlled.
reforms are completed, which is pro- To be competitive, Washington
jected to be around 2025, Beijing will cannot stoop to Beijing’s level. The
be tempted to test its new capabilities United States does not by any means
against a weak country that does not have a perfect track record of living up
enjoy U.S. protection. Take Vietnam. to its values, but by and large, it has
Even though the United States has no chosen to lead the world in a way that
obligation to defend the country, if ensures that others also benefit. Now is
China forcibly took an island in the not the time to abandon this inclusive
South China Sea currently occupied approach. Washington should support
by Vietnam and Washington stood by, the international institutions that make
its role as the guarantor of peace in the up the liberal order. It should dedicate
region would be thrown into question, greater resources to defending its allies
and China would be emboldened. and partners. And in its economic
Washington thus needs to be prepared assistance, it should focus on quality
for the unfamiliar possibility of using over quantity, seeking to make sure that
military force to defend a country as many people as possible benefit from
with which it has no alliance. development. What has made the
United States number one is that it
RISING TO THE OCCASION thinks globally—not just about “America
Great-power competition is not just first.” Only by expanding the reach of its
about military calculations or economic own liberal values can the United States
pull. The United States also needs to weather China’s challenge.∂
recommit to protecting its values. Some
in the Washington establishment speak
longingly about Beijing’s ability to get
things done, thanks in part to its disre-
gard for liberal norms. Indeed, this sort
of agnosticism does give China an
advantage. It is able to win over Asian
governments by doling out money with
no strings attached, its state-owned
enterprises receive not just state sup-
port but also proprietary information
through espionage, and its authoritarian
political system makes it far easier to
control the narrative about its goals and
missions both at home and abroad. But
China has an Achilles’ heel: its leaders
have failed to articulate a vision of
global dominance that is beneficial for
any country but China. That is why,
unlike the United States, it prefers to

What kind of world order will this

The Age of bring? Contrary to what more alarmist
voices have suggested, a bipolar U.S.-

Uneasy Peace Chinese world will not be a world on
the brink of apocalyptic war. This is in
large part because China’s ambitions for
Chinese Power in a the coming years are much narrower
Divided World than many in the Western foreign policy
establishment tend to assume. Rather
Yan Xuetong than unseating the United States as the
world’s premier superpower, Chinese
I
n early October 2018, U.S. Vice foreign policy in the coming decade will
President Mike Pence delivered a largely focus on maintaining the condi-
searing speech at a Washington think tions necessary for the country’s contin-
tank, enumerating a long list of reproaches ued economic growth—a focus that will
against China. From territorial disputes in likely push leaders in Beijing to steer clear
the South China Sea to alleged Chinese of open confrontation with the United
meddling in U.S. elections, Pence accused States or its primary allies. Instead, the
Beijing of breaking international norms coming bipolarity will be an era of uneasy
and acting against American interests. The peace between the two superpowers. Both
tone was unusually blunt—blunt enough sides will build up their militaries but
for some to interpret it as a harbinger of remain careful to manage tensions before
a new Cold War between China and the they boil over into outright conflict. And
United States. rather than vie for global supremacy
Such historical analogies are as through opposing alliances, Beijing and
popular as they are misleading, but the Washington will largely carry out their
comparison contains a kernel of truth: competition in the economic and techno-
the post–Cold War interregnum of U.S. logical realms. At the same time, U.S.-
hegemony is over, and bipolarity is set to Chinese bipolarity will likely spell the
return, with China playing the role of the end of sustained multilateralism outside
junior superpower. The transition will strictly economic realms, as the combi-
be a tumultuous, perhaps even violent, nation of nationalist populism in the West
affair, as China’s rise sets the country on and China’s commitment to national
a collision course with the United States sovereignty will leave little space for the
over a number of clashing interests. But kind of political integration and norm
as Washington slowly retreats from some setting that was once the hallmark of
of its diplomatic and military engage- liberal internationalism.
ments abroad, Beijing has no clear plan
for filling this leadership vacuum and WHAT CHINA WANTS
shaping new international norms from China’s growing influence on the world
the ground up. stage has as much to do with the United
States’ abdication of its global leadership
YAN XUETONG is Distinguished Professor and
Dean of the Institute of International Relations under President Donald Trump as with
at Tsinghua University. China’s own economic rise. In material
The Age of Uneasy Peace
Dreaming of a new world order: Xi at a news conference in Mexico City, July 2018
terms, the gap between the two coun- accords and institutions. In 2018 alone,
tries has not narrowed by much in it ditched the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
recent years: since 2015, China’s GDP Forces Treaty, the nuclear deal with Iran,
growth has slowed to less than seven and the UN Human Rights Council.
percent a year, and recent estimates put It is still unclear if this retrenchment
U.S. growth above the three percent is just a momentary lapse—a short-lived
mark. In the same period, the value of aberration from the norm—or a new
the renminbi has decreased by about ten U.S. foreign policy paradigm that could
percent against the U.S. dollar, under- outlive Trump’s tenure. But the global
cutting China’s import capacity and its fallout of Trumpism has already pushed
currency’s global strength. What has some countries toward China in ways that
changed a great deal, however, is the would have seemed inconceivable a few
expectation that the United States will years ago. Take Japanese Prime Minister
continue to promote—through diplo- Shinzo Abe, who effectively reversed
macy and, if necessary, military power— Japan’s relations with China, from barely
an international order built for the most hidden hostility to cooperation, during a
part around liberal internationalist prin- state visit to Beijing in October 2018,
ciples. Under Trump, the country has when China and Japan signed over 50
EDGARD GARRI DO / REUTERS
broken with this tradition, questioning agreements on economic cooperation.

the value of free trade and embracing a Meanwhile, structural factors keep
virulent, no-holds-barred nationalism. The widening the gap between the two global
Trump administration is modernizing front-runners, China and the United
the U.S. nuclear arsenal, attempting to States, and the rest of the world. Already,
strong-arm friends and foes alike, and the two countries’ military spending
withdrawing from several international dwarfs everybody else’s. By 2023, the U.S.

Yan Xuetong
defense budget may reach $800 billion, related to the initiative, and this number
and the Chinese one may exceed $300 is set to increase in the coming years. At
billion, whereas no other global power its 2017 National Congress, the Chinese
will spend more than $80 billion on its Communist Party went so far as to
forces. The question, then, is not whether enshrine a commitment to the initiative
a bipolar U.S.-Chinese order will come in its constitution—a signal that the
to be but what this order will look like. party views the infrastructure project as
At the top of Beijing’s priorities is a more than a regular foreign policy. China
liberal economic order built on free trade. is also willing to further open its domes-
China’s economic transformation over tic markets to foreign goods in exchange
the past decades from an agricultural for greater access abroad. Just in time for
society to a major global powerhouse— a major trade fair in Shanghai in November
and the world’s second-largest economy— 2018—designed to showcase the country’s
was built on exports. The country has potential as a destination for foreign
slowly worked its way up the value goods—China lowered its general tariff
chain, its exports beginning to compete from 10.5 percent to 7.8 percent.
with those of highly advanced econo- Given this enthusiasm for the global
mies. Now as then, these exports are the economy, the image of a revisionist
lifeblood of the Chinese economy: they China that has gained traction in many
ensure a consistent trade surplus, and the Western capitals is misleading. Beijing
jobs they create are a vital engine of relies on a global network of trade ties,
domestic social stability. There is no so it is loath to court direct confronta-
indication that this will change in the tion with the United States. Chinese
coming decade. Even amid escalating leaders fear—not without reason—that
trade tensions between Beijing and such a confrontation might cut off its
Washington, China’s overall export access to U.S. markets and lead U.S.
volume continued to grow in 2018. U.S. allies to band together against China
tariffs may sting, but they will neither rather than stay neutral, stripping it of
change Beijing’s fundamental incentives important economic partnerships and
nor portend a general turn away from valuable diplomatic connections. As a
global free trade on its part. result, caution, not assertiveness or
Quite to the contrary: because China’s aggressiveness, will be the order of the
exports are vital to its economic and day in Beijing’s foreign policy in the
political success, one should expect coming years. Even as it continues to
Beijing to double down on its attempts to modernize and expand its military,
gain and maintain access to foreign China will carefully avoid pressing
markets. This strategic impetus is at the issues that might lead to war with the
heart of the much-touted Belt and Road United States, such as those related to
Initiative, through which China hopes to the South China Sea, cybersecurity,
develop a vast network of land and sea and the weaponization of space.
routes that will connect its export hubs
to far-flung markets. As of August 2018, NEW RULES?
some 70 countries and organizations had Indeed, much as Chinese leaders hope
signed contracts with China for projects to be on par with their counterparts in
Washington, they worry about the strate-

gic implications of a bipolar U.S.-Chinese
order. American leaders balk at the idea
of relinquishing their position at the top
of the global food chain and will likely
go to great lengths to avoid having to
accommodate China. Officials in Beijing,
in no hurry to become the sole object of
Washington’s apprehension and scorn,
would much rather see a multipolar
world in which other challenges—and
challengers—force the United States
to cooperate with China.
In fact, the United States’ own rise
in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries provides something of a model
for how the coming power transition may
take place. Because the United Kingdom,
the world’s undisputed hegemon at the
time, was preoccupied with fending off a
We don't break
challenger in its vicinity—Germany—it the news;
we break it down.
did not bother much to contain the rise
of a much bigger rival across the pond.
China is hoping for a similar dynamic
now, and recent history suggests it Educate your employees and
could indeed play out. In the early customers about the most
months of George W. Bush’s presi- pressing global issues of today
dency, for instance, relations between with a Foreign Affairs Foreign
Beijing and Washington were souring Policy Briefing. Bring us to
over regional disputes in the South
your office or event space to
China Sea, reaching a boiling point
when a Chinese air force pilot died in provide expert perspective on
a midair collision with a U.S. surveil- the forces shaping your world
lance plane in April 2001. Following and your business.
the 9/11 attacks a few months later,
however, Washington came to see
China as a useful strategic partner in
its global fight against terrorism, and
For inquiries about events
relations improved significantly over at your organization,
the rest of Bush’s two terms. please contact us at
Today, unfortunately, the list of events@foreignaffairs.com
common threats that could force the
two countries to cooperate is short.
After 17 years of counterterrorism
43
Yan Xuetong
campaigns, the sense of urgency that tional law. In recent years, some have
once surrounded the issue has faded. interpreted public statements by
Climate change is just as unlikely to Chinese leaders in support of global-
make the list of top threats anytime ization as a sign that Beijing seeks to
soon. The most plausible scenario is fashion itself as the global liberal order’s
that a new global economic crisis in new custodian, yet such sweeping inter-
the coming years will push U.S. and pretations are wishful thinking: China is
Chinese leaders to shelve their disagree- merely signaling its support for a liberal
ments for a moment to avoid economic economic order, not for ever-increasing
calamity—but this, too, remains a political integration. Beijing remains
hypothetical. fearful of outside interference, particu-
To make matters worse, some points larly relating to Hong Kong, Taiwan,
of potential conflict are here to stay— Tibet, and Xinjiang, as well as on matters
chief among them Taiwan. Relations of press freedom and online regulations.
between Beijing and Taipei, already As a result, it views national sovereignty,
tense, have taken a turn for the worse rather than international responsibili-
in recent years. Taiwan’s current govern- ties and norms, as the fundamental
ment, elected in 2016, has questioned the principle on which the international
notion that mainland China and Taiwan order should rest. Even as a new super-
form a single country, also known as the power in the coming decade, China will
“one China” principle. A future govern- therefore pursue a less interventionist
ment in Taipei might well push for de jure foreign policy than the United States
independence. Yet a Taiwanese indepen- did at the apex of its power. Consider
dence referendum likely constitutes a the case of Afghanistan: even though it
redline for Beijing and may prompt it to is an open secret that the United States
take military action. If the United States expects the Chinese military to shoul-
were to respond by coming to Taiwan’s der some of the burden of maintaining
aid, a military intervention by Beijing stability there after U.S. troops leave
could easily spiral into a full-fledged the country, the Chinese government
U.S.-Chinese war. To avoid such a crisis, has shown no interest in this idea.
Beijing is determined to nip any Taiwan- Increased Chinese clout may also
ese independence aspirations in the bud bring attempts to promote a vision of
by political and economic means. As a world order that draws on ancient
result, it is likely to continue lobbying Chinese philosophical traditions and
third countries to cut off their diplo- theories of statecraft. One term in
matic ties with Taipei, an approach it particular has been making the rounds
has already taken with several Latin in Beijing: wangdao, or “humane au-
American countries. thority.” The word represents a view of
Cautious or not, China set somewhat China as an enlightened, benevolent
different emphases in its approach to hegemon whose power and legitimacy
norms that undergird the international derive from its ability to fulfill other
order. In particular, a more powerful countries’ security and economic needs—
China will push for a stronger empha- in exchange for their acquiescence to
sis on national sovereignty in interna- Chinese leadership.
The Age of Uneasy Peace
BIPOLARITY IN PRACTICE no signs of abating. Across the globe,

Given the long shadow of nuclear escala- secessionist conflicts and terrorist attacks
tion, the risk of a direct war between will continue to occur, the latter espe-
China and the United States will remain cially if competition between China and
minimal, even as military, technological, the United States reduces their coopera-
and economic competition between them tion on counterterrorism measures.
intensifies. Efforts on both sides to build In the economic realm, export-driven
ever more effective antimissile shields economies, such as China, Germany,
are unlikely to change this, since neither and Japan, will ensure the survival of a
China nor the United States can improve global liberal trade regime built on
its antimissile systems to the point of free-trade agreements and member-
making the country completely impervi- ship in the World Trade Organization—
ous to a nuclear counterattack. If anything, no matter what path the United States
the United States’ withdrawal from the takes. On other matters of global gover-
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces nance, however, cooperation is likely to
Treaty will encourage both sides to build stall. Even if a future U.S. administra-
up their nuclear forces and improve tion led a renewed push toward multilat-
their second-strike capabilities, ensuring eralism and international norm setting,
that neither side will be confident it China’s status as a junior superpower
can launch a nuclear attack on the other would make it difficult for the United
without suffering a devastating retalia- States to sustain the strong leadership
tion. The threat of nuclear war will also that has traditionally spurred such
keep Chinese tensions with other nuclear- initiatives in the past. Differences in
armed powers, such as India, from ideology and clashing security interests
escalating into outright war. will prevent Beijing and Washington
Proxy wars, however, cannot be ruled from leading jointly, but neither will
out, nor can military skirmishes among have enough economic or military clout
lesser states. In fact, the latter are likely to lead on its own. To the extent that
to become more frequent, as the two multilateral initiatives persist in such a
superpowers’ restraint may embolden world, they will be limited to either
some smaller states to resolve local side’s respective sphere of influence.
conflicts by force. Russia, in particular, China’s emphasis on national sover-
may not shy away from war as it tries to eignty, together with Western societies’
regain its superpower status and maintain turn away from globalism, will deal an
its influence in eastern Europe and the additional blow to multilateralism. The
Middle East. Faced with calls to reform European Union is already fraying, and
the UN Security Council, fraying powers a number of European countries have
such as France and the United Kingdom reintroduced border controls. In the
may seek to buttress their claim to coming decade, similar developments
permanent membership in the council will come to pass in other domains. As
through military interventions abroad. technological innovation becomes the
In the Middle East, meanwhile, the primary source of wealth, countries
struggle for regional dominance among will become ever more protective of
Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia shows their intellectual property. Many

Yan Xuetong
countries are also tightening control of in the Indo-Pacific. At the same time,
capital flows as they brace for a global these states still maintain close trade
economic slump in the near future. and investment relations with China,
And as concerns over immigration and and several of them have sided with
unemployment threaten to undermine Beijing in trying to reform the World
Western governments’ legitimacy, more Trade Organization.
and more countries will increase visa This two-track strategy shows just
restrictions for foreign workers. how far down the road to bipolarity the
Unlike the order that prevailed world has already advanced. And the
during the Cold War, a bipolar U.S.- fundamental driver of this process—
Chinese order will be shaped by fluid, the raw economic and military clout on
issue-specific alliances rather than which American and, increasingly,
rigid opposing blocs divided along clear Chinese dominance rests—will further
ideological lines. Since the immediate cement Beijing’s and Washington’s status
risk of a U.S.-Chinese war is vanishingly as the two global heavyweights in the
small, neither side appears willing to coming decade. Whether or not the
build or maintain an extensive—and United States recovers from its Trumpian
expensive—network of alliances. China fever and leads a renewed push for global
still avoids forming explicit alliances, and liberalism is, ultimately, of little conse-
the United States regularly complains quence to the outcome: opposed in their
about free-riding allies. Moreover, neither strategic interests but evenly matched in
side is currently able to offer a grand their power, China and the United States
narrative or global vision appealing to will be unable to challenge each other
large majorities at home, let alone to a directly and settle the struggle for
large number of states. supremacy definitively. As during the
For some time to come, then, U.S.- Cold War, each side’s nuclear warheads
Chinese bipolarity will not be an ideo- will prevent proxy conflicts from easily
logically driven, existential conflict over escalating into a direct confrontation
the fundamental nature of the global between the two superpowers. More
order; rather, it will be a competition important still, China’s leadership is
over consumer markets and technologi- acutely aware of the benefits its country
cal advantages, playing out in disputes derives from the status quo, for now—it
about the norms and rules governing is chief among the conditions for China’s
trade, investment, employment, exchange continued economic and soft-power
rates, and intellectual property. And expansion—and will avoid putting these
rather than form clearly defined military- benefits on the line anytime soon, unless
economic blocs, most states will adopt a China’s core interests are in the balance.
two-track foreign policy, siding with the Chinese leaders will therefore work hard
United States on some issues and China to avoid setting off alarm bells in already
on others. Western allies, for instance, jittery Western capitals, and their foreign
are still closely aligned with the United policy in the coming years will reflect
States on traditional security matters this objective. Expect recurring tensions
inside NATO, and Australia, India, and and fierce competition, yes, but not a
Japan have supported the U.S. strategy descent into global chaos.∂
ESSAYS
If we do not stand
up to those who seek
to undermine our
democracy and our
economy, we will
end up as bystanders
to the destruction
of both.
—Elizabeth Warren
A Foreign Policy for All Trump Versus the Government

Elizabeth Warren 50 Elliott Abrams 129
The Eroding Balance of Terror America’s Long Goodbye

Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. 62 Eliot A. Cohen 138
How Congress Can Take Back Deepfakes and the New
Foreign Policy Disinformation War
Brian McKeon and Caroline Tess 76 Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron 147
America’s Middle East Purgatory The Unhackable Election

Mara Karlin and Tamara Cofman Wittes 88 Michael Chertoff and
Anders Fogh Rasmussen 156
EDGAR SU / REUTERS
The Crisis of Peacekeeping

Séverine Autesserre 101
The Free-Trade Paradox

Alan S. Blinder 119
A Foreign Policy for All

Strengthening Democracy—at Home
and Abroad
Elizabeth Warren
A
round the world, democracy is under assault. Authoritarian
governments are gaining power, and right-wing demagogues
are gaining strength. Movements toward openness and plu-
ralism have stalled. Inequality is growing, transforming rule by the
people into rule by wealthy elites. And here in the United States, many
Americans seem to accept—even embrace—the politics of division and
resentment.
How did we get here? There’s a story Americans like to tell our-
selves about how we built a liberal international order—one based on
democratic principles, committed to civil and human rights, account-
able to citizens, bound by the rule of law, and focused on economic
prosperity for all. It’s a good story, with deep roots. But in recent
decades, Washington’s focus has shifted from policies that benefit
everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites. After the Cold
War, U.S. policymakers started to believe that because democracy
had outlasted communism, it would be simple to build democracy
anywhere and everywhere. They began to export a particular brand of
capitalism, one that involved weak regulations, low taxes on the wealthy,
and policies favoring multinational corporations. And the United States
took on a series of seemingly endless wars, engaging in conflicts with
mistaken or uncertain objectives and no obvious path to completion.
The impact of these policy changes has been devastating. While
international economic policies and trade deals have worked gloriously
well for elites around the world, they have left working people dis-
couraged and disaffected. Efforts to promote the United States’ own
security have soaked up huge resources and destabilized entire regions,
ELIZABETH WARREN is a Democratic U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.
and meanwhile, U.S. technological dominance has quietly eroded.

Inequality has grown worldwide, contributing to an unfolding nation-
alist backlash that seeks to upend democracy itself. It is little wonder
that the American people have less faith in their government today
than at any other time in modern U.S. history. The country is in a
moment of crisis decades in the making.
To fight back, we need to pursue international economic policies
that benefit all Americans, not merely an elite few. We need strong yet
pragmatic security policies, amplified by diplomacy. And the United
States can no longer maintain the comfortable assumption that its
domestic and foreign policies are separate. Every decision the gov-
ernment makes should be grounded in the recognition that actions
that undermine working families in this country ultimately erode
American strength in the world. In other words, we need a foreign
policy that works for all Americans.
The urgency of the moment cannot be overstated. At home and
abroad, democracy is on the defense. The details of the problem vary
from place to place, but one cause stands out everywhere: the sys-
tematic failure to understand and invest in the social, political, and
economic foundations on which democracies rest. If we do not stand
up to those who seek to undermine our democracy and our economy,
we will end up as bystanders to the destruction of both.
MAKING GLOBALIZATION WORK

The globalization of trade has been tremendously profitable for the
largest American corporations. It has opened up opportunity and
lifted billions out of poverty around the world.
But U.S. trade and economic policies have not delivered for the
middle class. For decades, both Democratic and Republican leaders
asserted that free trade was a rising tide that would lift all boats. Great
rhetoric, except that the trade deals they negotiated mainly lifted the
boats of the wealthy while leaving millions of working Americans to
drown. Policymakers were willing to sacrifice American jobs in hopes
of lowering prices for consumer goods at home and spreading open
markets abroad. They pushed former Soviet states to privatize as
quickly as possible despite the risk of corruption, and they advocated
China’s accession to the World Trade Organization despite its unfair
trading practices. They backed international institutions such as
the International Monetary Fund, even as those organizations pushed

Elizabeth Warren
austerity, deregulation, and privatization—policies that reduced public

faith in both capitalism and democracy and left governments with fewer
fiscal levers when economic crises hit.
And what has this brought us? Policymakers promised that open
markets would lead to open societies. Instead, efforts to bring capital-
ism to the global stage unwittingly helped create the conditions for
competitors to rise up and lash out. Russia became belligerent and
resurgent. China weaponized its economy without ever loosening its
domestic political constraints. Other countries’ faith in both capitalism
and democracy eroded. A program once aimed at promoting the
forces of freedom ended up empowering the opposite.
Meanwhile, multinational corporations exploited their enormous
influence on both sides of the negotiating table to ensure that the terms
of trade between nations always favored
their own bottom lines. Time after time,
U.S. foreign policy should American workers got the short end of
not prioritize corporate the stick. Median household income
profits over American in the United States stagnated for a
families. generation, and policymakers’ choices
helped the elite but put workers at an
even greater disadvantage: decimated
unions, lower labor standards, rising costs of living. Job training and
transition assistance proved powerless against the onslaught of offshor-
ing, providing little more than burial insurance for workers who lost
their jobs. And as capital became more mobile, corporations and wealthy
individuals sent trillions of dollars to offshore tax havens, robbing the
U.S. government of needed resources to reinvest at home in updated
infrastructure and public education. By the time the 2008 global finan-
cial crash came around, it only confirmed what millions of Americans
already knew: the system was rigged against working people.
Donald Trump campaigned against that rigged system. But after
two years in office, it is clear that his economic policies are beyond
inept; they are deliberately rigged in favor of his family and his
wealthy friends. His renegotiated North American Free Trade
Agreement raises drug prices for consumers while doing little to
stem the flow of good jobs going to other countries. His tariffs have
hit farming communities hard and driven trading partners into the
arms of U.S. competitors. And his conflicts of interest with corrupt
foreign governments—from expedited Chinese patent applications
for his daughter Ivanka Trump to the millions in foreign money spent
at the Trump family’s Washington hotel—raise obvious questions about
who he is really working for. This president may have campaigned
on a promise to put “America first,” but his policies have put the Trump
family first and middle-class American families last.
A new approach should begin with a simple principle: U.S. foreign
policy should not prioritize corporate profits over American families.
To make sure that globalization benefits middle-class Americans, trade
negotiations should be used to curtail the power of multinational
monopolies and crack down on tax havens. Workers should be meaning-
fully represented at the negotiating table, and the resulting agreements
should be used to raise and enforce labor standards. Washington should
also work with like-minded allies to hold countries that cheat to account.
The United States’ economic policies must also reflect the realities
of the twenty-first century. To address corruption, it is critical to work
closely with allies to require transparency about the movement of
assets across borders. If we are serious about privacy, we must protect
data rights from global technology companies and countries that seek
to exploit technology as a means to control their populations. To make
progress on climate change, we should leverage foreign countries’
desire for access to U.S. markets as an opportunity to insist on meaning-
ful environmental protections.
None of this requires sacrificing the interests of American businesses—
although it will require some of them to take a longer view. U.S.
businesses can compete with the best in the world when given a level
playing field, and they are stronger when the American middle class
is strong. If our trade and economic policies work for all Americans,
shareholders and corporate executives will profit as well.
ENDING ENDLESS WAR

A foreign policy that works for all Americans must also be driven by
honest assessments of the full costs and risks associated with going to
war. All three of my brothers served in the military, and I know our
service members and their families are smart, tough, and resourceful.
But having a strong military doesn’t mean we need to constantly use
it. An effective deterrent also means showing the good judgment to
exercise appropriate restraint.
Over the past two decades, the United States has been mired in a
series of wars that have sapped its strength. The human cost of these

Elizabeth Warren
wars has been staggering: more than 6,900 killed in Afghanistan and
Iraq, another 52,000 wounded, and many more who live every day
with the invisible scars of war. By financing these conflicts while cutting
taxes, the country has essentially charged the costs of war to a collective
credit card for future generations to pay, diverting money that could
have been invested in critical domestic priorities. This burden will
create a drag on the economy that will last for generations.
The costs have been extraordinarily high, but these wars have
not succeeded even on their own terms. We’ve “turned the corner” in
Afghanistan so many times that it seems we’re now going in circles.
After years of constant war, Afghanistan hardly resembles a functioning
state, and both poppy production and the Taliban are again on the rise.
The invasion of Iraq destabilized and fragmented the Middle East,
creating enormous suffering and precipitating the deaths of hundreds
of thousands of people. The region remains a tangled mess—the promise
of the Arab Spring crushed, Iran emboldened, Syria devastated, the
Islamic State (or ISIS) and its offshoots stubbornly resilient, and a
massive refugee crisis threatening to destabilize Europe. Neither mili-
tary nor civilian policymakers seem capable of defining success, but
surely this is not it.
A singular focus on counterterrorism, meanwhile, has dangerously
distorted U.S. policies. Here at home, we have allowed an imperial
presidency to stretch the Constitution beyond recognition to justify
the use of force, with little oversight from Congress. The government
has at times defended tactics, such as torture, that are antithetical to
American values. Washington has partnered with countries that
share neither its goals nor its ideals. Counterterrorism efforts have
often undermined other foreign policy priorities, such as reinforcing
civilian governance, the rule of law, and human rights abroad. And
in some cases, as with U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s proxy war in
Yemen, U.S. policies risk generating even more extremism.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen
up close how 17 years of conflict have degraded equipment, sapped
forces’ readiness, and forced the postponement of investment in crit-
ical military capabilities. It has distracted Washington from growing
dangers in other parts of the world: a long-term struggle for power in
Asia, a revanchist Russia that threatens Europe, and looming unrest
in the Western Hemisphere, including a collapsing state in Venezuela
that threatens to disrupt its neighbors. Would-be rivals, for their part,
“Fletcher’s GMAP is the program for

mid-careers on the cusp of leadership
roles and who cannot leave their jobs.
It helps connect the dots between
global affairs and public policy.”
– Mohamad Al-Arief, GMAP 2018

Special Advisor
Ministry of Finance, Indonesia
Global Master of Arts Program GMAP CLASS AT A GLANCE
(GMAP)
NON-US STUDENTS: 50%
• One-year master’s degree in international affairs COUNTRIES REPRESENTED: 20+

without interrupting your career
AV E R AG E AG E : 40
• Hybrid program structure of 3 two-week
residencies and 33 weeks of internet-mediated
learning 30%
International
Organizations/NGO
• Diverse cohort of mid-career and senior-level
professionals working around the globe in the
public, private, and non-profit sectors 30%
Public Sector
40%
• Professional network of 9500 Fletcher alumni Private Sector
(including 1000 GMAP alumni)
fletcher.tufts.edu/GMAP CLASSES START JULY 29, 2019

fletcher-gmap@tufts.edu • +1.617.627.2429 AND JANUARY 6, 2020
Elizabeth Warren
have watched and learned, and they are hard at work developing tech-
nologies and tactics to leapfrog the United States, investing heavily in
such areas as robotics, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, synthetic
biology, and quantum computing. China is making massive bets in these
and other areas in an effort to surpass the United States as a global
technological power. Whether the United States will maintain its edge
and harness these technologies for good remains an open question.
It is the job of the U.S. government to do what is necessary to
protect Americans, but it is long past time to start asking what truly
makes the country safer—and what does not. Military efforts alone will
never fully succeed at ending terrorism, because it is not possible to fight
one’s way out of extremism. Some challenges, such as cyberattacks
and nuclear proliferation, require much more than a strong military
to combat. And other dangers, such as
It’s time to seriously review climate change and the spread of infec-
tious diseases, cannot be solved through
the country’s military military action at all. The United States
commitments overseas. will spend more than $700 billion on
defense in the 2018–19 fiscal year alone.
That is more in real terms than was spent under President Ronald
Reagan during the Cold War and more than all the rest of the country’s
discretionary budget put together. But even as Washington spends more
and more, U.S. military leaders point out that funding a muscular
military without robust diplomacy, economic statecraft, support for
civil society, and development assistance only hamstrings American
national power and undercuts any military gains.
As a candidate, Trump promised to bring U.S. troops home. As
president, he has sent more troops into Afghanistan. On the campaign
trail, Trump claimed he did not want to police the world. As president,
he has expanded the United States’ military footprint around the globe,
from doubling the number of U.S. air strikes in Somalia to establish-
ing a drone base in Niger. As a candidate, Trump promised to rebuild
the military, but as president, he has gutted the diplomatic corps on
which the Pentagon relies. He promised to reduce the threat of nuclear
proliferation, but he has undermined a successful nuclear deal with
Iran, has failed to roll back the North Korean nuclear program, and
seems intent on spurring a new nuclear arms race with Russia.
These actions do not make Americans safer. It’s time to seriously
review the country’s military commitments overseas, and that includes
bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. They have fought
with honor, but additional American blood spilled will not halt the vio-
lence or result in a functioning democratic government in either place.
Defense spending should be set at sustainable levels, and the money
saved should be used to fund other forms of international engagement
and critical domestic programs. The Pentagon’s budget has been too
large for too long. It is long overdue for an audit that would allow
Congress to identify which programs actually benefit American security
and which merely line the pockets of defense contractors. Rather
than mindlessly buying more of yesterday’s equipment and allowing
foreign countries to dominate the development of critical new tech-
nologies, we should recommit to investing in cutting-edge science and
technology capabilities at home. When it comes to nonproliferation,
we should replace the current bluster and hostility toward nuclear
diplomacy with a reinvestment in multilateral arms control and non-
proliferation efforts for the twenty-first century, recommitting the
United States to being a leader in the fight to create a world without
nuclear weapons.
To achieve all these goals, it will be essential to reprioritize diplomacy
and reinvest in the State Department and the development agencies;
foreign policy should not be run out of the Pentagon alone. The United
States spends only about one percent of its federal budget on foreign
aid. Some Americans struggling to make ends meet understandably
question the value of U.S. commitments and contributions abroad,
and certainly we should expect our partners to pay their fair share. But
diplomacy is not about charity; it is about advancing U.S. interests
and preventing problems from morphing into costly wars. Similarly,
alliances are not exclusively about principles; they are about safety
in numbers. The world is a big, complicated place, and not even the
strongest nation can solve everything on its own. As we face down
antidemocratic forces around the world, we will need our allies on
our side.
FOREIGN POLICY STARTS AT HOME

President John F. Kennedy, whose seat in the U.S. Senate I now
hold, once wrote that “a nation can be no stronger abroad than she
is at home.” With American power increasingly challenged from
within and without, we can no longer afford to think of our domestic
agenda as separate from our foreign policy. A stronger economy, a

Elizabeth Warren
healthier democracy, and a united people—these are the engines

that power the nation and will project American strength and values
throughout the world.
Every day, shortsighted domestic policies weaken American national
strength. The United States is in the midst of a reverse-Sputnik
moment, reducing investments in education and scientific research
even as potential adversaries expand them. At a time when growing
inequality stifles economic growth, Congress’ response has been a
$1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. Life expectancy
in the United States is falling as overdose deaths skyrocket, and the
country’s health-care system remains ill equipped to respond. Climate
change poses a threat to our survival, but the government is gutting
environmental regulations and subsidizing fossil fuels at the bid-
ding of wealthy campaign donors. The educational opportunity gap
is widening, while politicians starve schools of resources and saddle
an entire generation with crippling student debt. And in a desperate
attempt to stave off the inevitable reckoning, the president seems
bent on keeping Americans frightened and divided.
Investments at home strengthen the economy, but they also serve
national security. A twenty-first-century industrial policy, for example,
would produce good jobs that provide dignity, respect, and a living
wage, and it would reinforce U.S. international economic might.
When workers and families are more secure in their livelihoods, the
country is stronger on the world stage.
The needs for investment are many: Infrastructure projects to
increase connectivity and expand opportunity across the United
States. Educational and job-training policies to produce skilled
workers, encourage entrepreneurship, and grow the talent base.
Immigration policies to yield a more robust economy and a more
diversified work force. Higher education to equip the coming
generations for the future without crushing them with debt. High-
quality, affordable health care to ensure security and productivity
for every person. An economy that is fair and open to entrepre-
neurs and businesses of all sizes. A progressive tax system that
requires the wealthy to pay their fair share. A government that is
not for sale to the highest bidder.
Underlying it all, we need to remain vigilant against threats to
American democratic norms and processes. The 2016 election raised
the alarm, reminding us that democracy is not a self-sustaining ma-
chine. We must fight for it every single day. That means protecting
the electoral process and making clear that there will be severe con-
sequences for anyone, foreign or domestic, who meddles with it.
Our democratic norms also require us to renew our commitment
to justice. Fractures in society—racial injustice, political polarization,
economic inequality—damage us from within, leaving us vulnerable
to a toxic stew of hatred and fear. Hateful rhetoric fuels domestic
terrorism of all kinds, whether in Charleston or Orlando, Charlot-
tesville or Pittsburgh. And we must strengthen our determination
to ensure that every American has equal access to opportunity in
society and equal justice and protection under the law. We must do
that because it is morally right—and because it is essential to our
national strength.
WHAT’S AT STAKE
The need to get our house in order is not theoretical. Whether our
leaders recognize it or not, after years as the world’s lone super-
power, the United States is entering a new period of competition.
Democracy is running headlong into the ideologies of nationalism,
authoritarianism, and corruption. China is on the rise, using its
economic might to bludgeon its way onto the world stage and offer-
ing a model in which economic gains legitimize oppression. To
mask its decline, Russia is provoking the international community
with opportunistic harassment and covert attacks. Both nations in-
vest heavily in their militaries and other tools of national power.
Both hope to shape spheres of influence in their own image and
ultimately remake the global order to suit their own priorities. If
we cannot make our government work for all Americans, they will
almost certainly succeed.
The dictators who run those countries stay in power not simply
because they hold unwilling populations under brutal control; they
also maintain control through corrupt economic policies that favor
the wealthy elites who keep them in power. In China, President Xi
Jinping consolidates his power and talks of a “great rejuvenation,”
while corporations that answer to the state make billionaires out of
Communist Party elites. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin attacks
free speech and fans nationalism, but his real power derives from the
careful intertwining of his government with state-run corporations
conveniently overseen by friendly oligarchs.

Elizabeth Warren
Other countries have learned from this approach. From Hun-

gary to Turkey, from the Philippines to Brazil, wealthy elites work
together to grow the state’s power, while the state works to grow
the wealth of those who remain loyal to the leader. This marriage
of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism is a direct threat to the
United States, because it undermines the very concept of democracy.
It enables corruption to spread across borders and allows authori-
tarian leaders to foment a global crisis of confidence in democracy.
Free and democratic societies, the United States’ included, risk slid-
ing toward corruption and kleptocracy, becoming democracies in
name only.
Despite these growing threats, President Trump seems all too
comfortable with this rising authoritarianism. He shamefully kowtows
to Putin, even in the face of Russian attacks on American democ-
racy. His trade policies toward China are hardly stopping Chinese
economic malfeasance. Instead of strengthening crucial alliances
with Japan, South Korea, and Europe, he is actively undermining
them. And the president has displayed an unsettling enthusiasm for
replicating authoritarian language and tactics at home, while auto-
crats abroad return the compliment by using the president’s words
to justify their own misdeeds.
The United States has lived through devastating wars in the past,
and no sane person wishes to invite conflict between great powers in
the future. In fact, many of the trials of our time will require coop-
eration. But it is essential that we are honest and clear-eyed about the
challenges the United States faces. Our democratic allies share our
values, and we should join forces to protect not only our collective
security but also our shared ideals. In Europe, we should work with our
allies to impose strong, targeted penalties on Russia for its attempts to
subvert elections, and we should work to help our European allies
develop energy independence. In Asia, we should encourage our allies
to enhance their multilateral cooperation and build alternatives to
China’s coercive diplomacy. We should also respond to China’s efforts
to force foreign companies to hand over sensitive technology in order
to gain access to the Chinese market and penalize its theft of U.S.
intellectual property. Around the world, we should aggressively
promote transparency, call out kleptocracy, and combat the creeping
influence of corruption. And we should stand with those who bravely
fight for openness and pluralism in Moscow, Beijing, and beyond.
AFTER TRUMP
The world was changing before President Trump took office, and it
will continue to change after he has gone. There is no going back, but
we can shape the world we inherit.
We can adopt a foreign policy that works for all Americans, not
just wealthy elites. We can protect American interests first and
foremost, while recognizing that those interests are best served
when we leverage the support of allies and partners. We can reform
international institutions to make them more flexible and inclusive,
while still preserving the United States’ global leadership role. We
can make smart investments to deter adversaries and defend the
country, while balancing our ambitions with our resources. We can
adapt to the technological demands and challenges of the twenty-
first century, designing policies that reflect the world not as it once
was but as it will be. And we can recognize that global power is
generated here at home, recapitalizing the American economy and
reinvesting in American democracy at its roots.
None of this will be easy, but we persist. “America is not a country
which can be confounded by the appeasers, the defeatists, the back-
stairs manufacturers of panic,” President Franklin Roosevelt declared
in 1941. He continued: “This will of the American people will not be
frustrated, either by threats from powerful enemies abroad or by
small, selfish groups or individuals at home.” His words ring true
today. Despite the threats on the horizon, I am confident that we can
pursue a foreign policy that works for all Americans—one that, for
generations to come, safeguards government of the people, by the
people, and for the people.∂

The Eroding Balance

of Terror
The Decline of Deterrence
T
“ hus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has
been to win wars,” the American nuclear strategist Bernard
Brodie wrote in 1946. “From now on its chief purpose must
be to avert them.” Brodie’s injunction summed up the grim lesson of
the first five decades of the twentieth century: after two horrific world
wars and the development of nuclear weapons, it was clear that the
next major conflict would produce no winners—only survivors. As
U.S. President John F. Kennedy put it a decade and a half later, in the
midst of the Cuban missile crisis, “Even the fruits of victory would
be ashes in our mouth.” For decades, U.S. policymakers followed
Brodie’s and Kennedy’s lead, putting deterrence—preventing rivals
from attacking in the first place—at the center of U.S. defense strategy.
Applied effectively, deterrence discourages an adversary from
pursuing an undesirable action. It works by changing the adversary’s
calculation of costs, benefits, and risks. A country can, for instance,
convince its opponents that an attack is so unlikely to succeed that it
is not even worth the attempt: deterrence through denial. Or a country
may convince its opponents that defeating it would be so costly as to
be a victory in name only: deterrence through punishment. In either
case, a rational adversary will decide to stay put.
Through the threat of denial or punishment, deterrence has helped
keep the peace among major powers for over seven decades. Even
30 years after the end of the Cold War, it remains at the heart of U.S.
defense strategy. The 2018 National Defense Strategy, for instance,
ANDREW F. KREPINEVICH, JR., is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Adjunct
Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and a member of the Commission
on the National Defense Strategy for the United States.
The Eroding Balance of Terror
The future of war: unveiling a surveillance drone in Tokyo, May 2017
begins by declaring that “the Department of Defense’s enduring mission

is to provide combat-credible military forces needed to deter war and
protect the security of our nation.”
By now, that declaration has been made so many times, over so
many decades, that it has become an article of faith. Like several of
its recent predecessors, the Trump administration has spent little
time explaining exactly how the United States intends to deter exist-
ing and future rivals. The assumption is that it needs no explaining:
modern weapons are so destructive that no sane leader would risk
igniting a general war—and so the requirements for deterrence are
relatively modest.
But such confidence is profoundly misplaced. In fact, deterring
aggression has become increasingly difficult, and it stands to become
more difficult still, as a result of developments both technological
and geopolitical. The era of unprecedented U.S. military dominance
that followed the Cold War has ended, leading to renewed compe-
tition between the United States and two great revisionist powers,
China and Russia. Military competition is expanding to several
KYD PL KYO DO / AP
new domains, from space and cyberspace to the seabed, and new
capabilities are making it harder to accurately gauge the military
balance of power. Meanwhile, advances in cognitive science are
challenging the theoretical underpinnings of deterrence by upending

our understanding of how humans behave in high-risk situations—

such as when facing the possibility of war.
Taken together, these developments lead to an inescapable—and
disturbing—conclusion: the greatest strategic challenge of the current
era is neither the return of great-power rivalries nor the spread of
advanced weaponry. It is the decline of deterrence.
MULTIPOLAR WORLD
During the Cold War, the military power of the United States and the
Soviet Union dwarfed that of any other state or group of states. With
the Soviet collapse, this duopoly gave way to unrivaled U.S. military
dominance, especially in the conventional (that is, nonnuclear) realm.
During the Cold War, Washington’s defense strategy was built on
deterring a single major rival; in the aftermath of the Cold War, U.S.
policymakers didn’t have to worry about major rivals at all.
Today, however, the United States confronts an international
system with not one, or two, but multiple centers of gravity. Consider
what has happened to the distribution of nuclear forces. For much
of the Cold War, the two superpowers stockpiled over 20,000 war-
heads each, while the British, Chinese, and French arsenals numbered
in the low hundreds. But a series of bilateral U.S.-Russian arms
control agreements have radically reduced both countries’ strategic
nuclear forces to 1,550 deployed strategic weapons each, just as the
Chinese, Indian, North Korean, and Pakistani nuclear arsenals are
growing in size and sophistication. Among these, China’s nuclear
arsenal is the most worrisome. It is estimated at roughly 300 weap-
ons, and the country has enough fissile material to produce several
hundred more nuclear weapons a year without affecting its nuclear
energy needs. China is also updating its delivery systems, complete
with new ballistic missile submarines and land-based missiles. As
in every other major area of military competition, Beijing seems
unlikely to settle for second best.
In such a multipolar nuclear world, some of the key conditions that
once ensured relative stability between Moscow and Washington will
no longer obtain. Cold War nuclear deterrence was founded, as the
nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter famously noted, on a “balance of
terror,” or “mutual assured destruction.” As long as the Soviet Union
and the United States could each suffer a surprise attack by the other
and still retain sufficient nuclear forces for a devastating counterattack,
neither side wanted to risk a strike: deterrence through punishment

par excellence. To keep this delicate balance, both sides sought to
maintain a rough parity in their nuclear forces, a goal that endures to this
day in the New START agreement.
The emergence of China as a major nuclear power threatens to
throw this balance of terror off-kilter, as Beijing, Moscow, and Washing-
ton each view the other two as rivals. If China continues to expand its
nuclear forces, the United States—now forced to prepare for a possible
attack on not one but two flanks—might respond with a significant
buildup of its own. Any major increase in American nuclear forces
would likely prompt Russia to follow suit in an attempt to maintain
parity with the United States. Simply put, in a world with three nuclear
great powers, none can maintain parity with the combined forces of
the other two. In this multipolar environment, the three rivals will be
less confident in being safe from a nuclear attack than the Cold War
superpowers were.
WAR’S NEW FRONTIERS

Deterrence is ailing not just on account of new powers. New weapons
have also done their part. Early on, high-tech weapons worked to the
United States’ advantage. The 1990–91 Gulf War, for instance, show-
cased the power of integrating high-end intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems with precision-strike weapons. Russian military
theorists feared that such capabilities represented an alarming glimpse
of what was to come. As these capabilities matured, the argument
went, the United States would be able to conduct pinpoint strikes to
eviscerate Russia’s nuclear arsenal without having to go nuclear itself.
Following such an attack, Russia could of course retaliate with what-
ever nuclear forces had survived. But this “broken-back” attack would
be further diminished by U.S. air and missile defenses, and it would
risk triggering a full-scale U.S. nuclear counterstrike that would be
the end of Russia as a functioning society.
To offset this perceived disadvantage, Russia has designed nuclear
weapons with very low yields and adopted a military doctrine that
calls for such weapons to be used if Moscow fears that its nuclear
arsenal is at risk or if it is losing a conventional war. A similar line
of thinking may be taking hold in China, where political and mili-
tary leaders have intimated that certain kinds of nuclear weapons
are acceptable for use even in a conventional conflict, such as those

used to generate an electromagnetic pulse that can disable any nearby

electronic equipment.
The result is that the firebreak between conventional and nuclear
war is slowly disappearing—with worrying implications for deterrence.
Both Beijing and Moscow may see conventional aggression as less risky,
since they can employ certain types of nuclear weapons if things go
badly. Many U.S. leaders, by contrast,
still believe that the only purpose of
The firebreak between maintaining nuclear weapons is to de-
conventional and nuclear ter others from using them, a view that
war is slowly disappearing. completely decouples nuclear from con-
ventional war. As a result, U.S. leaders
may enter a conventional war thinking
that there’s little risk of it escalating into a nuclear conflict. But Chinese
and Russian leaders, finding themselves in such a war, may be far less
hesitant to cross the nuclear threshold than the United States expects.
Cyberweapons, with their enormous but untested potential to
corrupt a state’s early warning and command systems, muddy the
waters of deterrence even further. Some have speculated, for instance,
that Israel’s 2007 air strike on a nuclear reactor under construction
in Syria was accompanied by a cyberattack that blinded Syrian air
defenses. Even though none of the Israeli aircraft was of stealth
design, and even though they were attacking a high-value target,
Syrian air defenses never fired at them. If other states think they
can compromise a rival’s early warning and command systems, as
Israel seems to have done in Syria, the anticipated costs and risks
of striking first in a crisis may fall dramatically.
The geographic location of today’s nuclear powers is undermining
deterrence, too. During the Cold War, valuable Soviet and U.S.
homeland targets were far enough apart to guarantee some warning
time ahead of an attack. The spread of nuclear and other strategic
weapons to states located relatively close to their rivals means that
attack warning times are much shorter today. This is especially true
for nuclear-armed states fielding fast, accurate ballistic missiles
capable of striking their rivals’ nuclear forces. Short flight times may
compel senior policymakers to place their strategic forces on heightened
alert at all times, as well as to devolve to lower-ranking commanders
the authority to release them. In theory, these decisions could enhance
deterrence, but they would also increase the risk of an accidental or
#1 Master’s
Program* in
International Studying in the nation’s capital offers unparalleled access to scholars
Affairs and practitioners actively engaged in developing solutions to complex
global problems. When you join Georgetown’s extensive alumni
community, which spans the globe and includes leaders in the public,
private, and non-profit sectors, you are preparing to make a difference.
Join the legacy, change the world.
THEMATIC FOCUSES
• Master of Science in Foreign Service
• Master of Arts in Security Studies
• Master of Global Human Development
REGIONAL FOCUSES
• Master of Arts in Arab Studies
• Master of Arts in Asian Studies
• Master of Arts in Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies
• Master of Arts in German and European Studies
• Master of Arts in Latin American Studies
SFS.GEORGETOWN.EDU
*Ranking according to Foreign Policy Magazine February 2018. IMAGE ATTRIBUTIONS: “Expo Flags”
by Cesarexpo, “US Capitol Building” by Citypeek, and “Self-portait” by Cindy Gao.
unauthorized use of strategic forces, thus undermining deterrence:

faced with this risk in a moment of crisis, an adversary might decide
that striking first was the safer bet.
The problems for deterrence do not end there. The emergence of
new domains of warfare is also eroding its foundations. Today’s major
powers built their economic and military might on a vast but vulnerable
network of satellites, as well as undersea pipelines and cables. The
U.S. military, in particular, depends on government and commercial
satellites for its operations. Other major militaries have followed
suit, and national economies have come to rely on satellites for a wide
range of services. Pipelines on the ocean floor carry over a quarter
of the world’s oil and natural gas supply. Economies and militaries
rely on the Internet, and almost all transoceanic data flow through
undersea cables.
Unfortunately, all this infrastructure is susceptible to disruption,
and deterring aggression against it is not easy. Disabling a satellite,
corrupting a computer network, or cutting an undersea data cable is
often easier than fending off an attack, favoring the offense and under-
mining deterrence through denial. Deterrence through punishment is
just as tricky in such cases. Quickly identifying and retaliating against
an aggressor is far more difficult than in the case of conventional
attacks via land, air, or sea. And because so many states are capable of
operating effectively in these relatively new domains, attribution will
be even more complicated.
LOSE SOME, WIN SOME?

In a sense, deterrence has become a victim of its own success. War
serves as the ultimate test of military systems, force structures, and
the doctrines governing their employment. The lack of a war between
major powers since 1945 means that the true balance of conventional,
nuclear, and cyber-military capabilities is uncertain. And if this is true
for well-established technologies, it is doubly so for new capabilities
that incorporate artificial intelligence, novel biological agents, laser
weaponry, hypersonic speed, and robotics. Because few of these ca-
pabilities are thoroughly battle tested, future belligerents may have
diverging beliefs about their benefits and dangers, increasing the like-
lihood that one side might opt for aggression. This is true particularly
for risk-tolerant leaders who assume such uncertainties will work in
their favor—undermining deterrence where it is most fragile.
But the challenges to deterrence today go even deeper. Recent

insights into the nature of human decision-making raise questions
about the very logic of deterrence. As a theoretical concept, deter-
rence rests on the assumption that where risk is involved, humans act
rationally, in the sense that they base their decisions on a cost-benefit
calculus and act only when the expected gains outweigh the antici-
pated costs. Over the past 40 years, however, research in behavioral
economics has cast great doubt on this assumption. Humans, it turns
out, cannot be counted on to always maximize their prospective
gains. And even when they do, they are remarkably inept at under-
standing how the other side—the opponent in a conflict—calculates
its own costs, benefits, and risks. Human nature hasn’t changed, but our
understanding of it has—in ways that bode ill for defense strategies
built on deterrence.
The first problem has to do with our understanding of how leaders
conceive of losses. According to prospect theory, people will risk more
to avoid losing what they already have than to gain something of equal
value. Thus, for example, policymakers will run higher risks to retain
their own territory than to seize foreign territory of equal value. In
theory, this phenomenon would seem to strengthen deterrence, since
it predicts that leaders generally prefer to stick with whatever land
and resources they already own, rather than attempt to seize what
belongs to another. But the matter does not end there.
This is because of how decision-makers set their so-called reference
point, which determines whether they consider their current situation
to be one of loss or gain. One might expect that people always base
their reference point on the status quo—the state of things at the
time they make a decision. After a series of gains, for instance, indi-
viduals normally adjust their reference point to the new status quo.
Any subsequent setback looks to them like a loss rather than a gain
forgone. We should therefore expect them to be relatively risk toler-
ant in their efforts to defend their latest gains, which they now see as
a potential loss.
But this dynamic does not cut both ways. After individuals suffer
losses, they tend not to adjust their reference point to the new, less
favorable situation. Instead, they cling to the status quo ante. They
therefore see their own attempts to retake what has been lost not as
the pursuit of gains but as the avoidance of losses. As a result, they are
often ready to take great risks and accept high costs to achieve this end.

For a historical example, consider the U.S. economic embargo against

Japan in the summer of 1941 and Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor
a few months later. In imposing the embargo, U.S. leaders were attempt-
ing to punish Japan for a series of invasions across East Asia, which
the United States viewed as losses compared with the previous situ-
ation. Japan’s leaders, however, had updated their reference point to
include their most recent territorial gains and so saw the embargo as an
American attempt to take from the Japanese what was now rightfully
theirs. Both sides, in other words, were operating under a paradigm of
loss, which made them more willing to risk war.
To understand how a similar dynamic could play out today, look to
the South China Sea, where Beijing is occupying and fortifying dis-
puted territory, apparently intent on creating new facts on the ground.
The United States and its allies, however, continue to view China’s
actions as illegitimate and retain the original situation as their reference
point. If the dispute comes to a head, both China and its opponents
will be operating from a reference point of loss. So deterring either
side from pressing the issue may prove difficult.
IRRATIONAL MINDS
The logic of deterrence also depends a great deal on the people in charge.
Research in cognitive science suggests that political leaders are unusu-
ally optimistic and overly confident in their ability to control events—
the very traits that helped them come to power. Given their built-in
optimism, they are also prone to doubling down in the face of failure
instead of cutting their losses. Needless to say, any one of these char-
acteristics can undermine deterrence. Assuming that uncertainty will
resolve itself in one’s favor inflates the anticipated gains while reducing
projected losses, making a risky path of action far more enticing.
This bias for optimism may be especially pronounced when the
leader in question is a personalist dictator. To rise to the top in a
cutthroat political environment, such leaders must be extremely
risk tolerant and believe they can beat the odds. Once in power, they
are often surrounded by sycophants who feed their egos and self-
images as skillful strategists. Excessive optimism may partly explain
Adolf Hitler’s risky decision to remilitarize the Rhineland and annex
Austria and Czechoslovakia while Germany was still weaker than
France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. It may also provide some
explanation for Joseph Stalin’s attempt to cut off U.S. access to West
Berlin at a time when his own country was in ruins and the United
States enjoyed a nuclear monopoly. Saddam Hussein’s willingness
to take on the United States, not once but twice, suggests a propensity
for high-stakes gambles, as does Mao Zedong’s decision to plunge
China into the Korean War barely a year after he seized power.
Indeed, the very notion that all humans share the same cognitive
machinery, the same rational hard-wiring, is turning out to be just
that: a notion, not a fact. Research in the behavioral sciences has found
that one’s cultural environment can lead to dramatic differences in
one’s cognitive processes, including in the ways people understand
equity, costs, benefits, and risks.
Economics experiments show these differences in action. In the
so-called ultimatum game, for instance, Player A is given an amount
of money—say, $100—and is told to offer some of the cash, anywhere
from $1 to $100, to Player B, who can
accept the payout or reject it, in which
case both players leave empty-handed.
Individuals are not utility-
American subjects typically agreed on maximizing machines that
something close to a 50-50 split. When pursue material gain above
they were in the role of Player B, they all else.
were more likely to reject offers that
were significantly less than a rough split
of the money, even though accepting any offer above zero would have
improved their financial situation. In some less developed societies,
however, such as found in parts of Central Asia and Latin America,
those in the Player A position were often far less charitable, yet their
Player B counterparts rarely refused even much lower amounts. And
in other tests involving societies in Central Asia, East Africa, and
New Guinea, those on the receiving end at times refused the money
even when offered more than half the cash.
Individuals, in other words, are not necessarily utility-maximizing
machines that rationally pursue material gain and expect others to do
the same. They are prepared to reject what they perceive as unfairness
or slights to their personal honor, even at a substantial cost to them-
selves. This is why leaders sometimes reject win-win deals in favor of
seemingly irrational outcomes in which both sides lose.
The implications for deterrence are sobering. The 1962 Cuban
missile crisis is a case in point. What motivated Soviet Premier Nikita
Khrushchev was partly his sense that the balance of U.S. and Soviet

overseas missile deployments was unfair. The United States had

positioned nuclear-armed missiles on the Soviet Union’s southern
flank, in Turkey, so Khrushchev expected U.S. leaders to tolerate the
deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. When Kennedy demanded
that Khrushchev remove the missiles from Cuba, both leaders found
themselves playing a high-stakes version of the ultimatum game:
Kennedy offered a guarantee that the United States would not invade
Cuba in exchange for the Soviet Union’s withdrawal of the missiles—
a mutually beneficial outcome, albeit with a modest payout to the
Soviets. Should Khrushchev refuse, the ultimate lose-lose outcome—
war—appeared likely.
Khrushchev’s choice should have been easy. Given the United States’
enormous nuclear advantage over the Soviet Union, the U.S. missiles
in Turkey were a nonissue. But because Khrushchev felt pressure to
demonstrate to his colleagues in the Soviet Presidium (and, one
suspects, to himself) that he had been treated fairly, the missiles in
Turkey became a sticking point in negotiations to resolve the crisis.
In the end, Kennedy committed to quietly withdrawing the missiles
from Turkey, the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba, and war
was averted. The lessons of the episode are clear: even in matters of life
and death, perceptions of fairness matter, and failing to account for
them can push countries to the brink of nuclear war, overwhelming the
rational calculus that underpins deterrence.
MIND THE GAP

Given all these theoretical and practical limitations, it may appear as
if deterrence should be discarded altogether, at least as far as defense
policy and strategy go. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill, deterrence
may be the worst form of defense, except for all the others.
Yet policymakers must rethink their countries’ deterrence strategies
to account for changing conditions: the challenge of multipolarity,
the introduction of advanced weaponry, and new knowledge about the
psychology of decision-making. Any attempt to buttress deterrence
must address these factors rather than wish them away.
For the United States, this means undertaking a comprehensive
assessment of the military balance of power. This requires a better
understanding of how the primary targets of U.S. deterrence strategy,
China and Russia, calculate the military balance themselves and,
by extension, the costs and risks associated with taking aggressive
action. U.S. analysts, for example, tend to assess the strategic balance
of power by focusing primarily on nuclear weapons. Their Russian
counterparts, on the other hand, also incorporate ballistic missile
defenses, early warning systems, cyberweapons, and precision-guided
conventional weapons on strategic delivery systems into their assess-
ments. Chinese strategists usually take a similarly comprehensive
view of the strategic balance.
At a more theoretical level, policymakers must change how they
think about escalation. Today’s strategists still use the metaphor, devel-
oped during the Cold War, of an escalation ladder, whose rungs
represent the gradual and linear stepping up of a war from the lower
level of conventional conflict up until nuclear exchanges. In the age
of precision munitions and cyberattacks, this linear metaphor is
badly in need of revision. What will emerge may look less like a
ladder than like a web of crosscutting paths. At each intersection,
escalation in one domain, be it cyberspace, the seabed, or space,
could trigger an escalatory response in another. This intersectional
model would allow the United States to identify areas where it
enjoys an advantage over its rivals and areas where it needs to take
steps to strengthen deterrence.
The United States will also have to find ways to buy back warning
time for incoming attacks and improve its ability to trace their origins.
Eventually, advances in artificial intelligence and “big data” may prove
useful for promptly detecting an attacker’s fingerprints. By causing
prospective aggressors to lose confidence in their ability to act with
anonymity, such tools would enhance the threat of punishment and
thus strengthen deterrence.
To reduce the uncertainty surrounding new, untested capabilities,
the U.S. military must also train its forces for a wider range of conflict
scenarios. Since 9/11, U.S. forces have devoted most of their attention
to counterterrorism and counterinsurgency training, rather than the
challenges posed by great-power rivals. Conducting realistic exercises
at the operational level of war—the level at which military campaigns
against advanced military forces are conducted—can reveal much
about the effectiveness of various military doctrines, force structures,
and capabilities.
As for human nature, there is of course little that can be done to
change that. But policymakers should at least be aware of how humans
make decisions under conditions of risk. This does not mean they must

immerse themselves in the behavioral and cognitive sciences any more

than their predecessors at the dawn of the nuclear age had to develop
a deep understanding of quantum physics. It does, however, mean
they must have a clear awareness of what these fields’ findings imply
for a deterrence strategy’s prospects for success. In particular, it is
worth knowing what individual opponents, especially dictators, most
value and fear losing. Such knowledge allows leaders to fine-tune
their deterrence strategies based on punishment.
Since World War II, U.S. defense strategy has relied on communi-
cating to rivals that any aggression would either fail or provoke a
devastating counterattack—deterrence in a nutshell. The strategy’s
success until now has convinced many leaders in Washington that a
major war is unlikely. In their eyes, deterrence is assured and needs
little strengthening. But as revisionist great powers emerge and mili-
tary competition expands to include new weaponry and unfamiliar
domains, effective deterrence is becoming more and more challenging.
The fears that once spurred strategists and politicians to embrace de-
terrence are still relevant. A new major-power war could still exact a
horrific human and material toll, and U.S. policymakers are right to
look for strategies to deter such a conflict. But doing so will require,
above all, that they not take deterrence for granted.∂
How Congress Can Take

Back Foreign Policy
A Playbook for Capitol Hill
O
n January 3, 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump will face
a new reality: a chamber of Congress controlled by the
opposition party. Confronting a hostile Democratic House
of Representatives will be a rude awakening for a president who chafes
at any limits on his authority. For the first two years of his presidency,
Trump experienced little resistance from the Republican-controlled
Congress as he sought to disrupt the established international order.
Republicans largely stood by as Trump withdrew from vital interna-
tional agreements, embraced autocrats while giving allies the cold
shoulder, used Twitter to threaten friends and foes alike, and discarded
democracy and human rights as core values of U.S. foreign policy.
His free rein is over. Now that Democrats have taken power in the
House of Representatives, Congress has a chance to influence the
administration’s foreign policy. The Constitution gives Congress more
authority over foreign affairs than most observers understand. It has
the power of the purse, the power to declare war, and the power to
regulate the armed forces, trade, and immigration. Congress can fund
programs it supports and withhold money from those it doesn’t. It can
block initiatives that require legislation and use investigations to expose
and curtail executive-branch wrongdoing. And it can reach out to allies
and admonish adversaries.
BRIAN M C KEON is Senior Director of the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global
Engagement and served as U.S. Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from
2014 to 2017. He was Chief Counsel for the Democratic members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee from 1997 to 2009.
CAROLINE TESS is a Senior Fellow at the Penn Biden Center and was Special Assistant to
the President and Senior Director for Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council
from 2014 to 2017. She worked on Capitol Hill from 2003 to 2010, including in the office of
the Senate Majority Leader and on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
How Congress Can Take Back Foreign Policy
More recently, however, Congress’ ability to govern has been eroded

by a variety of factors, including increased partisanship, a 24-hour
news cycle made more toxic by social media, and a permanent cam-
paign requiring ever more fundraising and the need for regular travel
to home districts. Congress must now rise to the occasion in order to
pursue a single overriding imperative: to defend American national
interests and values from a dangerous president. To do so, Democrats
will have to stay disciplined and united—and use the powers the Con-
stitution grants them in ways they have not done in years.
CONGRESS CAN CHECK AND BALANCE —WHEN IT WANTS TO

That Republicans in Congress have done little to rein in Trump should
not be surprising. Their silence as Trump has trashed long-standing
party orthodoxy on trade, democracy, and NATO may seem jarring.
But members of Congress typically give a president of their own party
substantial running room on foreign policy, especially early in an
administration. Deference to Trump was also a sound political strategy
for Republicans keen to avoid the wrath of the president and the party
faithful who support him.
Congress has taken some steps to check Trump. In 2017, it imposed
new sanctions on Russia—measures that Trump signed under protest
and has been reluctant to implement. In July 2018, the Senate unani-
mously approved a resolution that rejected the idea that Russian law
enforcement should be allowed to interrogate Michael McFaul, a former
U.S. ambassador to Russia, who was accused by the Kremlin of “illegal
activities.” (The Kremlin provided no evidence for its accusation.)
And in two successive budgets, Congress has rejected Trump’s efforts
to slash funding for diplomacy and international development; a
bipartisan statement from the Senate Appropriations Committee in
2017 decried an “apparent doctrine of retreat” that would serve to
“weaken America’s standing in the world.” Yet beyond these limited
steps, Congress has proved unable to act.
Now, however, Democrats have won control of the House of Rep-
resentatives, with its attendant committees and powers. History
suggests there is a lot a determined Congress can do to stand up to a
wayward president. In the 1970s, in response to overreach by Presi-
dent Richard Nixon, large Democratic majorities moved to rein in the
so-called imperial presidency, undertaking a flurry of investigative
and legislative activity. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution,

which sought to limit the circumstances in which the president could

use military force without the consent of Congress; the Congressional
Budget Act, which strengthened the ability of Congress to manage
the budget process and restricted the president’s ability to flout con-
gressional funding decisions; the Arms Export Control Act, which
provides an extensive congressional review process for major weapons
exports, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created
a new legal structure governing electronic surveillance in the United
States for national security purposes. Congressional investigations
led to reforms of the CIA and the FBI, too, particularly by restricting
domestic spying, and created standing congressional intelligence
committees to oversee the intelligence agencies.
In the 1990s, a Republican Congress sought to exert its own foreign
policy priorities. It passed legislation requiring that various UN re-
forms be implemented before the United States would pay its back
dues; reorganized the foreign affairs agencies, merging what had been
separate agencies responsible for arms control and public diplomacy
into the Department of State; blocked the Clinton administration’s
efforts to modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and rejected the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
THE POWER OF THE GAVEL

Much of that action required majorities in both houses of Congress.
Without control of the Senate, Democrats will have fewer options,
but they can still make a significant impact. Their first step should be
returning to standard practice for oversight, a core function of the
congressional committees. That means hearings, and lots of them.
From January to November 2018, the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee held just 14 full committee hearings not related to nomina-
tions, allowing the administration to overhaul U.S. foreign policy
without the need to explain itself in public. In 2004, by contrast, the
chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar of
Indiana—a Republican overseeing a Republican administration—held
14 hearings in the first three months of the year, often chairing two
hearings in one day.
Congress has multiple committees that cover national security:
Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence,
Homeland Security, and Appropriations, as well as the investigative
committees. They should all hit the ground running in January. To
Oversight: a Senate committee hearing in Washington, D.C., September 1974

begin with, they should hold hearings on U.S. policy toward Iran,
North Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Central America; the impact
of tariffs on economic and foreign policy; and growing transnational
threats, particularly climate change, cyberattacks, and terrorism.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee could set the tone early by
holding two full committee hearings with senior State Department
officials to discuss Iran and North Korea. Shockingly, in 2018, the
committee did not hold a single hearing with administration officials
dedicated to either topic. The House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee will likely spend a good portion of its time investi-
gating the Trump family businesses. It should prioritize taking a close
look at the Chinese and Russians who have bought Trump properties
in New York and elsewhere, as well as the lavish spending by foreign
governments at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
A brief, preliminary report laying out the facts would establish a road
map, allowing the media and members of Congress to connect the
dots between Trump’s private businesses and his official actions.
Congress can’t match the president’s bully pulpit. But hearings
and investigations draw attention to neglected issues and can force
administrations to rethink decisions. They can divert the executive
branch from its priorities and focus the attention of the press, par-
ticularly when they stick to a limited set of issues and sustain the
pressure. In 2004, for example, Henry Waxman of California, the
senior Democratic member of the House Committee on Oversight
AP

and Government Reform, carried out an investigation into weapons

of mass destruction in Iraq, which revealed that the intelligence
community had information that contradicted statements by the
Bush administration about the threat
Hearings and investigations posed by Iraq. In 2005, the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee success-
draw attention to neglected fully derailed President George W.
issues and can force Bush’s nomination of John Bolton as
administrations to UN ambassador after an extensive in-
vestigation of Bolton’s efforts as a senior
rethink decisions. State Department official to exagger-
ate intelligence findings to fit his policy
views and of his attempts to remove analysts who disagreed with
him. And Republicans’ relentless use of congressional hearings over
the last two decades to discredit the science of climate change dem-
onstrates the impact that sustained congressional pressure can have
on the public discourse.
Democrats, now serving as committee chairs armed with subpoena
power, will make extensive requests for information, interviews, and
witnesses. Contrary to popular belief, the White House cannot fully
control how agencies respond to Congress. Departments depend on
Congress to fund them, approve their requests to repurpose existing
funds, and confirm their senior staff. They strive to maintain working
relationships with their oversight committees in both houses of
Congress. Public fights over subpoenas are the exception, not the
rule. Administration officials regularly agree to appear, provide docu-
ments, and cooperate with congressional investigators when faced with
the possibility of onerous legislation and limits on their budgetary
authority enacted through the appropriations process.
The congressional committees can also enlist other investigators,
such as inspectors general (who are housed within departments and
agencies and charged with rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse) and
the Government Accountability Office (which audits the federal gov-
ernment and conducts program reviews), to dig into executive-branch
activity. The GAO works for Congress, not the executive branch, and
has the statutory authority to review the activities of most agencies.
Inspectors general are independent of their agency’s leadership;
nearly all of them endeavor to protect that independence and respond
to legitimate congressional requests.
The challenge will be to focus investigations on a limited number

of worthwhile topics. Congress should keep it simple, shining a spot-
light on the ethical swamp under Trump’s leadership and on policies
that are causing long-term practical and reputational damage to the
United States. This should include highlighting how foreign govern-
ments are influencing the administration by spending money at Trump
properties; how U.S. foreign policy toward China, Russia, and the
Persian Gulf is affected by Trump family business interests in those
countries; the consequences of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates’ war in Yemen; and the shameful reduction in
the numbers of refugees admitted to the United States. Moreover,
Democrats will need to exercise discipline. It is important to be
focused and patient, as effective congressional investigations unfold
slowly, often lasting months, even years, as new facts are discovered
and new avenues of inquiry pursued.
Complementing the work of the full committees, energized sub-
committee chairs can use their gavels to focus attention on important
issues. The chair of the House subcommittee on human rights, for
example, can shine a light on dark places by hearing testimony from
leading dissidents and human rights defenders from China, Cuba, the
Philippines, Russia, and Turkey. Such hearings would underscore the
United States’ long-standing commitment to human rights for people
everywhere. In 2014, for example, the House Foreign Affairs Committee
held hearings with a Syrian defector known only as “Ceasar” who had
smuggled thousands of photos out of Syria that documented the Syrian
government’s brutality. The hearings drew widespread attention in
Congress and the media to his work.
Congress should also step in to save the U.S. Foreign Service, which
is bleeding senior talent thanks to efforts by the White House and
the State Department to force out many senior diplomats. Attrition
at senior levels has been higher than usual, with a number of notable
public resignations. It will take years to regain the experience that has
been lost among the diplomatic corps, but the foreign affairs commit-
tees can help arrest the decline. Each should designate a subcommittee
to focus solely on the health of the Foreign Service. These subcommittees
should hold hearings, make recommendations to the Appropriations
Committees, and draft legislation to make sure that the service gets
adequate funding to support recruitment, diversity, and career advance-
ment for diplomats. They should also investigate specific problems:
not just the wholesale retirement of senior diplomats and the sidelining
of talented officers who served honorably in the Obama administration
but also the ongoing attacks on U.S. diplomats in China and Cuba
(attributed in some reports to sonic or microwave radiation) and the
Trump administration’s lack of response.
Not all oversight can or should be conducted in public. The House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, rather than continue
Republican efforts to discredit the leadership of the FBI and Special
Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in
the 2016 U.S. presidential election, should focus on standard over-
sight of the intelligence community, including covert operations, the
collection of sensitive intelligence, and the impartial analytic process.
In addition, all members of Congress should receive candid, regu-
lar, and thorough classified briefings. Congress should pay special
attention to North Korea. Given the unclear status of the nuclear
negotiations, members should seek in-depth briefings before and
after any discussions with the North Korean leadership. That’s what
Congress demanded—and received—throughout the negotiation of
the Iran nuclear agreement.
Even though Republicans retained control of the Senate, Democrats
can still exert influence there. Nominations offer serious leverage
to individual senators, no matter which party holds the majority.
An individual senator can place a hold on a nomination to influence
policy or force the administration to hand over information or pro-
vide witnesses for hearings. Senators should avoid delay for delay’s
sake, but using nominees as leverage on other issues is often an effective
way to get an administration’s attention.
THE POWER TO LEGISLATE

Congress must do more than conduct oversight; it must legislate.
Every year, the appropriations process leads to must-pass bills that
keep the government funded and give the legislative branch a chance
to influence policy. Congress also passes annual defense and intelli-
gence authorization bills, and in doing so frequently incorporates
unrelated foreign policy legislation. In 2016, for example, Congress
used the defense authorization bill to reorganize the government agency
that conducts international broadcasting. And in October, it used a bill
reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration to reauthorize and
expand the mandate of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation

to fund infrastructure projects in developing countries, part of an

effort to counter growing Chinese influence.
The Democrats’ majority in the House gives them significant lever-
age to include their priorities in must-pass legislation. For starters,
Congress should incorporate language explicitly barring U.S. forces
from refueling Saudi planes and from offering intelligence support to
the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen in the annual defense authorization
bill. Congress can also exert its prerogatives on Cuba, lifting the travel
restrictions imposed by the Trump administration and preserving
Americans’ ability to travel freely through legislative provisions in any
of the annual must-pass bills, rather than in freestanding legislation
that Trump would surely veto.
At the top of the legislative calendar, the incoming Speaker of the
House must schedule an early vote on legislation to protect the Mueller
investigation. Trump has hinted that he may shut the investigation
down prematurely. Congress must not allow that to happen. Building
on the Russian sanctions it passed in 2017, Congress should also promptly
consider the Defending American Security From Kremlin Aggression
Act of 2018, bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate in August
2018 that provides additional sanctions on the Russian energy sector and
new tools to protect the U.S. electoral system from foreign interference.
More broadly, Congress should take steps to safeguard the United
States’ role in the international order. At the top of the list should be
defending multilateral institutions. Congress should enact legislation to
block Trump from pulling the United States out of NATO and the World
Trade Organization—something he has reportedly considered doing.
Some in Congress question whether Trump can withdraw from treaties
unilaterally, but there is no doubt that Congress could pass a statute
preventing him from taking such impulsive steps. Such legislation would
send a strong signal abroad that the United States’ long-standing com-
mitment to international institutions and alliances remains strong.
Congress should not limit itself to directly countering Trump’s
foreign policy; it should also act positively on its own. One area where
Congress can make a real difference is cybersecurity. The United
States’ infrastructure is deeply vulnerable to cyberattacks, and the gov-
ernment has been far too slow to respond. So Congress should enact
comprehensive legislation that better enables the sharing of cyber-
security information between the government and the private sector
and that strengthens the ability of law enforcement to fight cybercrime.
Perhaps the most potent tool Congress has is the power of the
purse. The Constitution dictates that no money can be drawn from
the Treasury without appropriations made by law. Congress thus has
substantial authority to influence policy, subject only to executive-
branch foot-dragging in executing congressional directives or the rare
presidential veto. Controlling the purse is one way in which Congress
has pushed back successfully against the Trump administration during
its first two years. During the next two, the Appropriations Committees
will likely do the same in both chambers.
In particular, the appropriations subcommittees that cover foreign
operations, which handle the State Department and foreign aid budg-
ets, are islands of bipartisanship. They protect diplomatic resources
and quietly advance worthwhile causes such as ending river blindness,
promoting democracy, supporting girls’
education, and combating human traf-
ficking. They also zealously guard their
Congress should safeguard
funding priorities. Administrations often the United States’ role in
want to use funds for projects other than the international order.
their original purpose. The subcommit-
tees regularly reject, delay, or modify
these proposals. Through an informal process—dictated by laws requir-
ing the executive branch to notify Congress before trying to shift
funds in this way—these subcommittees have effectively established
a form of legislative veto over some administration actions. This past
summer, the Trump administration attempted to rescind billions of
dollars in foreign aid money, a move that would have slashed the
State Department and USAID budgets months after Trump had signed
the appropriations bill funding them into law. Faced with bipartisan
congressional outrage, the White House backed down.
Similarly, Congress has substantial control over arms exports, which
it should use to curtail U.S. support for the bloody war that Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates are waging in Yemen. The State Depart-
ment must notify the foreign affairs committees of every weapons sale
over a certain dollar threshold and wait a certain period of time to allow
for possible congressional votes on a resolution of disapproval. This proc-
ess also includes an informal “prenotification” before a formal notice is
submitted to the committees, which can lead to adjustments to the pro-
posal. In rare cases, Congress can try to formally reject a sale, although it
almost never succeeds, since the president usually vetoes such attempts.

ENDING CONGRESSIONAL IRRELEVANCE

Congress should do more than use the powers it already has; it should
reclaim those that have been ceded to the executive. The constitutional
historian Edward Corwin once wrote that the Constitution creates an
“invitation to struggle” among the political branches. A Congress that
delegates its powers or consistently acquiesces in the face of executive
action not only ignores that invitation; it abdicates its responsibilities.
Trade offers a case in point. The Constitution grants Congress the
power to “lay and collect” duties and regulate foreign commerce. The
president has no express constitutional power over foreign trade;
rather, the Constitution gives him a general authority to negotiate
treaties. Until the 1930s, Congress imposed tariffs directly by statute.
But in the last several decades, Congress has delegated substantial
authority in this area to the president, allowing him to impose retalia-
tory tariffs and to negotiate trade agreements under what is known as
“fast-track” authority. The agreements are then considered in Congress
in an expedited process in which no amendments are allowed. This
sort of delegation is not unusual; the growth of the federal govern-
ment and the complexity of the modern economy have led Congress
to yield significant power in many areas to the executive branch and
administrative agencies.
Yet what Congress can give, Congress can take away. In 1980, for
example, alarmed by President Jimmy Carter’s announcement that
he would impose a fee on crude oil imports in an attempt to limit
U.S. dependence on foreign oil, Congress created a mechanism by
which it could override presidential actions on crude oil imports.
Today, Trump has abused his trade authority. He has invoked bogus
claims of national security to impose sweeping tariffs on allies and
partners while giving little consideration to the harm his actions will
inflict on the U.S. economy. Congress should limit or even revoke the
president’s authority to enact retaliatory tariffs, increase the burden
of proof he must meet, or create a mechanism for Congress to reject
proposed tariffs.
Congress should also reclaim its control over military action. Article
1 of the Constitution gives Congress not merely the authority to declare
war but also substantial power over the use of force and the regulation
of the armed forces. The framers would not recognize the practice that
has developed over the last few decades, with presidents directing exten-
sive U.S. military actions while Congress often sits on the sidelines.
The most immediate task is to repeal and replace the 2001 Authori-
zation for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed just after
9/11 to give the president the power to defend the country against
those who planned the 9/11 attacks and anyone who aided them. The law
remains in effect, and has been used far beyond its original intent. The
executive branch has invoked it to justify counterterrorism operations
in a long list of countries, as well as the continued detention of terrorist
suspects at Guantánamo Bay. Congress should replace it with a statute
that is more narrowly tailored, limiting it to such conflicts as that in
Afghanistan and the campaign in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic
State (also known as ISIS). A bipartisan effort in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee during the current Congress would be a good
starting point.
The aspect of foreign policy over which the president has the great-
est control is probably diplomacy, both because the executive carries
out negotiations with other governments and because it has a large
bureaucracy to help it. But here, too, Congress is not without power.
Leading members of Congress should recognize that they can help
reassure allies and repair damaged relationships. The new Speaker of
the House should issue an early invitation to Canadian Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau to address a joint meeting of Congress. Congress should
award the Congressional Medal of Honor to NATO service members
in recognition of the 17 years they have spent fighting alongside
U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The Speaker should also personally lead
a bipartisan delegation to visit NATO allies early in the year and des-
ignate senior members to lead delegations to reassure countries in
other regions of the world.
The U.S. Constitution gives the president considerable power over
foreign policy. In recent years, successive presidents have expanded
that authority. Trump has used those powers to begin remaking the
United States’ global image and role. Yet the framers of the Constitu-
tion wisely vested Congress with powers of its own to influence and
check the executive. Americans have voted. Now Congress must act.∂

America’s Middle East

Purgatory
The Case for Doing Less
W
hen U.S. President Donald Trump talks about the Middle
East, he typically pairs bellicose threats against Iran and the
Islamic State (or ISIS) with fulsome pledges of support for
the United States’ regional partners, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. But
the tough talk is misleading: there is little reason to think that Trump
actually wants the United States to get more involved in the region.
He pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal but has
shown no eagerness for a conflict with the Islamic Republic. He has
continued U.S. President Barack Obama’s support for the Saudi-led
war in Yemen but resisted calls for deeper military engagement there.
Despite his promise of a “deal of the century,” a U.S. proposal on
Arab-Israeli peace remains on the shelf. His support for an “Arab
NATO,” a security alliance among Egypt, Jordan, and six Gulf states,
has been stymied by deepening rifts among the Gulf countries. His
vacillating approach toward Syria has led to confusion over the U.S.
military’s mission there. The Defense Department has scaled back
U.S. military capabilities in the Middle East in order to redirect
resources to the increasing threats posed by China and Russia, leaving
partners in the region wondering about Washington’s commitment to
their security. For all the aggressive rhetoric, Trump’s Middle East
policies have proved remarkably reserved.
MARA KARLIN is an Associate Professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of

Advanced International Studies and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings
Institution. She was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force
Development from 2015 to 2016.
TAMARA COFMAN WITTES is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Program at the
Brookings Institution. She was U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs from 2009 to 2012.
America’s Middle East Purgatory
Leaving on a jet plane: an F-18 on its way to the Persian Gulf, March 2017
In that regard, Trump is strikingly like his predecessor. Trump may
talk about the Middle East differently than Obama did. But the two
seem to share the view that the United States is too involved in the
region and should devote fewer resources and less time to it. And
there is every reason to believe that the next president will agree. The
reduced appetite for U.S. engagement in the region reflects not an
ideological predilection or an idiosyncrasy of these two presidents but
a deeper change in both regional dynamics and broader U.S. inter-
ests. Although the Middle East still matters to the United States, it
matters markedly less than it used to.
U.S. strategy toward the Middle East, however, has yet to catch up
with these changes. The United States thus exists in a kind of Middle
Eastern purgatory—too distracted by regional crises to pivot to other
global priorities but not invested enough to move the region in a better
direction. This worst-of-both-worlds approach exacts a heavy price. It
sows uncertainty among Washington’s Middle Eastern partners, which
encourages them to act in risky and aggressive ways. (Just look at Saudi
Arabia’s brazen assassination of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi or its
JON GAM BRELL / AP
bloody campaign in Yemen.) It deepens the American public’s frustra-

tion with the region’s endless turmoil, as well as with U.S. efforts to
address it. It diverts resources that could otherwise be devoted to
confronting a rising China and a revanchist Russia. And all the while,

by remaining unclear about the limits of its commitments, the United

States risks getting dragged into yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
To say that the Middle East matters less to the United States does
not mean that decreased U.S. involvement will necessarily be good
for the region. The Middle East is in the midst of its greatest up-
heaval in half a century, generating an all-out battle for power among
its major players. The region’s governments, worried about what
Washington’s growing disregard for the Middle East means for their
own stability, are working hard to draw the hegemon back in. But it is
time for Washington to put an end to wishful thinking about its ability
to establish order on its own terms or to transform self-interested and
shortsighted regional partners into reliable allies—at least without
incurring enormous costs and long-term commitments. That means
making some ugly choices to craft a strategy that will protect the most
important U.S. interests in the region, without sending the United
States back into purgatory.
A LESS RELEVANT REGION

In response to the Iraq war, the United States has aimed to reduce its
role in the Middle East. Three factors have made that course both
more alluring and more possible. First, interstate conflicts that directly
threatened U.S. interests in the past have largely been replaced by
substate security threats. Second, other rising regions, especially Asia,
have taken on more importance to U.S. global strategy. And third, the
diversification of global energy markets has weakened oil as a driver
of U.S. policy.
During the Cold War, traditional state-based threats pushed the
United States to play a major role in the Middle East. That role involved
not only ensuring the stable supply of energy to Western markets but
also working to prevent the spread of communist influence and tamp-
ing down the Arab-Israeli conflict so as to help stabilize friendly
states. These efforts were largely successful. Beginning in the 1970s,
the United States nudged Egypt out of the pro-Soviet camp, oversaw
the first Arab-Israeli peace treaty, and solidified its hegemony in the
region. Despite challenges from Iran after its 1979 revolution and
from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq throughout the 1990s, U.S. dominance
was never seriously in question. The United States contained the
Arab-Israeli conflict, countered Saddam’s bid to gain territory through
force in the 1990–91 Gulf War, and built a seemingly permanent
military presence in the Gulf that deterred Iran and muffled disputes
among the Gulf Arab states. Thanks to all these efforts, the chances of
deliberate interstate war in the Middle East are perhaps lower now
than at any time in the past 50 years.
But today, the chief threat in the Middle East is not a state-on-
state conflict but the growing substate violence spilling across bor-
ders—a challenge that is harder to solve from the outside. The
terrorism and civil war plaguing the Middle East have spread easily
in a permissive environment of state weakness. This environment
was fostered by the U.S. invasion of Iraq and then, more generally,
by the dysfunctional governance that led
to the Arab uprisings of 2010–12 and the Change will have to
subsequent repressive responses. The re-
gion’s most violent hot spots are those
come from the Arab
where dictators met demands from their states themselves.
citizens with force and drove them to take
up arms. The United States cannot fundamentally alter this per-
missive environment for terrorism and chaos without investing in
state building at a level far beyond what either the American public
or broader foreign policy considerations would allow. And so it
simply cannot hope to do much to counter the Middle East’s vio-
lence or instability.
Some of the chaos directly threatens U.S. partners. Jordan’s vulner-
ability skyrocketed in 2014 as hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees
fled there (which is the reason the United States ramped up its aid to
the country). Saudi Arabia’s critical infrastructure has proved danger-
ously exposed (which is why the United States deepened its support
there, as well). But today, the primary threats to these partners are
internal. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, dysfunctional state-
led economic systems and unaccountable governments are failing to
meet the needs or aspirations of a large, young, reasonably healthy,
and globally connected generation. Change will have to come from the
Arab states themselves, and although the United States can support
reformers within Arab societies, it cannot drive this kind of transfor-
mation from the outside.
Some argue that these problems still matter a lot to the United
States and that there is still much it could do to solve them if it were
willing to go all in. Proponents of this maximalist approach believe
that with sufficient resources, the United States could decisively defeat

ISIS and other extremists, stabilize and reconstruct liberated communi-

ties, and lay the foundations for a lasting peace by pushing states to
overhaul the social contract between rulers and ruled. This outcome is
not impossible to imagine. But the experience of the United States in
Iraq, Libya, and Syria suggests that this path would be rockier than
it might first appear and that it would be extremely challenging to
sustain domestic political support for the large, long-term investments
that these goals would require.
Even as the Middle East’s problems have become less susceptible
to constructive outside influence, the United States’ global interests
have also changed—most of all when it comes to Asia. For decades,
U.S. policymakers debated whether China could rise peacefully, but
the country’s destabilizing behavior, especially its insistence that its
neighbors accept its territorial claims in the South China Sea and over
Taiwan, have led many to worry that it will not. Both Obama and
Trump recognized that Asia has become more important to U.S.
grand strategy. As the former put it when announcing what became
known as the “rebalance” to Asia, “After a decade in which we fought
two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States
is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific re-
gion.” Russia, meanwhile, has generated growing concern ever since
its invasion of Crimea in 2014, and fears about European security
and stability have pushed the Middle East even further down the list
of U.S. priorities.
Then there is oil—the fuel that first drew the United States into
the Middle East after World War II. Middle Eastern oil remains an
important commodity in the global economy, but it is weakening as a
driver of U.S. policy. One reason is the more abundant global supply,
including new domestic sources aided by technologies such as frack-
ing. Another is a widely anticipated stall in global demand, as techno-
logical advances and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions cause
countries to shift away from fossil fuels. The result is a Middle East
that is less central to global energy markets and less able to control
pricing—and a United States that can afford to worry less about
protecting the flow of oil from the region.
Many of the things that mattered to the United States when it first
became involved in the Middle East still matter today. The United
States should still care about protecting freedom of navigation in the
region’s major maritime passages, preventing oil producers or trouble-
makers from suddenly turning off the flow, and containing would-be
regional hegemons and other actors hostile to Washington. The
question is how crucial these priorities are relative to other ones,
and how much the United States should invest in them. The answer
is that the United States should probably be less involved in shaping
the trajectory of the region than it is.
LOST ILLUSIONS
For a long time, policymakers have been tempted by the notion
that there is some kind of golden mean for U.S. engagement in the
Middle East. Somehow, the argument runs, the United States can
develop a strategy that keeps it involved in the most critical issues
but avoids allowing it to be drawn into the region’s more internecine
battles. In this scenario, the United States could reduce its military
presence while retaining a “surge” capacity, relying more on local
partners to deter threats and using aid and trade incentives to build
coalitions among local actors to advance stabilizing policies, such as
conflict resolution.
But this Goldilocks approach rests on the false assumption that
there is such a thing as a purely operational U.S. military presence in
the Middle East. In reality, U.S. military bases across the Gulf coun-
tries have strategic implications because they create a moral hazard:
they encourage the region’s leaders to act in ways they otherwise
might not, safe in the knowledge that the United States is invested in
the stability of their regimes. In 2011, for example, the Bahrainis and
the Saudis clearly understood the message of support sent by the U.S.
naval base in Bahrain when they ignored Obama’s disapproval and
crushed Shiite protests there. In Yemen, U.S. support for the Emirati
and Saudi military campaign shows how offering help can put the
United States in profound dilemmas: the United States is implicated
in air strikes that kill civilians, but any proposal to halt its supplies of
its precision-guided missiles is met with the charge that denying
Saudi Arabia smarter munitions might only increase collateral civilian
casualties. U.S. efforts to train, equip, and advise the Syrian Demo-
cratic Forces in the fight against ISIS are yet another reminder that
none of Washington’s partnerships has purely operational consequences:
U.S. support of the SDF, seen by Ankara as a sister to the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party, has made the United States’ relationship with Turkey
knottier than ever.
Supporters of the Goldilocks approach also suggest that the United

States can substitute military engagement with vigorous diplomacy.
But U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s experience with the nego-
tiations over the Syrian civil war, where his efforts were undercut by
Obama’s reluctance to involve the United States, demonstrated that
diplomacy without teeth doesn’t
get you very far. Goldilocks pro-
ponents imagine that the United
A superpower must make
States can somehow escape the tough choices, prioritizing the
push-pull dynamic of Middle East- conflicts and issues that matter
ern involvement, but all this ap- most for its global strategy.
proach ends up accomplishing is
prolonging the time in purgatory.
Yet it is not enough to simply propose that the United States do less
in the region without explaining what that would look like in practice.
It is clear that Washington should reduce its role in the Middle East;
how it scales back and to what end are the critical questions.
A new approach to the region should begin with accepting a painful
tradeoff: that what is good for the United States may not be good for
the Middle East. U.S. policymakers and the public already seem sur-
prisingly comfortable watching repressive Arab rulers consolidate
power in some countries, while brutal insurgents displace civilians
and destroy cities in others. But a superpower must make tough
choices, prioritizing the conflicts and issues that matter most for its
global strategy. During the Cold War, for example, the United States
took a relatively hands-off approach to most of Africa, backing anti-
communist strongmen and proxies in a few places even at the cost of
long-term stability. This had terrible consequences for the people of,
say, Angola or what was then Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the
Congo), but it was a tolerable decision for U.S. interests. The same is
likely to be true in the Middle East today.
It is not enough to just set limits on its commitments; the United
States must also clearly communicate those limits to other countries.
At a summit at Camp David in 2015, Obama alarmed Gulf partners
when he told them that the United States would protect them from
external threats but pointedly declined to mention internecine ones.
Obama was right to put the onus on Gulf states to address their own
internal challenges and to make clear that the United States had no
dog in most of their regional fights. Today, likewise, the United States

should put its regional partners on notice that it will not back some of
their pet political projects, such as the United Arab Emirates’ attempt
to resuscitate the Palestinian politician Mohammad Dahlan in the
Gaza Strip or its effort, along with Egypt, to back the military com-
mander Khalifa Haftar in Libya. Washington must also set clear
guidelines about when it will and won’t use force. It should clarify, for
example, that it will target terrorists who threaten the United States
or its partners but will not intervene militarily in civil wars except to
contain them (as opposed to resolving them through force).
Since a less engaged United States will have to leave more of the
business of Middle Eastern security to partners in the region, it must
rethink how it works with them. For example, the U.S. military is fond of
talking about a “by, with, and through” approach to working with local
partners—meaning military “operations are led by our partners, state or
nonstate, with enabling support from the United States or U.S.-
led coalitions, and through U.S. authorities and partner agreements,” as
General Joseph Votel, commander of U.S. Central Command, explained
in an article in Joint Force Quarterly in 2018. But that model works only
if the partners on the ground share Washington’s priorities. Consider
the Defense Department’s doomed program to train and equip rebels
in Syria. Rightly mistrustful of those partners, fearing they might drag
the United States into a war with Bashar al-Assad, Washington was
unwilling to provide sophisticated support. And although the fighters
were instructed to prioritize attacking ISIS over regime forces that were
shelling their hometowns, they changed course when Turkey invaded
Afrin and began fighting the Turks instead, stalling the campaign
against ISIS elsewhere. The United States has worked well with Kurdish
militias in the fight against ISIS in northeastern Syria—but as soon as
Trump expressed his desire to pull U.S. forces out, the rebels began to
explore cutting a deal with Damascus.
It is also crucial that the United States accept the limitations of its
partners and see them for what they truly are, warts and all. Some-
times, these partners won’t be able to confront security challenges
without direct help from the United States. In these cases, U.S. policy-
makers will have to accept that if the effort is imperative for U.S.
national security interests, Washington will have to do the work itself.
For example, the United States has spent decades trying to build a
security alliance among Gulf states. Even before the current Gulf rift
began, this effort had started going off the rails, with many countries
DEAN, THE FLETCHER SCHOOL
OF LAW AND DIPLOMACY
Medford, Massachusetts
The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (“The Fletcher School”) at Tufts University, among the world’s most
distinguished graduate schools of international affairs, seeks an eminent and accomplished leader to serve as Dean.
Founded in 1933, The Fletcher School is based at Tufts University’s main campus in Medford, Massachusetts, and
is the United States’ oldest school dedicated solely to graduate studies in international affairs. Its scope and global
impact are reflected in a long list of distinguished alumni/alumnae, many of whom have served at the highest levels in
government, international and non-governmental organizations, business, and the scholarly professions. The Dean will
bring a comprehensive vision to The Fletcher School, one that is inclusive, forward-thinking, and which will thoughtfully
lead an institution with an august history and a global mission to produce the next generation of the world’s leaders.
Fletcher fulfills its mission through manifold, innovative programs and degree tracks. It is among the most intellectually
diverse and heterodox graduate schools of international affairs in the country, with its 45 full-time faculty altogether
offering seven master’s degree programs, including the flagship Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (MALD), and
two Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) degree programs, to approximately 500 Masters students and 60 PhD candidates
from all over the globe. In a world of accelerating change and increasing global interdependence, complexity, and
conflict, Fletcher’s ongoing commitment to innovative, policy- and business-relevant programs continues to make it
indispensable.
The successful Dean should possess a profound understanding of the mission and meaning of The Fletcher School as
an educational enterprise of scholars and students engaged in the interdisciplinary study of international affairs; the
importance of developing and stewarding the financial, human, and reputational resources of the School; the role of The
Fletcher School in the broader Tufts University community; and the knowledge, capacity, and vision to lead The Fletcher
School in expanding and deepening its real-world impact on international affairs. The Dean will engage enthusiastically
with a wide variety of audiences internally, externally, and internationally, and will bring credibility through strong
academic standing and connections and relations with global policymakers, executives, and thought leaders across
many different sectors. Equally important, the Dean will bring thought leadership to the rapidly changing domain of
international affairs and The Fletcher School’s role within it.
The Fletcher School is assisted in this effort by the executive search firm Isaacson, Miller. All inquiries, nominations, and
applications should be directed in confidence to:
Tim McFeeley or Vijay Saraswat
Isaacson, Miller, Inc.
1300 19th Street, suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: 202-682-1504
www.imsearch.com/6726
Electronic submissions are strongly encouraged.
Tufts University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

Foreign Affairs
allowing mutual hatreds to get in the way of a cooperative effort

against Iran. Now that Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab
Emirates are blockading Qatar, this alliance is looking even more like
a pipe dream.
A clear-eyed approach also requires accepting that China or Russia
(or both) will likely gain more of a footing in the Middle East as the
United States pulls back. The good news is that neither power is likely
to make a real bid for regional hegemony. So far, China has established
itself in the region by gingerly stepping around multiple conflicts, seek-
ing friendships and trade relationships while carefully avoiding taking
sides in any rivalries. The crass views of power and money evident in
Russia’s involvement in Syria, where Kremlin-linked mercenary firms
have fought for Assad and gained lucrative oil profits, suggest that
regional governments will face a strict quid pro quo from Moscow, not
the kind of reliable partnerships the United States has traditionally pro-
vided. Setting Syria aside, Russia’s role in the region has been similar to
China’s: free-riding on U.S. security guarantees while using diplomacy
and commercial ties to make friends as widely as possible without offer-
ing unique guarantees to any one party. Given the relatively limited
ambitions of China and Russia, and how well the United States has
demonstrated the immense price of being the regional security manager,
Washington should be able to retain the preponderance of power in the
Middle East even after pulling back. Yet if one of its core partners or
interests is threatened, it will need to be prepared to change course.
WHAT STILL MATTERS

These recommendations all involve accepting what doesn’t matter to
U.S. interests. But there are issues in the Middle East that still greatly
concern the United States. Those who prefer that Washington with-
draw from the region entirely underestimate how dangerous the re-
sulting power vacuum could be. The United States does have important
interests in the region to protect.
One of them is sustaining freedom of navigation for the U.S. Navy
and for global commercial traffic through the Middle East’s major mar-
itime passages—the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el Mandeb Strait, and
the Suez Canal. Fortunately, this is a global priority. Outside the Persian
Gulf itself, the littoral states and other concerned parties across Asia and
Europe share Washington’s objective. Chinese naval forces have partici-
pated in antipiracy efforts in the Horn of Africa, and the Chinese navy
recently built its first overseas base to support that mission, in Djibouti.
The United States could encourage China to participate in the
33-member Combined Maritime Forces and Combined Task Force 151,
which fight piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the eastern coast of So-
malia, to ensure that China’s activities are focused on shared maritime
security. This would allow the United States to rely more on other con-
cerned parties to address the piracy challenge. Still, doing so would
come with its own costs—particularly as China has sought to rewrite the
rules on freedom of navigation in its own region.
Fighting terrorism also remains a priority. To secure the American
people, including U.S. forces stationed abroad, and the most impor-
tant U.S. partners, the United States will have to prevent new threats
from emerging in the Middle East. Like the Obama administration,
the Trump administration has emphasized the need to lower the level
of U.S. involvement in counterterrorism efforts. But this approach
has its limits. Washington should recognize that its partners will
inevitably permit or even encourage the activities of terrorist groups
if doing so aligns with their short-term interests. Qatar, for example,
has proved willing to work with extremist groups that, at a minimum,
give aid to terrorist groups with international ambitions. The United
States should recognize that it cannot control everything its partners
do and focus its efforts on discouraging their relationships with ter-
rorist groups that might pursue operations beyond their immediate
neighborhood or acquire game-changing capabilities.
Finally, the United States still has an interest in seeing its main
partners—however imperfect they are—stable and secure, and it
should weigh its investments in security cooperation and economic aid
accordingly. Washington also needs to ensure that problems in the
Middle East don’t spill over into neighboring regions (a lesson from
the Bosnian war in the 1990s that policymakers forgot when confronted
with the Syrian war). Preventing conflicts from spreading does not
mean launching all-out military interventions. But it will sometimes
require the United States to actively contain the fighting and engage
in coercive diplomacy designed to bring civil wars to a swifter end.
THE DEVIL WE DON’T KNOW

Ultimately, lasting stability and security for the Middle East will come
only if the relationship between rulers and the ruled changes. That will
require more transparent, responsive, accountable, and participatory

governments that give citizens a reason to buy into the system, instead
of encouraging them to work around it through corruption, leave it
behind through emigration, or try to tear it down through violence.
But that change cannot be driven by the United States without far
more carrots and sticks than Washington is prepared to deploy. U.S.
policymakers should instead support those who are proposing con-
structive solutions and work to shape the environment in which local
actors will make their own choices about reordering the region. That
work could involve others with a stake in Middle Eastern stability—
Europe, for example. But for the foreseeable future, policymakers
must accept that the Middle East will likely remain mired in dysfunc-
tion and that U.S. partners there will bow less and less to Washington’s
preferences. The United States will also have to abandon the fairy-
dusted prospect of a negotiated agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and settle for constraining the worst impulses of both sides
as they reckon with recalcitrant domestic politics. The Iran nuclear
deal did not put an end to Iran’s destabilizing behavior or perma-
nently box in its nuclear ambitions. But it did—and does—offer
meaningful, verifiable constraints on Iranian nuclear activity for a
significant period of time, better than can be expected from U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s list of demands backed by “maxi-
mum pressure.” The United States should return to the agreement
and continue efforts to roll back Iran’s bad behavior both alone and
with partners.
Heavy U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past two
decades has been painful and ugly for the United States and for the
region. But it is the devil we know, and so U.S. policymakers have
grown accustomed to the costs associated with it. Pulling back, how-
ever, is the devil we don’t know, and so everyone instinctively resists
this position. It, too, will be painful and ugly for the Middle East,
but compared with staying the course, it will be less so for the United
States. It’s time for the United States to begin the difficult work of
getting out of purgatory.∂

Why the UN Can’t End Wars
I
n nearly 50 conflict zones around the world, some one and a half
billion people live under the threat of violence. In many of these
places, the primary enforcers of order are not police officers or
government soldiers but the blue-helmeted troops of the United
Nations. With more than 78,000 soldiers and 25,000 civilians scattered
across 14 countries, UN peacekeepers make up the second-largest mili-
tary force deployed abroad, after the U.S. military.
The ambition of their task is immense. From Haiti to Mali, from
Kosovo to South Sudan, UN peacekeepers are invited into war-torn
countries and charged with maintaining peace and security. In most
cases, that means nothing less than transforming states and societies.
Peacekeepers set out to protect civilians, train police forces, disarm
militias, monitor human rights abuses, organize elections, provide
emergency relief, rebuild court systems, inspect prisons, and promote
gender equality. And they attempt all of that in places where enduring
chaos has defied easy solution; otherwise, they wouldn’t be there to
begin with.
Unfortunately, this endeavor has a spotty track record. Global
leaders continue to call on “the blue helmets” as the go-to solution
whenever violence flares in the developing world. U.S. President
Barack Obama praised UN peacekeeping as “one of the world’s most
important tools to address armed conflict,” and the UN itself claims
that it has “helped end conflicts and foster reconciliation by conduct-
ing successful peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries.” But
in fact, UN peacekeepers too often fail to meet their most basic objec-
tives. On many deployments, they end up watching helplessly while
war rages. On others, they organize elections and declare victory, but
SÉVERINE AUTESSERRE is Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia
University, and the author of Peaceland and the forthcoming On the Frontlines of Peace.

without having fixed the root causes that brought them there—making
it all too likely that fighting will flare again before long.
Part of the reason for this failure is a lack of resources. It is hard to
fault the UN for that, since it relies on contributions from its members.
The larger problem, however, is a fundamental misunderstanding
about what makes for a sustained peace. The UN’s strategy favors
top-down deals struck with elites and fixates on elections. But that
neglects what should be the other main component of their approach:
embracing bottom-up strategies that draw on local knowledge and
letting the people themselves determine how best to promote peace.
THE RISE OF THE BLUE HELMETS

When the UN was created, in 1945, it was never intended to have its
own fighting force; the UN Charter makes no mention of peacekeeping.
But it quickly became clear that some such capacity would be essential
if the organization was to have any hope of meeting its simplest goals.
In 1948, the UN’s mediator in Palestine asked for a small group of UN
guards to monitor the truce between Israel and its Arab neighbors,
an ad hoc mission that marked the birth of peacekeeping. Most deploy-
ments over the next few decades followed a similar pattern: at the
invitation of the host government and with the agreement of all warring
parties, the UN would send in soldiers after a cease-fire or a peace
settlement was reached, provided that no permanent member of the
Security Council vetoed the idea.
The possibility of a veto meant that intervention was limited to places
not caught up in the East-West rivalry, and as a result, peacekeeping
missions were rare during the Cold War. Only 13 were set up between
1948 and 1978, and none at all between 1979 and 1987. The missions
that did exist were fairly unintrusive. A small number of unarmed
observers would monitor cease-fire lines and troop withdrawals, as in
Kashmir in 1949, or lightly armed soldiers would try to insert them-
selves between national armies, as in Lebanon in 1978. Sometimes,
the presence of UN soldiers helped prevent further conflict, while at
other times, it did not. The 1973 Yom Kippur War embodied this
mixed track record: UN peacekeepers succeeded in enforcing the
cease-fire along the Egyptian-Israeli border in the Sinai, but they
failed to do the same at the Israeli-Syrian border in the Golan Heights.
Even though the UN peacekeeping forces were awarded the 1988
Nobel Peace Prize, their global impact remained limited.
The end of the Cold War heralded a new era. With U.S.-Soviet
tensions no longer paralyzing the UN, the organization would finally,
its leaders thought, be able to do its job. And so in the span of roughly
two years, from April 1991 to October 1993, it launched 15 new
peacekeeping operations—more than it had in the first 40 years of
its history. In many countries, the missions worked: in Namibia,
El Salvador, Cambodia, and Mozambique, peacekeepers helped de-
crease violence by disarming combatants and brokering agreements.
Owing to the sheer number of missions, peacekeeping became insti-
tutionalized. It acquired a dedicated department within the UN and
its own staff, budget, and standard operating procedures—all the
bureaucratic trappings of a global priority.
The optimism soon faded. First came the events in Somalia, where
the UN would send approximately 28,000 troops to monitor a cease-
fire in the country’s long-running civil war and provide humanitarian
relief. In June 1993, two dozen Pakistani peacekeepers were killed by

militants there, and a few months later, in the “Black Hawk down”
episode, so were 18 U.S. soldiers supporting the UN mission. Then
came the massacres in Rwanda in 1994 and in Srebrenica in 1995,
when UN peacekeepers stood by and watched as local armed groups
perpetrated genocide.
Observers began to sour on peacekeeping. The people living where
peacekeepers operated were not much kinder, portraying them as meek
foreigners uninterested in their work.
When the UN was created, Salvadorans nicknamed the UN mission
in their country “Vacaciones Unidas”
in 1945, it was never (United Vacations), Cypriots spoke of
intended to have its own “beach keepers,” and Bosnians mocked
fighting force. the “Smurfs.” Yet because major powers
preferred UN operations to the type of
full-scale interventions they had no
interest in doing, the Security Council continued to generate missions
at a fast pace—authorizing 16 of them between 1994 and 1998.
By 1999, the UN realized it had to rethink its approach. That year,
leaders in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo finally reached peace agreements and asked
for the UN’s help in implementing them. The organization’s secretary-
general, Kofi Annan, who had previously headed its peacekeeping
department, wanted to prevent new failures, so he requested two
major reviews of international intervention. The first resulted in the
Brahimi report (named after the Algerian diplomat who led the
initiative), which detailed reforms to make UN peacekeeping more
effective. The second produced the “responsibility to protect” doctrine:
the idea that the so-called international community is morally obli-
gated to help people living in states that are unable or unwilling to
protect their citizens from serious violations of human rights.
These reports, and the debates they launched, transformed the UN’s
approach to peacekeeping. No longer should peacekeepers merely
monitor cease-fire lines passively. Instead, they should take a proactive
stance, using military force to prevent combatants from perpetrating
violence. To avoid another Rwanda or Bosnia, where overly restrictive
rules of engagement had led to disaster, peacekeeping forces should
have strong mandates and ample resources.
The result of these developments is that peacekeeping is now very
different from what it was during the Cold War. Instead of trying to
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
From seminars to the Security Council,
NYU’s International Relations Program has it all.
M.A. in International Relations at the Graduate School of Arts and

Science (GSAS). Since 1886 NYU’s Graduate School has prepared generations
of global leaders. The Program in International Relations continues this tradition
offering a rigorous, multidisciplinary study of contemporary international affairs.
Drawing on NYU scholars from GSAS, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, School
of Law, Stern School of Business, and Wagner Graduate School of Public Service,
students in the M.A. program have access to a range of degree options with various
technical and regional specializations. M.A. students also have the opportunity
to study at NYU’s Washington, DC center and other locations in NYU’s expansive
global network.
Application deadline for Fall 2019 is January 25, 2019.
For more information visit
as.nyu.edu/ir

end war primarily between states, peacekeepers now focus on main-

taining peace within states. Their duties have expanded to include a
laundry lists of tasks, from reorganizing armies to protecting popula-
tions to arranging elections. The personnel have evolved accordingly.
In addition to soldiers and military
officers, UN missions now hire experts
Peacekeepers can’t hold on development, gender, politics, eco-
the Security Council nomics, administration, justice, human
responsible for all their rights, land-mine removal, elections,
shortcomings. media, and communication. In postwar
East Timor and Kosovo, the UN even
served as a de facto transitional gov-
ernment overseeing the new states’ functions. And of the 18 missions
deployed since 2000, an increasing number have been given “enforce-
ment” mandates: instead of relying on the consent of all the warring
parties to implement peace agreements and using their military might
only in self-defense, UN soldiers can employ lethal force to defeat
combatants. In the Central African Republic, Congo, and Mali, UN
troops have ended up fighting rebel groups on the side of—or on
behalf of—the government.
Despite all these supposed improvements, today, just like 20 years
ago, peacekeepers often fail to meet the high expectations set for them.
Experts all use different definitions of success and thus arrive at different
conclusions, so whether or not a UN mission can be considered a failure
is a matter of interpretation. Some scholars have arrived at positive
assessments. Michael Gilligan and Ernest Sergenti, for instance, have
calculated that 85 percent of UN operations have resulted in prolonged
periods of peace or shortened periods of war. Page Fortna has deter-
mined that, all else being equal, the presence of peacekeepers decreases
the risk of another war breaking out by 55–62 percent. Lisa Hultman,
Jacob Kathman, and Megan Shannon have shown that the deployment
of UN troops reduces both battlefield deaths and civilian killings. Other
scholars have come to more dispiriting conclusions. Jeremy Weinstein
discovered that 75 percent of the civil wars in which the UN intervened
resumed within ten years of stopping. Michael Doyle and Nicholas
Sambanis studied 138 peace processes and found that roughly half of
those that had peacekeepers failed to decrease the violence or further
democracy. Roland Paris analyzed 11 UN missions in depth and found
that only two were able to build a sustainable peace.
What’s more, missions that are celebrated as successful on the

national and international levels do not necessarily improve condi-
tions on the ground. In a study of Liberia, Eric Mvukiyehe and Cyrus
Samii showed that, despite some positive outcomes, peacekeeping
deployments at the municipal level did not promote security or help
restore local authority.
Finally, even the success stories tend to fall apart on closer inspec-
tion. The mission in Cyprus, which began in 1964, is often heralded
for having reduced fighting between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, but
it can hardly be called a triumph. The island is divided in two, and
political reunification looks almost as distant as it did 50 years ago.
The 2004–6 operation in Burundi used to be the poster child for UN
peacekeeping, credited with tamping down violence after years of
civil war and helping the country transition to democracy. A decade
later, however, Burundi is back to dictatorship and war. The bottom
line is that UN missions do help, at times, to some extent, but they
could do far better.
PEACEKEEPING ON THE CHEAP

The UN’s defenders rightly point out that peacekeepers have one of
the hardest jobs in the world. They operate in places rife with ruthless
militias, abusive armies, corrupt officials, and shabby infrastructure.
Instructions from the Security Council to support the host govern-
ment further complicate their task, since rebels are less inclined to
cooperate when they believe that the UN is aiding the enemy. More-
over, since great powers tend to care little about the crises the UN is
sent to address, peacekeepers are given precious few resources with
which to accomplish their ambitious mandates. At $7 billion annu-
ally, the UN peacekeeping budget may seem impressive. But it equals
less than 0.5 percent of global military spending, and with it, the
organization is expected to help resolve more than a quarter of all
ongoing wars.
The main consequence is too few people on the ground, which
makes it difficult for the UN to even scratch the surface of its mandates.
In Congo, for example, the UN mission’s gender office in the province
of North Kivu—where sexual violence is pervasive—was staffed by
one lone UN volunteer for years. Meanwhile, the number of UN soldiers
is usually paltry given the size of the territories they’re supposed to
monitor or pacify. There is roughly one peacekeeper per 400 square

miles in Western Sahara, one per 50 square miles in Congo, and one
per 30 square miles in South Sudan. Compare that to the peak of the
U.S. war in Afghanistan, when there was one foreign soldier per two
square miles, or to the United States itself, where there is one law
enforcement officer per four square miles.
Since the UN does not have its own pool of soldiers, it must rely on
the goodwill of its member states to provide them. Countries are
reluctant to risk the lives of their troops in conflicts in which they have
no stake, and so it often takes months for the UN to muster the forces
it needs. When it finally does, it almost always ends up with poorly
trained and poorly paid soldiers from developing countries. (In 2018,
the top troop contributors to the UN were Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and
Rwanda.) These troops are often poorly equipped, too—forced to get
by without helicopters and to make do with outdated vehicles.
To make matters worse, their commanders report not just to the UN
leadership but also to their own country’s chain of command. These
officers know what their countries expect from them: to bring their
troops back home safe. When they have to choose between fulfilling
the UN mandate and avoiding casualties, they generally choose the
latter. That is what happened in Srebrenica in 1995, when the Dutch
commander of a peacekeeping battalion, outnumbered and outgunned,
had his soldiers stand by as Serbian forces rounded up and killed some
8,000 Muslim men and boys.
Worst of all, some peacekeepers harm those they are meant to
help. In the Central African Republic, Congo, and Somalia, they
have engaged in torture. In Bosnia, Haiti, and Kosovo, they have
been implicated in sex-trafficking rings. In fact, over the past 12
years, the UN has received nearly 1,000 allegations of sexual abuse
and exploitation by peacekeepers. Those who commit such horrible
acts are a minority, but the bad apples have done grave harm to
the UN’s reputation.
THE WRONG STRATEGY

Both the peacekeeping leadership in New York and the rank and file in
the field tend to blame all these woes on the Security Council, which
provides neither adequate resources nor clear mandates. To ensure
success, they say, peacekeepers need more money, more logistical sup-
port, and more people, along with more realistic instructions. And,
they add, the Security Council needs to force countries that contribute
“Revealing the sordid underbelly of a globalized “Everyone who wants to understand
trading system, this book is a must-read for all the complexities of the Middle East, and
who are concerned with our collective future.” particularly those of Lebanon and Israel,
—Frances Beinecke, former president of the and wants to reach the truth beyond the
Natural Resources Defense Council political rhetoric, should read this book.”
Cloth $29.95 —Bruce Elder, Sydney Morning Herald
Paper $16.95
“At a moment when state leaders are facing myriad “Gripping, meticulous, and persuasive, his
covert threats—from cyberattacks to election work is of equal value to those who share his
meddling—Secret Wars is timely and necessary wish that academics may better serve the state—
reading for scholars and policymakers alike.” and those who think the point is to change it.”
—Stacie Goddard, Wellesley College —James K. Galbraith, author of Inequality:
Cloth $35.00 What Everyone Needs to Know
Cloth $35.00
Social icon
Rounded square
Only use blue and/or white.
For more details check out our

Brand Guidelines.

DO NOT PRINT THIS INFORMATION FOREIGN AFFAIRS JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019 19-048
troops to stop interfering with the operations on the ground and

instead tell their officers to respect the UN chain of command. But
peacekeepers can’t hold the Security Council responsible for all their
shortcomings. Because they are the product of compromise, mandates
are always vague, and they always need to be interpreted. Besides,
even when powerful states and troop-contributing countries devote
ample resources to a UN mission, the resulting efforts often fail.
The problem is bigger than mandates and resources. Above all,
it has to do with two strategic choices the UN frequently makes: first,
to work with national elites to stop
Pushing for a vote before a violence from the top down and, second,
to push for quick elections as a way to
country is ready may do consolidate the peace. The standard
more harm than good. UN approach to ending wars is to host
large, costly conferences in order to
strike agreements between governments and rebel leaders and then
organize a national vote and declare victory. Both tendencies are
based on faulty assumptions.
The weakness of the top-down approach is that warfare is often
the result of not just national or international competition but local
competition, too. In many conflict zones, the fight is over such issues
as land, water, livestock, and low-level traditional and administrative
power. In South Sudan, for example, it is not only tensions between
President Salva Kiir and the former vice president and now rebel
leader Riek Machar that fuel the current fighting; it is also clan rival-
ries and countless spats between herders and farmers.
When it comes to the UN’s fixation on elections, the problem is that
pushing for a vote before a country is ready may do more harm than
good. In Angola in 1992, a premature vote triggered a resumption of
fighting between the ruling party and the main rebel group (resulting
in more deaths in two years than there were in the 17-year war that the
UN had supposedly ended).
Both of these errors are on full display today in Congo, the site of
both the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II and the largest
peacekeeping mission in the world. The UN attributes strife there to
national and international factors: a weak central government, tensions
between Congolese President Joseph Kabila and his opponents, and
disputes with neighboring Rwanda and Uganda. It views elections,
which Kabila has delayed for years, as a sort of cure-all. In fact, much
of the violence in Congo is local in origin. Disputes often center on

who will control neighboring land, the exploitation of local mining
sites, or the traditional or administrative power over a village or a
district. These tensions often result in localized fighting in one village
or territory but frequently escalate into generalized conflict across a
whole province and even at times spill over into neighboring countries.
Compounding these mistakes is the UN’s overriding disdain for
all things local. Because subject-area experience is valued more
than country expertise, management positions almost always go to
foreigners, who usually have no in-depth knowledge of their host
societies, cultures, or institutions. Often, staff lack the language
skills to communicate with local people—or even, at times, with one
another. In the mission in Cyprus, for example, few peacekeepers
speak Greek or Turkish; the same is true for Arabic or Nuer in South
Sudan, Albanian or Serbo-Croatian in Kosovo, and French or Haitian
Creole in Haiti.
Peacekeepers’ everyday behavior only adds to the problem. Both the
UN’s military personnel and its civilian personnel live in fortified
compounds and gather information mainly from elites. Sometimes,
the result is that they thoughtlessly apply universal templates. For
example, on seeing the success of so-called disarmament, demobili-
zation, and reintegration programs in Burundi and Sierra Leone,
the UN attempted similar initiatives in Haiti and South Sudan, where
conditions were different; the efforts failed. At other times, dangerous
groupthink takes hold. In Congo, for instance, between the last two
rounds of elections, from 2006 to 2011, most peacekeepers held a
simplistic view of the primary cause of the violence (the illegal exploi-
tation of mineral resources), the main consequence (sexual abuse
of women and girls), and the best solution (a stronger state). By
empowering the Congolese government and its army, the strategy
that emerged from this view actually led to an uptick in human rights
violations, including sexual abuse.
The preponderance of foreign staff and foreign ideas also generates
resentment among local partners. In country after country, residents
complain that peacekeepers are arrogant and demeaning, live in lavish
accommodations, drive fancy SUVs, and spend far too much time relax-
ing and far too little actually doing their jobs. They regularly disparage
peacekeepers as neocolonial; local media portray them as parasites
at best and thugs at worst. Fair or unfair, these views often cause local

people to refuse to cooperate with UN initiatives, even when they

support the underlying goals.
In recent years, insiders and outsiders have attempted to change the
standard UN approach. Certain low-level staff and high-ranking leaders
within field missions have tried to promote local conflict resolution.
A 2015 independent review of peacekeeping, commissioned by the
UN, emphasized the importance of customizing projects to each con-
text and interacting with everyday people. Apart from a few marginal
cases, however, the UN is largely paying lip service to the importance
of these ideas instead of actually implementing them.
THINK LOCALLY, ACT LOCALLY

Peacekeeping is broken, but that doesn’t mean the world should give
up on it. In many conflict zones, peacekeepers are the only ones
protecting populations against abuse by national armies and rebel
groups—even if sporadically and imperfectly. (In the Central African
Republic and Congo, people have protested or rioted at the mere
hint that the UN might close a nearby base.) What’s more, there’s no
alternative body or mechanism for reestablishing peace in conflict-
ridden countries. The goal should be not to eliminate peacekeeping
but to rethink it.
The main problem is that the UN looks at its efforts backward. It
has a cookie-cutter approach that begins with international best
practices and tries to apply them to a local situation. Instead, it should
start with local realities and then create a customized strategy. For
inspiration, the UN need only look to the pockets of peace that already
exist in many war-torn places.
Consider the island of Idjwi, in Lake Kivu in eastern Congo.
Since war broke out in Congo in 1996, a conflict that has killed any-
where from two million to five million people, Idjwi has avoided the
brunt of the violence, even as other islands in nearby lakes have not.
Idjwi has all the same factors that have fueled fighting around it: a
geostrategic location, mineral resources, ethnic tensions, a lack of
state authority, extreme poverty, disputes over land and traditional
power. But the island’s residents, including the poorest and least
powerful, have set up various grass-roots organizations—religious
networks, women’s associations, youth groups, and so on—to help
resolve disputes. They also draw on strong traditional beliefs—for
example, forming blood pacts through which different families
The National Security Law
INSTITUTE
FRED J. HANSEN
SUMMER INSTITUTE ON LEADERSHIP
& INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
THE USD SCHOOL OF LEADER-

SHIP is currently recruiting moti-
vated, enthusiastic and qualified
American undergraduate and
graduate students ages 20-25 for
an all-expenses-paid 3-week lead- Center for National Security Law • University of Virginia School of Law
ership training workshop in beau-
tiful San Diego. Includes round-trip
airfare from anywhere in the US, food and lodging, and
all program costs. Selected Americans also receive $1000
June 2–14, 2019
award. Get paid to learn! University of Virginia School of Law
Live, study, and interact with 20 hand-picked interna- Charlottesville, Virginia
tional students from zones of conflict and social strife
while learning public speaking, negotiation, mediation, The Most Recognized National Security Law
and social entrepreneurship skills. Program of its Kind in the Nation
To learn more or apply, visit:
www.hansensummerinstitute.org
Over Thirty National Security Law Topics
or contact: Over Twenty Subject Matter Experts
2019-Jan-Feb-FA-Reilly-Fragile_Foreign
Ron Bee, Managing Director or BonnieAffairs 11/6/18
Lamb, Program 10:37 AM Page 1
Coordinator
hansensummerinstitute@gmail.com Advanced training in National Security Law for professors of law
619-260-7546 and political science, government officials, and practitioners.
RECRUITING NOW FOR JULY 2019 Comments from participants:
“I have never attended a course that I have enjoyed as
much. This high-level, unique, course is an absolute
must for anyone who practices, teaches, and cares
“Likely to be the best book
published on Syria for a
about National Security Law.”
An Israeli participant.
long time…. Outstanding.

”
—Michael Provence, UC San Diego
“The scope of the material covered presented a full
spectrum of national security-related legal matters.
The Institute taught me as much about being an
effective government lawyer as it did the current state
of the law.”
A Canadian participant.
“This was the most relevant course that I’ve ever taken
in terms of National Security Law. All presentations
were provided by the highest level of professionals
in their respective areas of expertise. I will certainly
recommend this Institute to my colleagues in the
government agency in which I work.”
A Mexican participant.
“This Institute was a unique opportunity to experience

significant academic growth. It was two weeks of
no-less-than perfect organization, logistics, learning,
and hospitality. Be assured that I will spread the word
regarding what you have very rightly called ‘the best
Fragile Nation, Shattered Land: program of its kind in the United States.”’
The Modern History of Syria A U.S. participant.
by James A. Reilly • hc $38.50 For information concerning the Institute and how to apply for the 2019
program, visit the National Security Law Institute website:
T EL : 303-444-6684 • www.rienner.com cnsl.virginia.edu/nslinstitute

promise never to hurt one another. They have worked to foster

what they call a “culture of peace.”
There are similar examples: The inhabitants of the autonomous
region of Somaliland, in war-torn Somalia, have reduced violence
through a twin process of bottom-up peace building and state
building and by relying on ordinary people and local leaders to
help maintain their hard-won stability. In Colombia, residents of
the rural community of San José de Apartadó have created a zone
of peace in the middle of a region controlled by militias. Contrary to
the UN’s standard procedures, building peace doesn’t require billions
of dollars in aid or massive international interventions. It often
involves empowering average citizens.
The UN currently views such bottom-up peace-building efforts as
a sideshow. Instead, it should see them as an essential complement to
its current top-down efforts to stop fighting. In practice, this means
acknowledging that resolving local disputes is just as important—and
just as much a part of peacekeepers’ job—as addressing broader issues.
It also means devoting money to local conflict resolution. Both at
headquarters and on the ground, the UN should create specialized
offices or departments for bottom-up peacemaking and staff them
with experts in the analysis and resolution of grass-roots conflicts.
This new staff, in turn, should produce guidelines and organize train-
ing for their colleagues. The Security Council should also mandate
that all missions support bottom-up peace building financially and
logistically. And the UN leadership should emphasize to all staff
members that doing so within their own areas of expertise, whether
that be elections or gender, is mandatory.
As peacekeepers seek to bolster local peace efforts, they must resist
the temptation to impose universal approaches. They can take their
cues from the Life and Peace Institute, a Swedish peace-building
agency that grounds its actions in in-depth local expertise. In Congo,
it relies heavily on local employees and does not implement projects
directly, instead working with a few handpicked on-the-ground organi-
zations. These organizations then empower ordinary citizens to come
to their own conclusions about the causes of their communities’ con-
flicts, agree on the right solutions, and put them into practice. It’s
not foreigners based in capitals and headquarters who conceive,
design, and implement peace initiatives; it’s the intended beneficiaries
themselves, with an assist from outside organizations.
For the UN, this model would mean stepping up efforts to recruit
staff who have an in-depth understanding of local contexts and a
command of local languages, even as it continues to hire people with
subject-specific expertise, as well. When considering retention and
promotion, it should value time spent in a given area more than the
number of missions completed in dif-
ferent countries. And it should give
preference to nationals over foreigners
The UN has a cookie-cutter
when filling posts for a given mission approach that begins with
(and among nationals, it should give international best practices
preference to those who come from the and tries to apply them to a
specific area where they will be work-
ing). Foreigners should be hired only local situation.
for positions for which no local person
with the necessary skills can be found or for those in which outsider
status is an asset—for example, a recruiting post in which a local
employee would face inordinate pressure to hire friends or family, a
political job in which a local staff member might worry about retribu-
tion when standing up to a warlord, or a position in which contribut-
ing ideas from elsewhere is key. Even if the UN paid its local recruits
a salary equivalent to that of its foreign staff, as it should, this mea-
sure would still save the organization money, since it currently spends
a great deal on extras for foreigners, such as insurance premiums and
hardship allowances.
The UN should also rethink how it uses local hires. As things stand
now, foreigners tend to make decisions, while local staff execute them.
Although this makes sense for diplomatic missions seeking to uphold
their countries’ interests, it is a bad idea for an international organiza-
tion whose main mandate is to promote peace. The prevailing practice
should be inverted: local people should be in the driver’s seat, and
foreigners should remain in the back. Instead of imposing or strongly
advocating one idea, peacekeepers should use their technical expertise
in a different way: to suggest several options, explain the pros and cons
of each, and offer support—financial, logistical, military, and technical—
in implementing whichever plans the local stakeholders agree on.
Letting the intended beneficiaries of international intervention
decide is all the more important when there are hard choices to make
between two worthy goals—for instance, between democracy and peace
or between peace and justice. In the current setup, foreign peacekeepers

and diplomats, rather than ordinary citizens, are typically the ones
who choose between these goals. Far better to let those who have to
live with the consequences of a decision be the ones making it. For
example, in places where a focus on elections would come at the
expense of addressing other pressing sources of conflict (such as
poverty), the UN should recognize the tradeoff. If the demand truly
exists for elections, they can be set up quickly, with the understanding
that the risk of violence may grow. But if people seem to care more
about solving other problems, then the UN should put democracy
on the back burner and apply its scarce resources toward solving
those underlying causes of war.
A BETTER WAY
The consequences of conflict rarely stay within national borders.
What initially looks like contained fighting can quickly destabilize
vital regions, and war creates a breeding ground for terrorists and illicit
traffickers. In just the past five years, armed conflicts have spawned
the worst refugee crisis since World War II. Partially in response to all
these events, hateful nationalist political movements have surged in
the United States and Europe.
In many cases, calling on the blue helmets has become merely a
convenient substitute for a serious grappling with what it would take
to bring peace. The same story thus repeats itself, whether in Bosnia,
Congo, East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, or South Sudan. After
the outbreak of war, donor countries pledge millions of dollars in aid
and ask the UN for help. Eventually, the warring parties call for cease-
fires, sign agreements, and hold elections. But soon, sometimes just
days later, violence flares up again. Often, it has never actually ended;
in many cases, it lasts for years.
The international community’s preferred strategy for dealing with
conflict simply isn’t working: peacekeeping as currently practiced is
a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. The good news is that there is a way
to rethink the current strategy so that it has a better shot at establish-
ing lasting peace: rely more on the very people it is ostensibly trying
to protect.∂
SPONSORED REPORT
[www.gmipost.com] PHILIPPINES
A PREDICTABLE SUCCESS
O
ver the past decade, the Philippines has posted a year-on-year GDP growth of
between six and seven percent, nearly twice the world average over the same
period. Such GDP figures are not uncommon among emerging markets that benefit
from a demographic dividend and rising spending power.
The Philippines, how- gration, the Philippines, Southeast Asian econo- economy that is no lon-
ever, stands out as a an archipelago of more mies position them- ger dominated by the
star player in the ASEAN than 7,100 islands, can- selves as alternative United States but driven
region because of its ex- not ignore geopolitical locations for manufac- by several players, be
ceptional advantages, and economic move- turing and assembling they single countries,
like its skilled workers, ments in the region and finished goods. like China, or regional
thousands of whom op- beyond, for better or Filipino policy makers blocs, like the EU.
erate ships, fly planes worse. and business leaders are Like the narrative
and run hospitals across Amid the much dis- identifying growth op- of many developing
the world. The 100 cussed rise of popu- portunities in a global CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
lism around the world
- as seen in the Donald
Trump election phenom-
enon - and the growth of
Eurosceptic movement,
many have accepted
that liberal politics and
globalization have not
provided the vast major-
ity with their expected
benefits. Around the
world, millions voiced
their anger through the
ballot box.
Two years into the
Vi l l a ra z a & A n g a n g co
Managing Partner Alejandro
Duterte Administration,
Navarro the Philippines appears
to have diverged from
million-plus Filipinos familiar policies, par-
also possess a comfort- ticularly in the fields of
able familiarity with the politics and diplomacy,
English language, a plus without abandoning
for Western investors its commitment to free
in a region that is both market economics. And
geographically and lin- as a trade war rages be-
guistically fragmented. tween the United States
With technology ad- and China, and the ris-
vancing rapidly, driving ing standard of living
the world towards great- in China has resulted
er convergence and inte- in higher labor Buy costs,CSS Books Online https://cssbooks.net
[Global Media Inc. / www.gmipost.com] SSPONSORED
PONSORED R
REPORT
EPORT
A predictable success the Philippines, we’re see-
ing growth in tourism all
“ The competitive ad-
vantage of the Philippines
PHILIPPINES
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

around the country. This is the mining sector. The
countries, the benefits of iar difficulties. is an area that is open for economy has been fo-
economic growth in the “Our direct involve- even more investment and cused on BPOs and OFWs.
Philippines have not been ment in issues of national development,” he added. But we have something
inclusive. To correct that, concern has given us a here that is largely un-
the current administration broader outlook in solv- tapped. If you keep the
enacted the first package ing our clients’ problem. minerals underground,
of a tax reform law that cut We look at our clients’ they’re of no use to us.
the personal income tax problems not just from a But if they are extracted,
rate for low earners and purely legal point of view developed and utilized,
raised the rates for high but also from a strategic that’s great wealth for the
earners. The main objec- point of view, as we con- country,” Cruz, Marcelo
tive of the new tax law sider regulatory and ad- & Tenefrancia Senior
was to raise revenue for ministrative aspects. We Partner Patricia Bunye
the government’s ambi- take a multi-disciplinary said.
tious, multi-billion dollar and tailored approach to Cruz, Marcelo & Tenefrancia “It is fundamental that
“Build, Build, Build” infra- each problem,” Villaraza Senior Partner Patricia Bunye foreign firms seeking to
structure program. & Angangco Managing enter the Philippine mar-
With the announcement Par tner Alejandro Aside from the tradition- ket find the right partners.
and rollout of several in- Navarro explained. al economic sectors like This involves due diligence
frastructure projects, com- Despite the unexpected manufacturing, tourism and background intel-
panies and investors have headwinds the Philippine and retail, the fintech and ligence. Law firms such
had to enlist the services economy is facing, Navarro blockchain sectors have as CMT play an impor-
of local law firms, many of remains optimistic, “Just presented new invest- tant role in that we have
whom go beyond advice like any market, there are ment opportunities in the helped companies, both
on basic legal compli- some challenges. The 2018 Philippines, most notably big and small, navigate the
ance but provide cross- tax reform law’s effects are in energy, transportation, local jungle, so to speak,
disciplinary expertise and being felt by way of infla- logistics and banking. With and have made sure that
strong connections across tion. The second pack- more than 100 million they are aware of all the
Southeast Asia. age of this tax reform will consumers, of which more applicable laws in sectors
Founded in 1980, reduce the corporate in- than 10 million work over- they would like to enter,”
Villaraza & Anganco has come tax rate and lessen seas, the country is an ide- Bunye added.
grown into a full-service fiscal incentives. This will al place to develop idea- “Law firms help vet local
law firm that has devel- support the growth of lo- to-market applications. partners to avoid deals go-
oped a deep and exten- cal SMEs and affect busi- Because Philippine laws ing sour. Without the right
sive knowledge of issues nesses in export process- prohibit full foreign own- professional advice, issues
and challenges that face ing zones. ership in certain vital in- can develop in later stages
the business community “While there may be dustries, finding the right of the deal. As much as we
in the Philippines. As such, some negative aspects, local partner is essential would only like to present
they are able to formulate our economy has the fun- for international inves- the advantages and pos-
strategies that help their damentals and potential tors. While it may appear sible benefits of coming
clients surmount unfamil- for exponential growth. In a hindrance, this require- to the Philippines, we also
ment, in the long term, need to be upfront about
will encourage serious the potential pitfalls so
commitment to the na- that all expectations are
tional economy and local managed throughout,” she
communities. also said.
For deals in energy, Higher levels of un-
transportation and natural predictability usually ac-
resources, Cruz, Marcelo company investment and
& Tenefrancia has gained financial commitments
a reputation for being the to emerging markets. The
go-to law firm for must- right partners provide a
win cases and for ironing predictable winning in-
out successful deals that vestment, securing excel-
have benefitted both the lent legal guidance and
foreign investor and the obtaining extensive due
local community. diligence.

The Bad Politics of a Good Idea
Alan S. Blinder
W
“ e must always take heed that we buy no more of strangers
than we sell them, for so we should impoverish ourselves
and enrich them.” Those words, written in 1549 and attrib-
uted to the English diplomat Sir Thomas Smith, are one of the earliest
known expressions of what came to be called “mercantilism.” Update
the language, and they could easily have been tweeted by U.S. Presi-
dent Donald Trump, the most prominent mercantilist of today. Trump
believes—or at least says—that the United States “loses” when it runs
trade deficits with other countries. Many Americans seem to agree.
Yet the economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo made the defini-
tive case against mercantilism and for free trade more than 200 years
ago. Their arguments have convinced virtually every economist ever
since, but they seem to have made only limited inroads with the
broader public. Polls show only tenuous public support for free trade
and even less understanding of its virtues.
Some of the problem comes from the nature of the case for trade.
Unlike other economic concepts, such as supply and demand, the
idea of comparative advantage—which holds that two countries can
both benefit from trade even when one can produce everything
more cheaply than the other—is counterintuitive. Defenders of free
trade also have to contend with populist politicians and well-financed
opponents who find foreign workers and firms easy scapegoats for
domestic economic woes. Worst of all, economists may be fundamen-
tally misunderstanding what most people value in the economy. These
are hard problems to solve. Governments should do more to help
those hurt by trade, but building the necessary political coalitions
ALAN S. BLINDER is Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public
Affairs at Princeton University and the author of Advice and Dissent: Why America Suffers
When Economics and Politics Collide.

Alan S. Blinder
to do so is tricky. Economists should do a better job communicating

with the public, but at the end of the day, they may simply have to
accept the inevitable: convincing most people of the value of free
trade is a losing fight.
THEN AND NOW

A belief in the virtues of international trade (and steps to encourage
it) has dominated the policies of most Western governments since
World War II. After the Great Depression, which was deepened and
lengthened by a rash of restrictions on trade, and after the almost total
breakdown of international trade during World War II, a frightened
world set out to build a new, stronger trading system. The results were
impressive: the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT
(which was later superseded by the World Trade Organization, or
WTO); the European Economic Community (the forerunner to the
European Union); the North American Free Trade Agreement, or
NAFTA; and many other trade-opening deals.
Throughout this period, U.S. policy was broadly internationalist
and pro-trade, at least when viewed from 30,000 feet. Indeed, the
United States often took the lead among the big countries. The average
tariffs levied by the United States have been falling, with only minor
interruptions, since the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s.
Washington led the negotiations that resulted in the GATT and later
the WTO and did the same in several subsequent rounds of trade talks.
It signed numerous bilateral trade agreements.
But when seen up close, U.S. trade policy looked (and still looks)
rather more protectionist. Take NAFTA, which came into force in 1994.
That agreement marked a huge step toward freer trade in the Western
Hemisphere. But there are still many Mexican farmers who can’t
export their tomatoes to the United States because of quotas, for
example, and Mexican truckers who can’t drive their cargoes across
the U.S. border despite NAFTA’s provisions to the contrary.
Despite these limitations, both Democratic and Republican leaders
by and large backed freer trade—until recently. But not Trump. During
the 2016 presidential campaign, his protectionist outcries shocked
many observers, who saw them as far outside the mainstream. Yet he
did not hide them; he ran on them. And he won. Since taking office,
Trump has kept to his anti-trade agenda. He withdrew the United
States from the painstakingly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership
and threatened to upend NAFTA before negotiating a new trade deal

with Canada and Mexico; he has slapped tariffs on imported steel and
aluminum, started a trade war with China, and expressed hostility
toward other trade agreements. Despite traditional GOP support for
free trade, Republican members of Congress have seemed to go along
with Trump’s attacks on trade, and he seems to have paid little or no
political price for them.
Trump was able to push so many Americans into sixteenth-century
thinking because most Americans’ belief in free trade is a mile wide
but an inch deep. Polls show that the level of support depends on
what is meant by “free trade,” how the question is posed, and when it
is asked. Taken in isolation, the
phrase “free trade” seems to meet
with approval. For example, a poll
Most Americans’ belief in free
by NBC and The Wall Street Journal trade is a mile wide but an
in February 2017 asked Americans, inch deep.
“In general, do you think that free
trade between the United States and foreign countries has helped the
United States, has hurt the United States, or has not made much of a
difference either way?” Free trade won: 43 percent of respondents
said it helped, and 34 percent said it hurt. That’s not overwhelming,
but it’s good news for free traders.
Use the word “globalization,” however, and attitudes change. A poll
by CBS and The New York Times in July 2016 defined “globalization” as
“the increase of trade, communication, travel and other things among
countries around the world.” It then asked, “In general, has the United
States gained more or lost more because of globalization?” Globalization
lost this poll decisively: 55 percent to 35 percent.
Put any mention of jobs into the question, and the results for interna-
tional trade get even worse. A CBS poll in 2016 asked Americans, “Over-
all, would you say U.S. trade with other countries creates more jobs for
the U.S., loses more jobs for the U.S., or does U.S. trade with other
countries have no effect on U.S. jobs?” About 15 percent of respondents
gave what economists would call the right answer: trade has little or no
effect on the number of jobs. About seven percent were unsure. Among
the others, 29 percent thought trade created jobs and 48 percent thought
it destroyed them. And in a poll conducted that same year by Bloom-
berg, which juxtaposed the costs of restrictions on imports and protect-
ing American jobs, trade restrictions won: 65 percent to 22 percent.

Alan S. Blinder
It seems that Americans favor trade in the abstract but often not in
the concrete. And support fades fast if trade is connected to jobs or
globalization. Most important, in almost every case, public beliefs about
international trade differ enormously from the lessons of Economics
101. So if the case for free trade is so compelling, why have economists
failed to sell it?
IT JUST DOESN’T SOUND RIGHT

The most obvious reason is that comparative advantage is counter-
intuitive. That isn’t true of most big ideas in economics. The notion
that demand declines and supply increases as prices rise makes intuitive
sense. So does Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand—the idea
that decentralized markets produce a dazzling variety of goods and
services efficiently and get them into the hands of the consumers who
want (and can afford) them.
The case for trade is harder to grasp. Suppose Country A can
produce every product more cheaply than Country B, thanks either
to its lower wages or to its greater efficiency. Will both countries gain
from trade? Or will jobs gravitate to Country A, leaving the higher-paid
workers of Country B jobless? Ricardo argued that it’s the former,
as each country exploits its comparative advantage by specializing in
producing different goods. But naive intuition says it’s the latter. After
all, won’t free markets send the business to the cheapest producers?
It takes some time to understand why Ricardo was right. His basic
insight was this: if Countries A and B trade with each other, Country
A can specialize in producing what it is best at, Country B can special-
ize in producing what it is least bad at, and then the two countries can
trade to their mutual advantage. My economics students have to lis-
ten patiently for 50 minutes while I explain comparative advantage
and rebut the arguments against it. Viewers of 30-second TV ads are
under no such obligation. The hard truth is that complicated ideas are
tough to sell.
Yet lack of understanding is not the only reason for public skepticism
about the virtues of trade. Some people may understand the theory
tolerably well but still have good reasons to oppose trade openings.
Elementary trade theory shows that every move toward freer trade
creates both winners and losers, just like almost any economic change.
If the United States cuts or eliminates tariffs on steel, for example,
the arrival of more foreign steel will hurt domestic steel companies
The spoils of trade: imported frozen seafood in Vernon, California, September 2018
and cost some American steelworkers their jobs. Those people will
rightly see themselves as victims of trade. That other Americans—
automakers and their employees, say—are winners from that same
trade will be little consolation.
The theory of comparative advantage holds that the gains from trade
to the nation as a whole exceed the losses. That opens up a possibility
that U.S. policy has rarely exploited: the winners could, in principle,
compensate the losers and still have something left over for themselves.
Doing so would allow everyone to gain from trade. But successive
U.S. administrations, like the governments of other countries, have
failed to do anything remotely close to that.
The United States does have some meager compensation programs.
Trade Adjustment Assistance, for instance, offers people who have lost
their jobs to foreign competition money for retraining and extra income
while they are unemployed. But TAA is poorly funded, is hard to access,
and reaches few displaced workers. In principle, Washington could im-
prove it. In practice, however, Republicans don’t like the program, and
organized labor sometimes scoffs at it, calling it “burial insurance.”
MIKE BLAKE / REUTERS
Unions prefer jobs to “welfare.” This attitude, although understandable,

creates an insuperable barrier to creating a better policy. A pro-labor
program that organized labor won’t support will get nowhere politically.
The way the gains and losses from trade liberalization are distributed
makes the politics of trade agreements even more difficult. More often

Alan S. Blinder
than not, the gains are widespread but small for each individual, making
them almost invisible to most people. The losses, by contrast, are
concentrated, are highly visible, and hit well-defined groups. When
it comes to totting up these gains and losses, the economic calculus
virtually always favors freer trade, but the political calculus often does
not. The gains and losses are the same, but the economics and the
politics place enormously different weights on them. This is likely an
insoluble problem.
Take the United States’ notorious sugar quotas. Virtually every
American family pays more for sugar because of them. Add it all up
and it comes to a lot of money. But no individual sugar buyer will be
moved to political action to save a
few dollars a year. Contrast that
The economic calculus with the U.S. beet sugar industry.
virtually always favors The quotas may be the only thing
freer trade, but the political standing between its firms and
calculus often does not. extinction and between its work-
ers and unemployment. To them,
it is worth going to the political
mat to preserve the quotas. So yes, free trade serves the broad public
interest. But there will always be firms and workers who are hurt by
trade and clamor for protection.
What’s more, economists and other supporters of free trade are not
the only salespeople—and certainly not the most vocal. In a famous
passage from The Wealth of Nations, Smith observed that the case for
free trade “is so very manifest that it . . . could [never] have been
called into question had not the interested sophistry of merchants and
manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind.” Inter-
ested sophistry did not end in 1776, when that book was published. In
fact, modern mass communication and lobbying-based democratic
politics have made it more powerful than ever. It’s certainly more
powerful than pure logic.
The schism between economic and political attitudes is deepened
by what the economist Charles Schultze once called the “‘do no direct
harm’ principle.” In the hurly-burly of a modern economy, people are
constantly being hurt by economic changes beyond their control.
Most of the time, that harm doesn’t have an obvious cause. But if it
can be traced directly to government actions, there will be political
hell to pay—and politicians know it.
In one sense, trade shouldn’t suffer from this problem. After all,
free trade is the natural state of affairs, even if most people don’t realize
it. If governments didn’t erect barriers at borders, goods and services
would flow freely across them. Just watch the trucks going back and
forth through the Lincoln Tunnel between New York and New Jersey
every day. This natural trade constantly creates winners and losers,
without any government action. But trade agreements are different.
They are deliberate, noticeable actions by governments. They have
“made in Washington” stamped all over them. So the losers know
exactly whom to blame.
The way trade deals get made doesn’t help their popularity, either.
In order to make it through Congress, trade agreements need political
backing. But consumer interest groups are typically silent or impotent.
So supporters turn to big companies seeking access to foreign markets.
This sort of coalition building can work, but it has downsides. First,
by treating higher exports as the main goal, it adds political heft to
mercantilist attitudes. Second, it strengthens the left’s image of free
trade as part of the corporate agenda. Before Trump, after all, protec-
tionist sentiment in the United States came mainly from Democrats.
LUDDITES AND MERCANTILISTS

There’s a striking difference between the failure of the Luddites, those
nineteenth-century textile workers who smashed mechanical weavers
in England, and the enduring allure of mercantilism. Technology and
trade seem to occupy very different places in the public mind. Ned
Lud lost the argument. Sir Thomas Smith is hanging in there.
New technologies destroy (and create) far more jobs than trade
does. But despite sporadic fears of robots, it is hard to find anyone
today who advocates blocking technological progress on the grounds
that it will cost jobs. Rather, job losses caused by technological ad-
vances are shrugged off as inevitable, part of the price of progress.
But job losses due to trade are blamed on specific villains, and people
try to prevent them.
Economists see technological improvements and freer trade as
similar in their effects. They both offer higher living standards to
the majority at the expense of job displacement for the minority.
Improvements in technology, moreover, have been prime drivers
of expanded international trade. The invention of ships capable
of traveling long distances, jet aircraft, shipping containers, and

Alan S. Blinder
telecommunications probably did more to boost trade than all the

trade agreements ever negotiated.
But most people—and therefore the politicians who represent
them—see no contradiction in supporting technological advances
while opposing freer trade. Raging at the machine seems stupid, but
raging at foreigners does not. The politics also work better. Unlike
Silicon Valley, foreign exporters have no representatives in Congress
(although they do hire lobbyists) and make convenient scapegoats for
demagogues such as Trump.
DIFFERENT WORLDS
As important as the lack of public understanding and the perverse
political incentives are, the single biggest reason why economists can’t
sell free trade may be philosophical: the worldview that underpins the
discipline of economics differs dramatically from the worldview of
most people.
Economists see the central goals of an economic system as producing
goods and services at the lowest possible cost and then distributing
them to the people who want them. Every elementary economics
textbook describes those goals, touts how well free markets accomplish
them, and then notes some problem areas in which markets don’t get
it quite right (pollution, for example). Economists’ focus is squarely
on the well-being of consumers.
The well-being of producers is secondary—if it enters the picture
at all. In the economists’ vision, firms exist to serve the ultimate goal
of consumer welfare. Work is something people do to earn the income
they need to support their consumption. It is not an end in itself,
nor a direct source of satisfaction or self-worth. The interests of
producers, including the value people get from their jobs, count for
little or nothing in standard economic calculus. In fact, work is
scored as a negative—something people dislike and do only to support
their consumption.
But what if economists have this wrong? What if people care as
much (or more) about their role as producers—about their jobs—as
they do about the goods and services they consume? That would mean
economists have been barking up the wrong tree for more than two
centuries. Maybe the public sees the central goal of an economic
system as providing well-paid jobs, not producing cheap goods. If so,
the standard case for free trade evaporates. The argument for trade
would then have to be based on the idea—also found in Ricardo—that

comparative advantage moves people into jobs where they are more
productive and therefore earn more. That seems a harder sell and, in
any case, is not the pitch economists have been making for centuries.
The producer perspective seems to dominate public opinion. A
2016 Bloomberg poll, for example, asked Americans whether they
would pay a little more for domestically produced merchandise.
Even with no direct mention of saving jobs, the results were lop-
sided: 82 percent of respondents said they were willing to pay a
little more; only 13 percent wanted the lowest prices. A Quinnipiac
poll that same year posed a similar question, asking respondents
whether they supported renegotiating trade deals, even if that
meant paying higher prices. Again, neither jobs nor imports were
mentioned directly. But again, public opinion was overwhelmingly
protectionist: 64 percent were willing to pay more for U.S.-made
products; only 28 percent weren’t.
Talk is cheap, of course. Maybe consumers would not be willing to
shell out more to buy domestic rather than foreign goods. After all,
they frequent Walmart and other big retailers where imports line the
shelves. But even if the attitudes that show up in polling don’t have
much effect on how people shop, those attitudes may still resonate
with politicians.
CAN THE SALE BE MADE?

Although there aren’t any quick fixes to the problem of selling free
trade to the public—it’s just too difficult—there are some things
economists and policymakers can and should do that might soften
the opposition to free trade at the margins.
Washington should devote more money to the TAA program, make
it simpler and easier to access, and boost efforts to get displaced workers
into new jobs. Right now, TAA is a bureaucratic maze to navigate—and
underfunded to boot. It should be easier for those who need the benefits
to access them.
Economists could also try to tie trade closer to technology in peo-
ple’s minds. The hope here is that hammering home the similarities
between the two might generate some innocence by association. For
example, shopping online is becoming increasingly popular. If the
goods are made abroad, online shopping becomes just the latest
technological innovation that spurs trade. Do people want to give up

Alan S. Blinder
Amazon? Such a campaign probably wouldn’t work, but it wouldn’t

cost much to try.
It would cost even less to get economists to stop using the dismis-
sive term “transition costs” to refer to job losses from trade. A
55-year-old steelworker who loses his job in Ohio won’t find solace in
the fact that new jobs are popping up in aircraft manufacturing in
Seattle. Nor should he. To him, the “transition” may last the rest of
his working life.
These are all things economists and policymakers can do, although
it’s not clear if they would work. Sadly, there is a longer, and much
more important, list of things that probably can’t be changed. The
principle of comparative advantage really is counterintuitive and
therefore hard to sell to a public that has many other demands on
its attention. The political calculus really is inherently biased
against freer trade. Politicians who vote for trade agreements can’t
avoid taking the blame for any losses that result. The left will always
believe that trade favors big business. For centuries, demagogues
have blamed foreigners for domestic woes; they aren’t going to stop
anytime soon. And most fundamental, if consumers care more
about good jobs than cheap goods, the standard arguments for trade
won’t persuade them. Given all of this, maybe economists should
feel lucky that international trade is not in even worse shape than it
already is.∂
Trump Versus the

Government
Can America Get Its Story Straight?
Elliott Abrams
A
s he reaches the halfway mark of his first term, President
Donald Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be
both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the imple-
mentation of policies that he desires. Reflecting on his frustrations,
he might be amused by an old anecdote about the struggles of one of
his predecessors. As the diplomat Charles Frankel recalled in his
memoir, a White House visitor once presented a proposal to President
John F. Kennedy. “That’s a first-rate idea,” Kennedy said. “Now we
must see whether we can get the government to accept it.”
The distinction between the president and the government is not a
product of the Trump era, but it has become one of the administra-
tion’s defining characteristics. Rhetorically, the president has often
squarely rejected the U.S. foreign policy consensus of recent decades.
He has questioned the United States’ commitment to allies in Asia
and Europe, fumed about U.S. wars in the Middle East, and lauded
the leaders of Washington’s geopolitical rivals. But speeches are one
thing and official action is another. Although Trump’s pronouncements
have ruffled feathers, his administration’s policy has been marked
more by continuity than by change. The United States remains in
NATO, thousands of U.S. troops are still deployed throughout the
Middle East, and Washington is pursuing a hard line against China
and Russia.
What explains this divergence? In part, it may be the result of an
intentional ploy by a president who thrives on chaos—a good cop,
ELLIOTT ABRAMS is Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations. He served in senior National Security Council and State Department positions in
the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations.

Elliott Abrams
bad cop routine in which Trump states a maximalist position and

then leaves it to his subordinates to discover a compromise. Part of
the gap, however, appears to be the result of an effort by some within
the government, and even in Trump’s own cabinet, to blunt his initia-
tives, carrying on business as usual in direct opposition to the wishes
of the president.
Trump’s opponents may applaud this internal resistance, but it
brings with it problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where
the United States really stands. When foreign states cannot predict
what mix of Trump’s objectives and the United States’ more traditional
goals will ultimately be translated into policy, allies will be slow to
support U.S. initiatives and enemies may take chances that a clearer
stance from Washington would have led them to avoid.
THE ADMINISTRATION’S TWO FACES

There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S.
government. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced his
intention to follow through on a campaign promise to withdraw U.S.
troops from South Korea, despite widespread resistance to the move
at the CIA and the Department of Defense. As Morton Abramowitz,
a top Pentagon official at the time, later recalled, “We began a rear-
guard action—delay it, water it down, mitigate the decision as much
as possible.” Faced with stonewalling, Carter eventually abandoned
the policy. The pattern is familiar, and it is limited neither to the
United States nor to democracies. “All the irate decrees of Frederick
the Great concerning the ‘abolition of serfdom’ were derailed,” the
sociologist Max Weber wrote about eighteenth-century Prussia,
“because the official mechanism simply ignored them as the occasional
ideas of a dilettante.”
“Dilettante” is no doubt a kinder description than what many in
the federal government would use for the president, yet the dynamic
documented by Weber is on full display in Washington. For years
before assuming the presidency, Trump called for an end to the war in
Afghanistan; in 2013, he tweeted, “Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our
troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions
there.” But after eight months in office and what he called “many
meetings” with “my cabinet and generals,” Trump concluded that “the
consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable.”
Similarly, he has long wanted U.S. troops out of Syria, and in March
Trump Versus the Government
Dissent in the ranks: Trump and Mattis in the Oval Office, March 2017
2018, he said they would be leaving the country “very soon.” But in
September, the administration’s Syria envoy, James Jeffrey, stated that
“the new policy is we’re no longer pulling out by the end of the year.”
Perhaps the clearest example of the gap between the president and
the government is the United States’ Russia policy. To the horror of
his domestic critics, Trump has often praised Russian President
Vladimir Putin and expressed a desire for improved relations with
Moscow, sometimes going so far as to publicly support Russian posi-
tions. Just before the 2018 G-7 summit in Canada, Trump stunned his
counterparts by telling them, “Russia should be in this meeting,” even
though the country was kicked out of the G-8 in 2014 for annexing
Crimea. And after the media reported that Trump said that Crimea
is Russian because everyone living there speaks Russian, John Bolton,
his national security adviser, was forced to clarify: “That’s not the
position of the United States.”
Yet at the same time as Trump was sounding dovish notes at the
CAR L O S BAR R IA / R E U T E R S
G-7, U.S. troops were in northern Poland participating in Trojan

Footprint, “the largest NATO special forces training exercise in recent
memory,” in the words of Anne Applebaum, a Washington Post colum-
nist and forceful Trump critic. A June 2018 editorial in The Wall Street
Journal correctly pointed out that Trump’s Russia policy “has been
tougher than Barack Obama’s.” It continued: “He’s signed off on

Elliott Abrams
strengthening NATO deployments to Eastern Europe and admitting

Macedonia to the alliance. He has dispatched Javelin antitank missiles
to Ukraine, let the Pentagon attack Russian mercenaries in Syria,
sanctioned Vladimir Putin’s cronies, and expelled Russian spies in
solidarity with Britain.” Even Michael McFaul, who served as U.S.
ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, has called
the Trump administration’s Russia policy, “pretty good.” “I support
almost all aspects of it,” he admitted in an interview. “It’s just that the
president doesn’t seem to agree with it.”
IN SEARCH OF A TRUMP DOCTRINE

The divide between the president’s words and his administration’s ac-
tions raises the question, What is Trump’s actual policy? Have his of-
ficials convinced him of the need to be tough with Russia, or are those
sanctions and exercises and deployments the product of cabinet mem-
bers, such as Bolton, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Secre-
tary of State Mike Pompeo, struggling to maintain the policy they
favor despite the president’s own views?
Some evidence points to the latter. In September 2018, an anony-
mous Trump administration staffer wrote in a New York Times op-ed
that “many of the senior officials in [Trump’s] own administration are
working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his
worst inclinations.” Such resistance is unsurprising. The president has
a Hobbesian worldview and is skeptical of allowing international com-
mitments and diplomatic pleasantries to stand in the way of pursuing
what he perceives to be U.S. national interests. This runs counter to
the instincts of most career diplomats, military officers, and analysts,
who see alliances as the very heart of U.S. power and influence. The
resulting tension within the administration is often on public display.
In a graduation speech at the U.S. Naval War College last spring,
Mattis mentioned Tadeusz Kosciuszko, the Marquis de Lafayette, the
Comte de Rochambeau, and Baron von Steuben—foreign veterans of
the U.S. Revolutionary War whose statues stand in Lafayette Square,
across from the White House—as “reminders . . . that America does
not stand alone.” It was pretty clear whom he was reminding.
In some cases, Trump’s conflict with the government reflects a pop-
ulist impulse to represent the views of voters who feel left behind by
an out-of-touch elite. On trade, for instance, Trump has bucked the
bipartisan consensus by criticizing “unfair” deals, imposing tariffs,
and adopting an aggressive negotiating stance toward allies and rivals

alike. Most in Washington agree that the global trading order has
greatly benefited the United States, but there are millions of Ameri-
cans it has harmed. They rightly believe that their concerns have been
ignored by the great and the good in government, at universities, and
on Wall Street. In June, The Economist chided Trump to “remember
the words of Henry Kissinger: order cannot simply be ordained; to be
enduring, it must be accepted as just.” But that is precisely the point:
to many Americans, the system that elites ordained for them has come
to seem unjust.
Trump has similarly channeled popular frustrations about the cost of
U.S. alliances. At NATO’s July 2018 summit in Brussels, he reportedly
threatened to leave the alliance un-
less the Europeans stepped up their
defense spending. Although shocking
The divide between the
to seasoned diplomats, such rhetoric president’s words and his
resonates with Americans who recog- administration’s actions
nize that alliances are critical for raises the question, What is
Western security but who also feel
that the United States has dispropor- Trump’s actual policy?
tionately borne the burden of paying
for them. As rich a country as Germany, for example, spends only
1.2 percent of its GDP on defense, compared with the United States’
3.5 percent.
Despite Trump’s unorthodox rhetoric, moreover, many of his
positions fall well within the Republican and, indeed, the U.S. foreign
policy mainstream. In 2011, Robert Gates, who served as secretary
of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
warned of “a dim if not dismal future” for NATO unless the Europe-
ans spent more. And although Trump has been criticized for his
friendly relations with enemies, including Putin, North Korea’s Kim
Jong Un, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, such outreach was cele-
brated when Obama made similar overtures to Cuba and Iran.
Trump’s novel combination of harsh and undiplomatic language,
hard bargaining with friends, and outreach to foes can sometimes
bring clear benefits: thanks in part to Trump’s tough line, NATO
members increased their overall defense spending as a percentage of
GDP for a second consecutive year in 2017, after zero increases from
2009 to 2016.

Elliott Abrams
In fact, defenders of the administration argue that in most respects,

Trump is a normal president. He is tougher on Russia—and far
tougher on Iran—than Obama was. And despite stating his desire to
disengage from what he sees as endless and unproductive wars, he
has kept U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. His administra-
tion’s official foreign policy documents, including the 2017 National
Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, reflect the
Republican consensus.
Where he diverges, his supporters claim, is merely in his push to
right certain imbalances that have built up over recent decades. This
has led to real accomplishments—not just greater defense spending
by NATO allies but also a new, renamed North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and a better trade deal with South Korea—and to
reasonable demands, including for fairer trade relations with China.
Trump’s style has provoked enraged criticism from the self-proclaimed
resistance (comprising most of the mainstream media and nearly all
elected Democrats), which treats every minor breach of protocol as a
prelude to the apocalypse. But if one looks past the hysteria—so the
argument goes—there is far more continuity, and far more success, in
the current administration’s foreign policy than Trump’s critics will
ever acknowledge. In many cases, animosity toward the president has
precluded balanced policy analysis.
AMERICA THE UNPREDICTABLE

Trump’s defenders make a fair point. Many of the attacks on Trump are
exaggerated, and the media spectacle surrounding his presidency has
done little to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of his administra-
tion. There are of course such weaknesses—but constructive criticism
of the president should ideally come from those who sympathize with
Trump and his policies and would like to see them succeed.
Unfortunately, there are too few of these people in office. One of
the real problems with the Trump administration has been its inability
to find and retain qualified staff. As George Shultz, who served as
secretary of state under U.S. President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his
memoir, “In the end, it is the president’s foreign policy, so key people
who help him shape it and carry it out . . . should be on his political
wavelength.” Finding like-minded staff has been difficult for the pres-
ident. Many Republicans do not wish to serve in his administration,
and many who would be willing to do so have been excluded for
opposing him in 2016. And then there are those, such as the anony-
mous official writing in The New York Times, who go in, only to
discover that they are not on his wavelength after all; turnover has
been high. As a result, the administration has struggled to employ
qualified and effective implementers of Trump’s foreign policy vision.
Instead, it has been slow to fill vacancies and has often had to rely
on acting officials who are veterans of the establishment and oppose
the president’s worldview.
Trump’s critics may see this as a blessing. It is not. More than a
traditional president, Trump relies on excellent staff work. His leader-
ship style seems to assume that bureaucratic conservatism and even
resistance come with the territory. He
innovates, breaks china, tries new ap-
proaches to enemies, and offends allies,
Trump’s foreign policy
leaving it to his advisers to figure out remains a work in progress.
when and where to mend fences or
even reverse course. A leader leads, and then subordinate officials
work out the details. In such a system, the loyalty and skill of those
officials are especially critical.
Staffing problems have, in turn, exacerbated the danger of unpre-
dictability. Because no one knows whether officials at various levels
of the administration are implementing a version of Trump’s orders
or simply ignoring his preferences in favor of their own, neither
U.S. officials nor foreigners can be sure where U.S. policy stands or
where it will end up. For instance, is the United States permanently
committed to NATO, or only so long as Mattis is running the Pentagon?
When, this past July, Trump was asked on Fox News about defending
Montenegro, a NATO member, the president responded by hanging
the Montenegrins out to dry: “They’re very aggressive people. They
may get aggressive. And, congratulations, you’re in World War III.”
Although the Trump administration’s support for NATO has in many
ways been quite strong, such comments may cause Montenegro and
other NATO members, not to mention Putin, to wonder how the
president would react in a crisis.
This unpredictability is fed by a sense that Trump does not see
the United States’ alliances as the enormous assets that they are. In
October, Mattis reminded an audience at a security conference in
Bahrain, “Over more than four decades in uniform, I never fought
in a solely American formation.” But the president sometimes speaks of

Elliott Abrams
alliances as an unfair burden rather than a source of real and potential

strength. “Our allies care about themselves. They don’t care about us,”
he said in March 2018. On other occasions, he has referred to the
United States’ “so-called allies.”
If U.S. policy came to reflect that view consistently—which it has
not during the first two years of the Trump administration—no
amount of bureaucratic resistance could prevent those alliances from
eroding in ways that would be hard to repair. As Mattis suggested in
his speech to the Naval War College, alliances are the foundation of
U.S. security and one of the chief features that distinguish the United
States from China, Iran, and Russia, all of which have few allies.
Trump similarly goes too far in his suspicion of trade. It is perfectly
appropriate for him to take a tougher line in trade negotiations, espe-
cially given his support among blue-collar Americans who feel that
they have been harmed by previous deals. But not every single bilat-
eral relationship must show a positive trade balance every year. Trump
himself has stated that his tariffs are tools for getting fairer deals, not
ends in themselves, and his success in renegotiating NAFTA is evidence
that his more aggressive line can work. But China will be the ultimate
test. Here, rather than the bilateral negotiations favored by the presi-
dent, a more productive approach would be to work with partners such
as Canada, Japan, and the EU to force China to play by the rules. But
whether acting alone or in a coalition, if Trump can use huge tariffs to
win Chinese concessions on trade and investment, he will have won a
significant victory.
Finally, Trump has still not grasped that enormous benefits come
from having a moral foundation for U.S. foreign policy. He has too
often acted as if the United States were merely one nation among
many, out solely to maximize its wealth and power. Yet the world’s most
powerful country needs to uphold a global system that condemns, and
tries to prevent, some forms of aggressive conduct and growing
tyranny. Washington’s opponents clearly recognize that the spread of
democracy is in the United States’ interest, which is why they try to
subvert democracy when and where they can. Trump has sometimes
indicated his own support for democracy and human rights—criticiz-
ing, for instance, the abysmal human rights records of Cuba, Iran,
Syria, and Venezuela. He should understand that supporting these
values more generally will help put “America first.” Nixonian realpo-
litik, moreover, is not a political winner; Americans do not actually
believe that there are no moral distinctions between the tyrants of the
world and the United States and its democratic allies.
THE ROAD AHEAD

Trump’s foreign policy remains a work in progress. He did not as-
semble the current team until Bolton arrived in April 2018, and now,
for the first time, the president appears to have senior advisers he fully
trusts. The number of vacancies on the National Security Council staff
and at the State Department is slowly but steadily falling, and it is
possible that during the second half of Trump’s term, the gap between
the president and the government will shrink, in both size and impor-
tance. Trump’s views on U.S. troop commitments, for instance, have
already shown an evolution toward the government’s stance. When, in
March 2017, he announced that he would not be withdrawing from
Afghanistan, he explained, “All my life I’ve heard that decisions are
much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, in
other words, when you’re president of the United States.”
But Trump’s foreign policy will not be a regression to the mean. He
will never be persuaded that he should seek, or care about, popularity
at Davos or in Brussels; he will always try to extract the last ounce of
U.S. advantage from allies as well as opponents; he will remain mis-
trustful of multilateral agreements that limit the United States’ options;
and he will not abandon the rhetoric that got him elected and that so
alarms his critics at home and abroad.
In his first two years as president, Trump has had one great piece
of luck: there has been no great international crisis to test his nerves
and his approach to world politics. If none arises in the next two
years, he will be able to show American voters in 2020 that despite all
the criticism, his foreign policy did not lead to tangible defeats or to
war. Furthermore, he will be able to argue that the gains of a more
aggressively nationalist stance outweigh its costs. His critics, includ-
ing his opponent in 2020, will face the difficult task of convincing
Americans that the costs of Trump’s foreign policy, many of them
intangible, were unacceptably high.
That is a debate worth having, but the critics’ refusal to weigh Trump’s
foreign policy fairly and their focus on his rhetoric and personality
make it extremely unlikely to happen. A more nuanced argument
about the president will have to await his departure from office two—
or, perhaps more likely, six—years from now.∂

America’s Long Goodbye

The Real Crisis of the Trump Era
Eliot A. Cohen
I
n the end, 2018 was not the year of U.S. foreign policy apoca-
lypse. Normally, this would not be a cause for celebration. But
given the anxiety about President Donald Trump and what his
administration might do—pull out of NATO, start a war with Iran or
North Korea—it was something to be grateful for. In fact, Trump’s
first two years in office have been marked by a surprising degree of
stability. The president has proved himself to be what many critics
have long accused him of being: belligerent, bullying, impatient,
irresponsible, intellectually lazy, short-tempered, and self-obsessed.
Remarkably, however, those shortcomings have not yet translated
into obvious disaster.
But the surface-level calm of the last two years should not distract
from a building crisis of U.S. foreign policy, of which Trump is both
a symptom and a cause. The president has outlined a deeply mis-
guided foreign policy vision that is distrustful of U.S. allies, scornful
of international institutions, and indifferent, if not downright hostile,
to the liberal international order that the United States has sustained
for nearly eight decades. The real tragedy, however, is not that the
president has brought this flawed vision to the fore; it is that his is
merely one mangled interpretation of what is rapidly emerging as a
new consensus on the left and the right: that the United States should
accept a more modest role in world affairs.
One can and should hope that the forces that have constrained
Trump so far will continue to limit the damage of his remaining
years in office, but the push for a U.S. retreat from the world did not
begin with the president and will not end with his exit. The crisis of
ELIOT A. COHEN is Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at Johns Hopkins
University’s School of Advanced International Studies and the author of The Big Stick: The
Limits of Soft Power and the Necessity of Military Force.
the United States’ post–Cold War foreign policy has been a long time
in the making, and it will last beyond Trump.
LIVING DANGEROUSLY
Although the worst has not come to pass, the president’s foreign
policy has been curious and in some ways disturbing. On trade, his
administration blew up the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), only to replace it with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement,
which includes somewhat better terms for American dairy farmers
but mostly mirrors the original deal. What is more serious, Trump
began a steadily mounting trade war with China while intensifying
U.S. complaints about intellectual property theft, all in the context
of increasingly aggressive interactions between Chinese forces and
U.S. warships in the South China Sea. Such moves are risky, but
they have not yet come back to bite him.
Trump’s diplomacy with U.S. rivals has been similarly erratic,
but here, too, the damage so far has been limited. On North Korea,
Trump dialed back his initial threats to unleash “fire and fury” and
abruptly shifted toward placating the regime. He suspended U.S.–
South Korean joint military exercises, met with North Korean
leader Kim Jong Un, and declared at a September 2018 rally that he
and Kim “fell in love.” (These actions do not appear to have had any
real effect on the North Korean nuclear program, however.) On
Iran, Trump reversed the Obama administration’s more accommo-
dating policy, pulling out of the nuclear deal with the country in
May 2018 and hitting Tehran with a barrage of financial sanctions
throughout the summer and fall. And on Russia, the government
has continued with a confrontational policy despite the president’s
friendly rhetoric.
U.S. relations with some allies, especially those in Europe, have at
times been strained, but those with others have continued unimpaired.
The United States has grown closer to India and strengthened rela-
tions with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The right-
wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
could not be happier with the Trump administration, which moved the
U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, cut funding to Palestinian
charities, and looked the other way as Israel denied entry to young
Americans affiliated with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions move-
ment. And Japan, whose prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has developed

Eliot A. Cohen
a friendly personal relationship with Trump, has managed, for now, to

avoid the president’s wrath.
The United States’ wars have also continued. U.S. campaigns against
the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State (or ISIS) in Iraq and Syria,
and Islamist movements in Africa carry on apace, with little change
from the Obama administration. In April 2018, when asked what he
wanted to do with U.S. troops in Syria, Trump said, “I want to get out,”
but then he reversed course, and today over 2,000 U.S. soldiers remain
in the country, with an eye toward countering Iranian influence.
There is an idea behind Trump’s foreign policy (“America first”) but
not a concept of geopolitics—a plan or
set of priorities based on calculation and
The crisis of U.S. foreign reflection. Under his leadership, the
policy has been a long time United States has picked fights not only
in the making, and it will with China and Russia but also with al-
last beyond Trump. lies such as Canada, Mexico, and the EU.
His hopes of denuclearizing North Ko-
rea and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict strike most observers as quixotic. His policy seems driven by
sporadic fits of belligerence or enthusiasm, unrelated to any coherent set
of objectives or methods for achieving them. Yet on many questions of
substance, the Trump administration, erratic though it is, has kept U.S.
foreign policy more or less intact.
HOW TRUMP STAYED ON TRACK

What explains this continuity? Part of the reason is that Trump seems
to have a short attention span, little understanding of how the federal
government works, and a tendency to get distracted by domestic
political fights. Insider accounts of the administration should be taken
with a grain of salt, but they paint a consistent picture. In an anony-
mous New York Times op-ed, one insider described being told by a
“top official” that “there is literally no telling whether [Trump] might
change his mind from one minute to the next.” It is unsurprising that
a man who by some accounts gets most of his news from television
cannot get a grip on the vast complexity of the U.S. government.
The Times op-ed points to a second, undeniable fact: Trump faces
unprecedented opposition from within his own administration. This
opposition has only grown as Trump has replaced his initial cadre of
advisers. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Ad-
America alone: Trump at a campaign rally in Missoula, Montana, October 2018

viser John Bolton are both more familiar with Washington than their
predecessors and more adept at telling the president what he wants to
hear. Both hold views of foreign policy that are not wildly distant from
those of establishment Republicans; they just take care not to rub
them in Trump’s face. Here, they are following the lead of Secretary
of Defense James Mattis, who has avoided the White House, declined
to contradict the president, and quietly fought for status quo positions
on everything from troop levels in the Middle East to the U.S. com-
mitment to NATO. The administration’s internal conflicts are most vis-
ible in its Russia policy: Trump lavishes praise on Russian President
Vladimir Putin and then more or less goes along with the hard line
pushed by his subordinates.
Another explanation for the administration’s continuity with past
administrations is that foreign leaders, like Trump’s officials, have
learned to manipulate the president. For example, Polish President
Andrzej Duda proposed establishing a permanent U.S. base on Polish
soil and naming it “Fort Trump”—an appealing suggestion for a U.S.
president who, misgivings about NATO aside, likes to plaster his name
J O NAT HA N E R N ST / R E U T E R S
on buildings. French President Emmanuel Macron has impressed

Trump by inviting him to the sorts of military parades he would like
to throw in the United States. And North Korea’s Kim has flattered
Trump by writing him warm personal letters. Female leaders, on the
other hand—including British Prime Minister Theresa May, Canadian
Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, and German Chancellor Angela

Eliot A. Cohen
Merkel—have had trouble connecting with a president who has made

a cult out of his own pugnacious but unmartial masculinity.
Trump has also benefited from the continuing recovery of the
U.S. economy, which has defused much of the anxiety that his trade
wars might have otherwise provoked. The months and months of a
booming stock market, low unemployment, and consistent growth
have not only deflected attention from Trump’s erratic behavior on
the world stage; they have also given the president leverage. It was
always possible that a sufficiently aggressive U.S. president could
bully Canada and Mexico into renegotiating NAFTA, given the relative
sizes of the three economies. Doing so was much easier given the
United States’ current prosperity.
Finally, Trump himself may not get enough credit for his tactical
circumspection. He is, in certain respects, risk averse. He has been
hesitant to use military force and has expressed his desire to pull out
of not just Syria but Afghanistan and Iraq, too. Although he report-
edly toyed with the idea of a military intervention in Venezuela, he
was quickly talked out of it. He clearly does not want a war on the
Korean Peninsula; if anything, he wants to be the president who finally
ends the Korean War. As a real estate developer whose business career
was built on heavy borrowing—effectively making others carry his
risk—Trump has evaded genuine hazards throughout his life, which
may also explain his failure to visit U.S. troops in war zones.
A NEW NORMAL?
The short-term damage of Trump’s first two years has, thankfully
and against all odds, been less than what many feared. In the long
term, however, his malign influence will not be escaped so easily.
For one thing, his antics and rhetoric have undermined U.S. credibility.
According to a 2018 survey by the Pew Research Center, which polled
respondents in 25 countries, the international public places more faith
not only in Macron and Merkel relative to Trump but also in Putin
and Chinese President Xi Jinping. To a stunning degree, the Trump
administration has diminished the sense of U.S. constancy that has
been indispensable to the postwar liberal order. The effects of that
lost credibility are intangible for now, but they will become manifest
in the event of a crisis—when, for instance, U.S. allies do not answer
a call for help or, worse, when they choose to appease or accommodate
rival powers such as China and Russia.
Other dangers loom. If U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inves-

tigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia ends with a credible accusation against the president or one of
his family members, it will mean a domestic political crisis with spillover
effects on foreign policy. There are also the sheer uncertainties of the
world—terrorist attacks, military escalations, nuclear tests, and the
like. Such incidents have surprised presidents in the past, and they
might surprise this one, too. Trump’s past performance is no guarantee
of future results.
Yet even if the Trump administration is not hit with an interna-
tional crisis or a devastating domestic scandal, Trump’s presidency
does not bode well for the future of U.S. foreign policy—for rea-
sons having less to do with his con-
crete actions than with what he
represents. Behind the day-to-day
U.S. foreign policy elites
chaos of the administration lies a more have forgotten how to
or less unified vision. Trump summa- argue for a global order
rized this worldview succinctly in his that has existed for longer
September 2018 speech to the UN
General Assembly, when he called on than most of them have
the world to “choose a future of pa- been alive.
triotism, prosperity, and pride.” Pa-
triotism he opposed to global governance, prosperity to bad deals
that cheat the United States, and national pride to universalistic
visions of humanity.
What’s most dangerous about Trump’s worldview is not its incoherent
or erratic elements but its coherent and consistent ones—the appeal
of which is not limited to the president and his right-wing populist
supporters. Indeed, in many respects, his worldview is not all that
different from that of his predecessor: Trump believes, as Barack
Obama did, that most U.S. interventions abroad have been costly and
stupid and that the United States should focus on nation building at
home. Although the Obama administration had a gentler touch than
the current one, its emphasis on “leading from behind” allowed the
present disaster in Syria to unfold. It also practiced its own form of
retrenchment, evident in its decision to delay securing the Trans-
Pacific Partnership trade deal until after it was already too late.
This suggests that Trump’s emphasis on putting “America first” is
not simply the mistake of a foreign policy rookie but an expression of

Eliot A. Cohen
something deeper and more consequential: a permanent shift, among

American leaders, away from the dominant postwar conception of
U.S. foreign policy. In other hands, and with a more intelligent articu-
lation, Trump’s foreign policy vision would amount to a doctrine—
one in which the United States is merely one great power among
others. In this view, Washington should pursue its own interests,
stand for freedom chiefly at home and only intermittently abroad, and
reject as a matter of principle the international organizations that
previous generations of U.S. leaders so carefully built.
THE GREATEST GENERATION

Trump is unlikely to change his views while in office; indeed, he seems
positively incapable of doing so. That means, at best, that the United
States can expect either two or six more years of fecklessness, in which
the country is erratic, unfocused, economically aggressive, and indif-
ferent to the international norms and institutions that it helped create.
That’s not nearly as bad as the chimera of a nuclear war conjured up
by some of the president’s early critics. But it is scary enough.
The more disturbing sign for the future, however, is that although
Trump has made nearly every aspect of U.S. foreign policy worse, he
is not the sole cause of the United States’ increasingly erratic, short-
sighted, and selfish behavior. He has merely accelerated a trend—that
of Washington’s retreat from its global responsibilities—that was
already developing by the time he took office and that will outlast
him. Indeed, this trend is only likely to continue, since its roots lie not
in passing political events but in the extinction of the living memory
of World War II, a world-historical event that revolutionized U.S.
foreign policy and shaped its course for most of the twentieth century.
The generation of American statesmen that shaped the postwar
order had learned some hard lessons from the war. They learned from
their experience with imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and, later, the
Soviet Union that it was incumbent on free nations to stand up to
ideologies and governments hostile to individual freedom. They learned
from the Great Depression and the economic nationalism of the 1930s
that beggar-thy-neighbor policies and a focus on state advantage,
rather than systemic rules, could create the conditions for totalitarian
ideologies to flourish. And they learned from the geopolitical chaos of
the interwar years that in order to secure peace, the United States would
have to step up and guarantee it through a U.S.-led set of permanent
alliances and international institutions. These might not always favor

U.S. policies, but American leaders recognized that they would, in the
long run, favor U.S. interests.
That generation learned the right lessons, as the peace and prosperity
of the last 70 years attest. Yet in truth, the foreign policy they created
was alien to the United States’ pre-1940s traditions, which saw the
country as primarily a commercial power with little interest in global
power politics, save as a means of protecting itself and preserving its
sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. Breaking free of
those traditions required the lived experiences of those who had wit-
nessed the poverty of the Depression and the destruction of the war
years firsthand. Today, however, those lessons are no longer living
truths; they are dead dogmas, as the philosopher John Stuart Mill
might have put it. Most U.S. foreign policy elites have forgotten how
to make the argument for a global order that has existed for longer
than most of them have been alive; many have forgotten that they
needed to argue for it at all. So when Trump came along shouting,
“Make America great again!” and demanding to know why maintaining
the global order was worth Washington’s time and effort, elites were
at a loss for how to respond.
GOODBYE TO ALL THAT

Above all, the generation that came of age during and immediately
after World War II had a visceral awareness of just how terrible the
world could become if the United States chose not to lead. They
learned this the hard way, in a war that cost the United States over
400,000 dead and other countries millions more. Their passing, and
the fading of the subsequent generation that they directly molded, is
the most consequential fact of all for the future of U.S. foreign policy.
An omen of this change came on August 25, 2018, when Arizona
Senator John McCain died at the age of 81. Born in 1936 to a naval of-
ficer who would go on to serve with distinction in World War II, McCain
was a man shaped by the experiences of his parents’ generation, which
led him not only to advocate American engagement in the world but
also to tirelessly represent the United States abroad. There are no votes
to be won by visiting crisis zones or simply tending to alliance relation-
ships, but McCain was indefatigable in doing those things. He has no
successor in either party. Nor are there any contemporary politicians as
unambiguously committed to bipartisanship in foreign policy.

Eliot A. Cohen
Inertia is a powerful force, especially when it comes to institutions.

And for the moment, it continues to constrain Trump’s efforts to
remake the international system along more nationalist, self-interested
lines. But once he is gone, there will be no snapping back to the
consensus of the 1990s or the early years of this century, which was
sustained by men and women with personal memories of what the
world looked like without U.S. leadership. Indeed, the erratic “America
first” of today’s populist right may well be replaced in 2020 or 2024
by a no less erratic “America first” of the populist left. This tendency
is already visible in figures such as Representative Tulsi Gabbard of
Hawaii, a populist Democrat who met with Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad in January 2017 and who later cast doubt on Assad’s responsibility
for his regime’s chemical attacks against Syrian civilians—all under
the guise of anti-interventionism.
Eventually, both may be replaced by an “America first” of the
exhausted middle. This version might be marked by more moderation
and a greater amount of handwringing than its left- and right-wing
cousins, but its chief characteristic would be a return to the mindset of
the late 1930s. The United States would engage economically with the
world but react with indifference to massacres or even genocide; with-
draw psychologically, if not formally, from international institutions;
and convince itself that other countries could not affect its liberties or
interests as long as its military remained strong.
This last belief, in particular, will be proved untrue. To some extent,
foreign interference in the U.S. political process has already proved
it untrue. But it will be proved untrue in other, possibly more vio-
lent ways, too, as foreign countries come to believe that they can use
force in aggressive or vicious ways without provoking an American
response. This has happened before when the United States has
failed to lead, and the results were not happy ones. Unfortunately,
those who remember those unhappy results will soon be gone. It is
to be hoped, but not to be expected, that the hard lessons they
learned will not go along with them.∂
Deepfakes and the New

Disinformation War
The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics
A
picture may be worth a thousand words, but there is nothing
that persuades quite like an audio or video recording of an
event. At a time when partisans can barely agree on facts,
such persuasiveness might seem as if it could bring a welcome clarity.
Audio and video recordings allow people to become firsthand witnesses
of an event, sparing them the need to decide whether to trust someone
else’s account of it. And thanks to smartphones, which make it easy to
capture audio and video content, and social media platforms, which
allow that content to be shared and consumed, people today can rely
on their own eyes and ears to an unprecedented degree.
Therein lies a great danger. Imagine a video depicting the Israeli
prime minister in private conversation with a colleague, seemingly
revealing a plan to carry out a series of political assassinations in Tehran.
Or an audio clip of Iranian officials planning a covert operation to kill
Sunni leaders in a particular province of Iraq. Or a video showing an
American general in Afghanistan burning a Koran. In a world already
primed for violence, such recordings would have a powerful potential
for incitement. Now imagine that these recordings could be faked using
tools available to almost anyone with a laptop and access to the Internet—
and that the resulting fakes are so convincing that they are impossible
to distinguish from the real thing.
Advances in digital technology could soon make this nightmare a
reality. Thanks to the rise of “deepfakes”—highly realistic and difficult-
ROBERT CHESNEY is James A. Baker III Chair and Director of the Robert Strauss Center
for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin.
DANIELLE CITRON is Morton and Sophia Macht Professor of Law at the University of
Maryland and Affiliate Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project.

to-detect digital manipulations of audio or video—it is becoming

easier than ever to portray someone saying or doing something he or
she never said or did. Worse, the means to create deepfakes are likely
to proliferate quickly, producing an ever-widening circle of actors
capable of deploying them for political purposes. Disinformation is
an ancient art, of course, and one with a renewed relevance today.
But as deepfake technology develops and spreads, the current disin-
formation wars may soon look like the propaganda equivalent of the
era of swords and shields.
DAWN OF THE DEEPFAKES

Deepfakes are the product of recent advances in a form of artificial
intelligence known as “deep learning,” in which sets of algorithms
called “neural networks” learn to infer rules and replicate patterns by
sifting through large data sets. (Google, for instance, has used this
technique to develop powerful image-classification algorithms for its
search engine.) Deepfakes emerge from a specific type of deep learning
in which pairs of algorithms are pitted against each other in “generative
adversarial networks,” or GANs. In a GAN, one algorithm, the “generator,”
creates content modeled on source data (for instance, making artificial
images of cats from a database of real cat pictures), while a second
algorithm, the “discriminator,” tries to spot the artificial content (pick
out the fake cat images). Since each algorithm is constantly training
against the other, such pairings can lead to rapid improvement, allow-
ing GANs to produce highly realistic yet fake audio and video content.
This technology has the potential to proliferate widely. Commercial
and even free deepfake services have already appeared in the open
market, and versions with alarmingly few safeguards are likely to
emerge on the black market. The spread of these services will lower
the barriers to entry, meaning that soon, the only practical constraint on
one’s ability to produce a deepfake will be access to training materials—
that is, audio and video of the person to be modeled—to feed the GAN.
The capacity to create professional-grade forgeries will come within
reach of nearly anyone with sufficient interest and the knowledge of
where to go for help.
Deepfakes have a number of worthy applications. Modified audio
or video of a historical figure, for example, could be created for the
purpose of educating children. One company even claims that it can
use the technology to restore speech to individuals who have lost their
Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War
True lies: stills of a deepfake video of Barack Obama created by researchers in 2017
voice to disease. But deepfakes can and will be used for darker purposes,
as well. Users have already employed deepfake technology to insert
people’s faces into pornography without their consent or knowledge,
and the growing ease of making fake audio and video content will
create ample opportunities for blackmail, intimidation, and sabotage.
The most frightening applications of deepfake technology, however, may
well be in the realms of politics and international affairs. There, deep-
fakes may be used to create unusually effective lies capable of inciting
violence, discrediting leaders and institutions, or even tipping elections.
Deepfakes have the potential to be especially destructive because
they are arriving at a time when it already is becoming harder to
separate fact from fiction. For much of the twentieth century, maga-
zines, newspapers, and television broadcasters managed the flow of
information to the public. Journalists established rigorous professional
standards to control the quality of news, and the relatively small
number of mass media outlets meant that only a limited number of
individuals and organizations could distribute information widely.
U N I V E R S I T Y O F WA S H I N G T O N
Over the last decade, however, more and more people have begun to
get their information from social media platforms, such as Facebook
and Twitter, which depend on a vast array of users to generate rela-
tively unfiltered content. Users tend to curate their experiences so
that they mostly encounter perspectives they already agree with (a
tendency heightened by the platforms’ algorithms), turning their social

media feeds into echo chambers. These platforms are also susceptible
to so-called information cascades, whereby people pass along informa-
tion shared by others without bothering to check if it is true, making
it appear more credible in the process. The end result is that falsehoods
can spread faster than ever before.
These dynamics will make social media fertile ground for circulat-
ing deepfakes, with potentially explosive implications for politics.
Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election—
spreading divisive and politically inflammatory messages on Face-
book and Twitter—already demonstrated how easily disinformation
can be injected into the social media bloodstream. The deepfakes of
tomorrow will be more vivid and realistic and thus more shareable
than the fake news of 2016. And because people are especially prone
to sharing negative and novel information, the more salacious the
deepfakes, the better.
DEMOCRATIZING FRAUD
The use of fraud, forgery, and other forms of deception to influence
politics is nothing new, of course. When the USS Maine exploded in
Havana Harbor in 1898, American tabloids used misleading accounts
of the incident to incite the public toward war with Spain. The anti-
Semitic tract Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which described a fictional
Jewish conspiracy, circulated widely during the first half of the twentieth
century. More recently, technologies such as Photoshop have made
doctoring images as easy as forging text. What makes deepfakes un-
precedented is their combination of quality, applicability to persuasive
formats such as audio and video, and resistance to detection. And as
deepfake technology spreads, an ever-increasing number of actors will
be able to convincingly manipulate audio and video content in a way
that once was restricted to Hollywood studios or the most well-funded
intelligence agencies.
Deepfakes will be particularly useful to nonstate actors, such as
insurgent groups and terrorist organizations, which have histori-
cally lacked the resources to make and disseminate fraudulent yet
credible audio or video content. These groups will be able to de-
pict their adversaries—including government officials—spouting
inflammatory words or engaging in provocative actions, with the
specific content carefully chosen to maximize the galvanizing im-
pact on their target audiences. An affiliate of the Islamic State (or
ISIS), for instance, could create a video depicting a U.S. soldier

shooting civilians or discussing a plan to bomb a mosque, thereby
aiding the terrorist group’s recruitment. Such videos will be espe-
cially difficult to debunk in cases where the target audience al-
ready distrusts the person shown in the deepfake. States can and
no doubt will make parallel use of deepfakes to undermine their
nonstate opponents.
Deepfakes will also exacerbate the disinformation wars that increas-
ingly disrupt domestic politics in the United States and elsewhere. In
2016, Russia’s state-sponsored disinformation operations were remark-
ably successful in deepening existing
social cleavages in the United States.
To cite just one example, fake Russian
Social media will be fertile
accounts on social media claiming to be ground for circulating
affiliated with the Black Lives Matter deepfakes, with explosive
movement shared inflammatory content implications for politics.
purposely designed to stoke racial ten-
sions. Next time, instead of tweets and
Facebook posts, such disinformation could come in the form of a
fake video of a white police officer shouting racial slurs or a Black
Lives Matter activist calling for violence.
Perhaps the most acute threat associated with deepfakes is the
possibility that a well-timed forgery could tip an election. In May
2017, Moscow attempted something along these lines. On the eve
of the French election, Russian hackers tried to undermine the
presidential campaign of Emmanuel Macron by releasing a cache
of stolen documents, many of them doctored. That effort failed for
a number of reasons, including the relatively boring nature of the
documents and the effects of a French media law that prohibits
election coverage in the 44 hours immediately before a vote. But in
most countries, most of the time, there is no media blackout, and the
nature of deepfakes means that damaging content can be guaran-
teed to be salacious or worse. A convincing video in which Macron
appeared to admit to corruption, released on social media only 24
hours before the election, could have spread like wildfire and proved
impossible to debunk in time.
Deepfakes may also erode democracy in other, less direct ways. The
problem is not just that deepfakes can be used to stoke social and
ideological divisions. They can create a “liar’s dividend”: as people

become more aware of the existence of deepfakes, public figures caught

in genuine recordings of misbehavior will find it easier to cast doubt
on the evidence against them. (If deepfakes were prevalent during the
2016 U.S. presidential election, imagine how much easier it would
have been for Donald Trump to have disputed the authenticity of the
infamous audiotape in which he brags about groping women.) More
broadly, as the public becomes sensitized to the threat of deepfakes, it
may become less inclined to trust news in general. And journalists, for
their part, may become more wary about relying on, let alone publish-
ing, audio or video of fast-breaking events for fear that the evidence
will turn out to have been faked.
DEEP FIX
There is no silver bullet for countering deepfakes. There are several
legal and technological approaches—some already existing, others
likely to emerge—that can help mitigate the threat. But none will
overcome the problem altogether. Instead of full solutions, the rise of
deepfakes calls for resilience.
Three technological approaches deserve special attention. The first
relates to forensic technology, or the detection of forgeries through
technical means. Just as researchers are putting a great deal of time
and effort into creating credible fakes, so, too, are they developing
methods of enhanced detection. In June 2018, computer scientists at
Dartmouth and the University at Albany, SUNY, announced that they
had created a program that detects deepfakes by looking for abnormal
patterns of eyelid movement when the subject of a video blinks. In the
deepfakes arms race, however, such advances serve only to inform
the next wave of innovation. In the future, GANs will be fed training
videos that include examples of normal blinking. And even if ex-
tremely capable detection algorithms emerge, the speed with which
deepfakes can circulate on social media will make debunking them an
uphill battle. By the time the forensic alarm bell rings, the damage
may already be done.
A second technological remedy involves authenticating content
before it ever spreads—an approach sometimes referred to as a “digital
provenance” solution. Companies such as Truepic are developing
ways to digitally watermark audio, photo, and video content at the
moment of its creation, using metadata that can be logged immutably
on a distributed ledger, or blockchain. In other words, one could effec-
tively stamp content with a record of authenticity that could be used

later as a reference to compare to suspected fakes.
In theory, digital provenance solutions are an ideal fix. In practice,
they face two big obstacles. First, they would need to be ubiqui-
tously deployed in the vast array of devices that capture content,
including laptops and smartphones. Second, their use would need to
be made a precondition for uploading content to the most popular
digital platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Neither
condition is likely to be met. Device makers, absent some legal or
regulatory obligation, will not adopt digital authentication until
they know it is affordable, in demand, and unlikely to interfere with
the performance of their products. And few social media platforms
will want to block people from uploading unauthenticated content,
especially when the first one to do so will risk losing market share to
less rigorous competitors.
A third, more speculative technological approach involves what has
been called “authenticated alibi services,” which might soon begin
emerging from the private sector. Consider that deepfakes are espe-
cially dangerous to high-profile individuals, such as politicians and
celebrities, with valuable but fragile reputations. To protect themselves
against deepfakes, some of these individuals may choose to engage in
enhanced forms of “lifelogging”—the practice of recording nearly
every aspect of one’s life—in order to prove where they were and what
they were saying or doing at any given time. Companies might begin
offering bundles of alibi services, including wearables to make life-
logging convenient, storage to cope with the vast amount of resulting
data, and credible authentication of those data. These bundles could
even include partnerships with major news and social media platforms,
which would enable rapid confirmation or debunking of content.
Such logging would be deeply invasive, and many people would
want nothing to do with it. But in addition to the high-profile individu-
als who choose to adopt lifelogging to protect themselves, some em-
ployers might begin insisting on it for certain categories of employees,
much as police departments increasingly require officers to use body
cameras. And even if only a relatively small number of people took
up intensive lifelogging, they would produce vast repositories of data
in which the rest of us would find ourselves inadvertently caught,
creating a massive peer-to-peer surveillance network for constantly
recording our activities.

LAYING DOWN THE LAW

If these technological fixes have limited upsides, what about legal
remedies? Depending on the circumstances, making or sharing a
deepfake could constitute defamation, fraud, or misappropriation of
a person’s likeness, among other civil and criminal violations. In theory,
one could close any remaining gaps by criminalizing (or attaching
civil liability to) specific acts—for instance, creating a deepfake of a
real person with the intent to deceive a viewer or listener and with
the expectation that this deception would cause some specific kind of
harm. But it could be hard to make these claims or charges stick in
practice. To begin with, it will likely prove very difficult to attribute
the creation of a deepfake to a particular person or group. And even
if perpetrators are identified, they may be beyond a court’s reach, as
in the case of foreign individuals or governments.
Another legal solution could involve incentivizing social media
platforms to do more to identify and remove deepfakes or fraudulent
content more generally. Under current U.S. law, the companies that
own these platforms are largely immune from liability for the content
they host, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of
1996. Congress could modify this immunity, perhaps by amending Sec-
tion 230 to make companies liable for harmful and fraudulent informa-
tion distributed through their platforms unless they have made reasonable
efforts to detect and remove it. Other countries have used a similar
approach for a different problem: in 2017, for instance, Germany passed
a law imposing stiff fines on social media companies that failed to re-
move racist or threatening content within 24 hours of it being reported.
Yet this approach would bring challenges of its own. Most notably, it
could lead to excessive censorship. Companies anxious to avoid legal
liability would likely err on the side of policing content too aggres-
sively, and users themselves might begin to self-censor in order to avoid
the risk of having their content suppressed. It is far from obvious that
the notional benefits of improved fraud protection would justify these
costs to free expression. Such a system would also run the risk of insu-
lating incumbent platforms, which have the resources to police content
and pay for legal battles, against competition from smaller firms.
LIVING WITH LIES

The unavoidable conclusion is that deepfakes spell trouble. As interest
in the technology mounts, deepfakes will improve in quality, become
ever cheaper and easier to make, and be disseminated widely through

both commercial services and the black markets of the Dark Web,
where deepfake production is likely to emerge as a service for hire.
The result will be a rising tide of false yet highly realistic audio and
video content, ready to be weaponized for political purposes and
spread on social media.
But although deepfakes are dangerous, they will not necessarily be
disastrous. Detection will improve, prosecutors and plaintiffs will
occasionally win legal victories against the creators of harmful fakes,
and the major social media platforms will gradually get better at flagging
and removing fraudulent content. And digital provenance solutions
could, if widely adopted, provide a more durable fix at some point in
the future.
In the meantime, democratic societies will have to learn resilience.
On the one hand, this will mean accepting that audio and video con-
tent cannot be taken at face value; on the other, it will mean fighting
the descent into a post-truth world, in which citizens retreat to their
private information bubbles and regard as fact only that which flatters
their own beliefs. In short, democracies will have to accept an uncom-
fortable truth: in order to survive the threat of deepfakes, they are
going to have to learn how to live with lies.∂

The Unhackable Election

What It Takes to Defend Democracy
R
ussia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 marked a sharp break with
the past: the post–Cold War interlude, a time when peace and
democracy spread across the globe, was over, and a new, more
aggressive era, had begun. Since then, Western governments have had
to relearn the forgotten art of deterring attacks and protecting their
countries’ borders. They have failed to see, however, that the attacks
can also be aimed at their democratic institutions. Liberal democracy
may remain the world’s preferred model of governance, but it is under
debilitating pressure from threats both internal and external.
A poll released by Dalia Research in 2018 highlighted just how
much citizens of democracies have lost faith in their governments.
Sixty-four percent of respondents living in democracies said their
governments rarely or never act in the public interest, whereas only
41 percent of those in autocracies said the same. Politicians in democ-
racies are partly to blame: there is more than a grain of truth to the view
that they have ignored concerns about such issues as living standards
and immigration and that they often say one thing and do another.
But malign foreign powers—led by Russia—have worsened the
problem, by weaponizing the infrastructure that underpins democratic
societies. They have hacked the Internet, media, and even voting
databases to sow discombobulation, discontent, and disunity. From
the 2016 Brexit referendum, to the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries
and general election, to the 2017 French presidential election, foreign
meddlers have systematically sought to skew the democratic debate.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF is Co-Founder and Executive Chair of the Chertoff Group. He was
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005 to 2009.
ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN is Founder and Co-Chair of the Alliance of Democracies
Foundation. He was Prime Minister of Denmark from 2001 to 2009 and Secretary-General
of NATO from 2009 to 2014.
They are Co-Chairs of the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity.
The Kremlin has been testing its interference playbook in countries

throughout eastern Europe, and especially Ukraine, ever since those
states escaped Soviet rule in the early 1990s. Only in recent years has
it begun following that playbook in western Europe and the United
States. The attacks are an assault on every citizen’s fundamental right
to elect his or her own representatives. Yet even though democracies
on both sides of the Atlantic have been targeted, their responses have
lacked urgency and coordination. Meddlers have sought to under-
mine mainstream political parties on both the left and the right, but
the question of what to do about this interference remains a partisan
issue, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States. Mean-
while, governments and technology companies keep talking past each
other, with the former preferring overzealous state edicts and the latter
inadequate self-regulation.
In the next two years, more than 20 elections will take place across
Europe and North America. Many of them will offer voters a stark
choice between candidates who support openness and multilateralism
and those who advocate isolationism, populism, and nationalism.
Russia and other autocratic regimes have a clear stake in these elections,
and there is every indication that they will continue to interfere in them.
Individual countries and political campaigns can do more to protect
themselves, but ultimately, a collective effort to defend democratic
institutions is necessary—a bipartisan, transatlantic response to foreign
meddling. Countries must work together to undertake broad assessments
of the vulnerabilities of their electoral systems. Foreign governments
and civil society groups should provide direct support to help protect
countries that are particularly vulnerable to foreign meddling, such as
Ukraine. Policymakers should collaborate with technology companies
to give citizens the tools they need to inoculate themselves against
false information. And politicians, finally, should work to address
the root causes of the societal cleavages that Russia and other malign
actors are trying to exploit.
THE NEW INFORMATION WARFARE

Foreign meddling in elections is not a new phenomenon. During the
Cold War, both superpowers relied heavily on information warfare.
The Kremlin spread false conspiracy theories claiming, for example,
that the CIA was the source of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and that
it assassinated U.S. President John F. Kennedy. The United States

and the United Kingdom both developed sophisticated intelligence

campaigns to spread anticommunist propaganda in Chile, Haiti, Italy,
and elsewhere.
The fall of communism led many Western countries to believe that
Russian interference had been consigned to history. But in the past
several years, the Kremlin—faced with an expanding democratic
world and Russia’s diminishing status as a global power—has dusted
off its old playbook and wielded its strategies against the source of the
Western world’s strength: its unity.
The new Russian meddling combines tried-and-true methods with
modern technology. Some tactics are familiar from the Soviet era:
supporting factions sympathetic to Russia’s interests, promoting media
outlets that peddle fake news, sponsor-
The scope of Russia’s social ing coups, stirring up diaspora commu-
nities. But now, the Kremlin has new
media disinformation tools for manipulating social media, such
campaigns is staggering. as armies of robotic accounts and paid
trolls. Because the Internet and automa-
tion enable aggressors to act anonymously on a large scale, technology
has significantly reduced the costs and risks of election meddling.
Adding to the difficulties of preventing interference, foreign meddling
operations tend to be carried out in an operational gray zone. This
makes it hard to attribute responsibility to one specific government
agency. In Russia, the military intelligence agency (GRU) is responsible
for both human intelligence, which includes information gathering
and carrying out physical missions, and digital spying, which includes
fabricating websites. Meanwhile, hacking collectives and criminal
networks, such as Fancy Bear, or APT28, actually develop and deploy
the malware used in election meddling. There are some links between
the intelligence agencies and the hacking collectives, but their exact
nature remains unclear.
The scope of Russia’s social media disinformation campaigns is
staggering. In the lead-up to the Italian election in March 2018, bots
were responsible for 15 percent of Twitter activity promoting far-
right candidates. Fake Twitter accounts generated 30 percent of the
tweets and retweets about the August 2018 assassination of Alexander
Zakharchenko, a pro-Russian rebel leader in Ukraine. In Macedonia,
there was a surge in new accounts about 40 days before the Septem-
ber 2018 referendum on whether to change the country’s name, a
move that Russia opposed because it would ease the way for Macedo-
nia to join NATO. Automated accounts mostly encouraged voters to
boycott the referendum, suggesting that they were part of a Russian-
sponsored voter suppression effort. Similar spikes in bot activity oc-
curred in the lead-up to elections in Sweden in September and Bosnia
and Herzegovina in October.
In some cases, foreign meddlers have tried to directly boost which-
ever candidate or party was most likely to adopt a soft stance on Russia.
However, in most cases, their strategy is simply to discredit the entire
democratic process. In the 2016 U.S. presidential primaries, for exam-
ple, Russian operatives supported both the Republican candidate
Donald Trump and the Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, with
the goal of radicalizing the political debate.
Election meddling can have unintended consequences. In France,
hackers’ repeated efforts to thwart French President Emmanuel
Macron’s campaign undoubtedly hardened his stance toward Moscow.
In the United States, meddling in the 2016 election caused Congress
to strong-arm the Trump administration into adopting a more aggres-
sive posture toward Russia, including providing Javelin antitank missiles
to Ukraine, introducing new sanctions against Russia, and increasing
funding for U.S. troops in Europe.
But there is growing evidence that other states are gravitating toward
Russia’s high-impact, low-cost strategy. In Mexico, two weeks before
the country’s July 2018 presidential election, there was a surge in bot
accounts on Twitter sharing stories that cast doubt about the presi-
dential candidate Andrés Manuel Lopéz Obrador’s grasp of economics
and spreading news that his opponents had already lost. The majority
of the news sources shared by these bots originated not in Mexico
but in Argentina, Iran, and Venezuela (as well as Russia). In August,
John Bolton, the U.S. national security adviser, announced that there
was a “sufficient national security concern about Chinese meddling,
Iranian meddling, and North Korean meddling” and said that the
U.S. government was working to crack down on it. That same month,
Twitter suspended 284 fake accounts with apparent links to Iran, and
Facebook discovered 76 fake Instagram accounts originating in Iran.
The discourse surrounding the Catalan independence referendum in
2017 saw an unprecedented level of trolling on social media and
spreading of distorted facts, all originating in Venezuela. A study
by the scholar Javier Lesaca showed that Venezuela likely allowed

Russia to operate its disinformation campaign against the referendum

using Venezuelan networks.
For now, foreign meddling operations remain largely the preserve
of state actors and their proxies, but other actors will enter the fray in
the near future as new technology and artificial intelligence lower the
barriers to entry. So-called deepfake videos or audio files—artificial
video or audio material generated by an algorithm rather than a video
production team—are fast becoming the new frontier in information
manipulation. Right now, producing deepfakes requires sophisticated
video-editing skills and software and a convincing voice actor. But
within a few years, new technologies could enable a programmer to
feed a computer a public figure’s speeches to synthesize voice patterns
and create a convincing fake video. According to a test carried out by
ASI Data Science, using two hours of recordings over five days of
work, an algorithm could produce a credible audio file of Trump
declaring nuclear war against Russia. The prospect is chilling: a teen-
ager in his bedroom could force the world’s most powerful individuals
to say anything he wants.
A WEAK RESPONSE
Given the scale of the threat posed by foreign meddling, the response
of the transatlantic community has been woeful. In the United States
and Italy, denial at the highest levels of government has impeded
progress. Trump has spent considerable energy denying any interference
in the 2016 U.S. presidential election out of fear that recognition of
Russian meddling in his favor may be interpreted as a tacit admission
of collusion between Russia and his campaign team. Italy’s Matteo
Salvini, the deputy prime minister and head of the governing right-wing
party, Lega Nord (Northern League), has similarly denied Russian
meddling in Italy’s March 2018 election or fundraising for Lega Nord.
In the case of Salvini, his publicly avowed appreciation for Russia has
stymied any progress in fortifying Italy’s electoral infrastructure.
Across Europe, leaders have approached the challenge through the
outdated and simplistic 2016 lens of fake news. When they have taken
action, their efforts have been uncoordinated and often geared toward
fighting the last pattern of interference rather than the next one.
The result is a patchwork of remedies that have either come up
short or been overzealous. Although progress has been made, leaders
in the United States, for their part, made insufficient preparations to
protect November’s midterm elections. As of October, eight election-

related bills, many of them bipartisan, were still languishing in Congress.
Inadequate electoral infrastructure is also a problem: decentralized
voting systems preclude uniform security measures, leaving them
more vulnerable to manipulation or attack. For example, the electronic
voting systems in some U.S. states could be easily infected with malware
simply by someone inserting a USB drive into a voting machine,
thereby enabling attackers to stuff virtual ballot boxes. Local officials’
resistance to what they perceive as federal interference in their states
hampers uniform planning.
The European response has also been patchy. The EU’s team tasked
with countering propaganda and disinformation in eastern Europe is
limited by its miserly budget of $1.3 million per year. The European
Commission (the EU’s executive body) has proposed a code of conduct
for social media platforms that would commit them to taking prescribed
action to fight fake news and has required EU-funded, pan-European
political parties to follow a common set of practices designed to protect
against interference. Some member states have taken individual meas-
ures: the United Kingdom created a national security unit to combat
fake news; France banned electronic voting for citizens living abroad;
the Netherlands banned it entirely; and the Czech Republic, Ireland,
and Sweden are considering legislation to fight fake news. Others may
have gone too far, ending up curbing freedom of speech: France and
Germany have passed legislation that civil society and the media have
criticized as overzealous. In typical EU fashion, each country has taken
its own piecemeal actions and failed to coordinate with its allies.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have criticized technology companies for
their inaction and de facto complicity in spreading highly partisan
narratives and outright fake news. Some companies have now begun
to accept responsibility for reducing the amount of disinformation on
their platforms. In April 2018, Microsoft launched the Defending
Democracy Program in order to prevent hacking, increase advertising
transparency online, and explore technological solutions to protect
elections and identify cyberattacks.
In response to significant pressure from lawmakers and the public,
Facebook, Google, and Twitter have also stepped up their efforts to
police their platforms. They have made some progress, removing more
fake accounts, taking more domains offline, and thwarting more hacking
efforts. Yet these efforts remain largely voluntary. Protective of their

business models, these companies are releasing too little information

about the extent of the problem, such as the number of fake accounts.
Furthermore, politicians’ lack of understanding about how technology
platforms work impedes collaboration with the private sector. Earlier
this year, for example, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, appeared
before the U.S. Congress for a hearing on Facebook’s treatment of
user data. At the hearing, senators asked Zuckerberg simplistic ques-
tions about Facebook’s business model instead of diving deep into the
company’s sophisticated data practices, revealing the limits of their
understanding of the technology.
The advent of artificial intelligence offers an array of possible solutions
to the threats posed by meddling. Machines are able to scan the Internet
more accurately and faster than humans, processing and synthesizing
macro-level patterns in a way humans cannot. But without cooperation
between politicians and entrepreneurs to enact laws and build security
measures into such software, new technologies themselves will remain
vulnerable. This could exacerbate the challenges that new technologies
pose rather than solve them.
SAFEGUARDING DEMOCRACY
With the future of democracy in the United States and Europe at
stake, it’s time to start developing a more forward-thinking strategy
for dealing with foreign interference. Prevention starts with political
campaigns themselves. As they head into election season, they must
understand that foreign meddlers are systematically targeting them
through phishing attacks (fraudulent attempts to obtain sensitive
information by impersonating a trusted entity) and server hacks. All
it takes to bring down an entire campaign is a single employee clicking
on one malicious link. Smart cyberdefense is as critical to today’s political
parties as clever campaign slogans and billboards.
But individual countries, let alone parties and organizations, can do
only so much to protect themselves. What is required is a collective,
bipartisan, transatlantic response to foreign meddling. This is why, in
June 2018, we brought together leaders from politics, media, aca-
demia, and business from a cross section of parties and backgrounds on
both sides of the Atlantic to create the Transatlantic Commission on
Election Integrity. The aim is to bridge the gaps that have so far pre-
vented a collective response to election meddling and to avoid re-
litigating past elections and instead focus on future ones.
Transatlantic cooperation will be central to this effort. At the June

2018 G-7 meeting in Quebec, leaders took an important first step in
agreeing to better coordinate national efforts to fight election meddling.
But the commitment to this fight remains limited, and the concern,
too low on the priority list of transatlantic business. At a meeting
cohosted by the Atlantic Council and the Transatlantic Commission
in mid-July, we brought together a bipartisan group of U.S. senators
from the Senate Intelligence Committee and a dozen European par-
liamentarians in an attempt to
broaden the scope of cooperation. Too many governments are
For the first time, U.S. and Euro-
pean lawmakers shared their as- either still in denial or don’t
sessments of the threat and agreed fully understand the extent
on a series of far-reaching recom- of the threat posed by election
mendations, including more gov-
ernment contingency planning, meddling.
new legislation with immediate
sanctions for meddlers, and more state funding for countering inter-
ference. These recommendations would bring together diverse par-
ties, including civil society and technology companies, to monitor
and report on activities that spread disinformation and to promote
the sharing of best practices among governments.
Too many governments are either still in denial or don’t fully
understand the extent of the threat posed by election meddling. Most
have a surprisingly vague sense of the vulnerabilities of their own
democratic infrastructure. National intelligence agencies may be better
positioned than governments to assess and follow the threats, but
their findings do not reach the rest of government or civil society and
political parties. To help fill these gaps, the Transatlantic Commission
will conduct national assessments of democracies with critical upcom-
ing elections. These assessments will analyze different factors related
to elections and democratic processes in each country, including
legislation, the vulnerability of cyberspace and social media platforms,
and the presence of anti-Western groups within the country that might
be looking to influence or disrupt the election. The purpose of these
assessments is not to embarrass governments or fuel opposition parties
but to help prevent foreign powers from exploiting weaknesses.
Some countries in eastern Europe are particularly vulnerable to
foreign meddling and require more active support, from both other

governments and civil society. Take Ukraine. Its presidential and par-
liamentary elections scheduled for 2019 will be critical for a country
that is in the midst of its biggest political transformation since it
achieved independence in 1991. This point is surely not lost on Moscow,
which is almost certain to take all possible measures to undermine the
validity of the elections and skew their results. The Transatlantic
Commission is thus working with a group of experts to monitor and
actively report interference activities in the lead-up to Ukraine’s election.
The commission is also seeking to bridge the gap between the public
and private sectors. We have deployed technological tools to monitor
real-time disinformation, tracking the number of bot accounts created
on social media, the messages they are disseminating, and their country
of origin. With these insights, political leaders and civil society can
fight back against disinformation campaigns more effectively. One of
the best ways to defend against meddling is for citizens to inoculate
themselves against disinformation. To help with that effort, the Trans-
atlantic Commission is partnering with companies such as ASI Data
Science to develop an algorithm that can distinguish deepfakes from
real videos, allowing citizens to identify machine-generated content.
All these efforts should help prevent adversaries from exploiting
the cleavages that exist in democratic societies. But it is important to
remember that although Kremlin-sponsored interference may help
populist parties, it does not create them. Populism is typically a symp-
tom of a failing political system, not its cause. The greatest challenge
for mainstream politicians, then, is to tackle societal cleavages at their
source by addressing the issues that drive antipathy toward main-
stream parties.
Across Europe and North America, democracy is being hacked.
Citizens and governments can either sit back and accept foreign
meddling in elections as an uncomfortable side effect of the digital
age or they can safeguard their electoral systems. If history has taught
anything, it is that individual countries cannot face such challenges
alone. The goal of election meddling is to sow confusion and fear,
which, in turn, drive support for candidates and parties that break
down the alliances and undermine the values that have kept the West
free, prosperous, and relatively peaceful for 70 years. Unless the
transatlantic community stands together, malign foreign powers will
continue to pick off democracies one by one. This is not hyperbole;
it is already the reality.∂
SPONSORED SECTION
H.E. Erzhan Kazykhanov,

Ambassador of
Kazakhstan to the
United States of America
An Interview With
Erzhan Kazykhanov,
Ambassador of Kazakhstan
to the United States of America
The future of trade in Asia could Strategically located between East and that the vision for engaging the world in re-
depend heavily on what becomes West, Kazakhstan was historically inter- creating the ancient Silk Road was present-
of China’s expansive One Belt, linked with major communication routes ed by President Xi Jinping in Kazakhstan in
One Road initiative, which calls and paths of trade that are known today September 2013. This initiative was sup-
for massive investment in and as the ancient Silk Road. Experts argue that ported by President Nursultan Nazarbayev
development of trade routes in the route along Kazakhstan’s vast land car- who has been a strong champion of Eur-
the region. How can Kazakhstan ried more than just merchandise and pre- asian integration and increased economic
capitalize on such initiatives? cious commodities. Connecting eastern and connectivity since the very early days of the
What policy innovations and pri- western markets, spurring immense wealth, country’s independence. Five years since
vate-sector initiatives are needed and fostering innovation, intellectual and the launch, Belt and Road Initiative set the
if Kazakhstan’s manufacturers cultural exchange, made Kazakhstan one stage for a sprawling network of railroads,
are to compete globally and fully of the epicenters of the first waves of glo- highways, gas and oil pipelines, cities and
integrate global value chains? balization. It Buy
is therefore
CSSnotBooks Onlineinvestments
a coincidence in modern infrastructure to re-
https://cssbooks.net
SPONSORED SECTION
vive the hugely successful ancient Silk Road strategy included the issue of non-prolifera- Recognizing this positive trend in Ka-
with a 21st century strategy and outlook. tion of weapons of mass destruction. This is zakh-American relations and upon the
what makes the adopted document unique. formal invitation from the White House,
In the past several years, the coun- Furthermore, in line with its commitments President Nursultan Nazarbayev made an
try’s foreign policy has proven effec- to promote global peace and prosperity, Ka- official visit to Washington, DC early this
tive in balancing international inter- zakhstan continues to play a major role in year to meet President Donald Trump, Vice
ests as Kazakhstan continues to forge stabilizing Afghanistan. Acknowledging that President Mike Pence and a large number
its path in international and regional only an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned proof America’s top business executives.
organizations. What have been the cess will bring stability and security, Kazakh- Distinctively, these meetings cemented our
most significant foreign policy suc- stan remains at the forefront when it comes country’s commitment to foster our coopera-
cesses during your tenure and how to consolidating international efforts. tion in many areas of mutual interest, such
do you see Kazakhstan’s role on the Last month, the nation’s capital of As- as global politics and regional integration,
global stage in the coming years? tana hosted the Regional Conference on defense and security, trade and investment,
Indeed, Kazakhstan is a textbook example Empowering Women in Afghanistan, which strategic energy dialogue, cultural and hu-
of how a multi-ethnic nation – the ninth larg- produced a powerful and inclusive effort manitarian links, and people-to-people rela-
est country in the world – can live in peace aimed at elevating voices and perspectives tions. Most importantly, this high-level com-
and stability as well as secure a major stand- from across all sectors and levels to stress mitment was reflected through the adoption
ing on the international arena, thanks to its the importance of full engagement of wom- of the milestone document entitled, “United
balanced and multi-vector foreign policy. en in the reconciliation process, as well as States and Kazakhstan: An Enhanced Strate-
As the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, in the social and economic life of Afghani- gic Partnership for the 21st Century,” which
the newly independent Kazakhstan stan. The US firmly supported this initiative not only outlines the goals and priorities of
emerged overnight as the fourth-largest by sending top State Department officials, our bilateral agenda but also sets a long-
nuclear power in the world that could, in term vision to build a common future.
while the special address was made by
theory, pose a serious threat to human- In terms of future plans, the visit reinforced
the Assistant to the President Mrs. Ivanka
kind. But Kazakhstan did not pursue this close commercial and trade ties between Ka-
Trump, who acknowledged the efforts of
destructive path. Instead, as a firm believer zakhstan and the United States as an impor-
Kazakhstan’s government for championing
in confidence-building measures, dialogue tant way to create jobs and accelerate eco-
this important cause.
and partnership, President Nursultan nomic growth in both countries. For example,
Kazakhstan has been widely praised
Nazarbayev laid down a comprehensive we signed numerous deals with far-reaching
for these efforts and its exemplary role in
long-term strategy aimed at the complete implications for both economies worth more
building a safe and secure world during its
dismantlement and removal of one of the than 7 billion US dollars.
presidency of some of the most respected
world’s largest nuclear arsenals, establish- Almost a year on since this high-level visit,
international organizations and institu-
ing his nation as a reliable global partner. I am delighted to see that both countries are
Years on, this decision is still highly praised tions, including the OSCE, OIC and now the
continuing to unlock the immense potential
by the members of the international com- UNSC. Kazakhstan will not cease to work
for mutually beneficial cooperation with
munity. Addressing the UN General Assem- closely with the international community great enthusiasm. We have established the
bly last year, the 69th US Secretary of State and all actors involved in putting forward High Level Working Group on the Enhanced
Rex Tillerson noted positively that Kazakh- these important initiatives. Strategic Partnership between Kazakhstan
stan is a particularly illustrative example and the United States to ensure successful
of the wisdom of relinquishing nuclear The United States was the first implementation of all agreements.
weapons and of a modern nation making country to establish diplomatic In just the past 9 months, both countries
a substantial contribution to regional and relations with Kazakhstan after have exchanged an unprecedented number
international peace and prosperity. its independence 25 years ago. of highly successful bilateral visits and B2B
As a member of the UN Security Coun- This relationship has grown in communication in healthcare, agriculture,
cil for 2017-2018, we have continued our large part because American and education, trade, culture and sciences. Later
pioneering model to address issues with Kazakhstani officials and compa- this month, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur
worldwide implications. Chairing the high- nies have continued to work well Ross will lead one of the largest certified trade
level briefing of the UN Security Council in together in a cooperative part- missions to Kazakhstan. We are also expand-
January 2018, President Nazarbayev noted nership. Can you please provide ing our presence in the United States by open-
that as the first country from Central Asia an overview of US-Kazakhstan ing Kazakhstan’s Consulate General in San
ever elected to the council, we became the bilateral relations? Francisco to boost cooperation in technology,
voice of our people in this high office and The US was indeed the first country to startups, innovation and tech policy.
laid down a comprehensive conflict preven- recognize our independence and open its As we look forward to continue working
tion strategy. In addition to early warning, Embassy in Kazakhstan. Throughout the together for shared growth and prosperity, I
preventive deployment, mediation, peace- past twenty-six years, relations between am positive that the spirit of enhanced part-
keeping, post-conflict peacebuilding, and ac- our countries have grown profoundly both nership and cooperation that exists between
countability measures, for the first time this in substance and significance. our nations will continue to thrive.
2
REVIEWS & RESPONSES
Where does U.S. grand

strategy go from here? The
prevailing sentiment is not
for just more of the same.
—Jake Sullivan
M A R C O VA C C A / G E T T Y I M A G E S
More, Less, or Different? Life After Liberation

Jake Sullivan 168 Timothy Garton Ash 187
Snake-Oil Economics Recent Books 193

N. Gregory Mankiw 176
Letters 217
When Empires End
Maya Jasanoff 181
there fundamental changes in the world

More, Less, or that demand a corresponding change
in approach?
Different? Into this earnest and reflective con-
versation enter Stephen Walt and John
Mearsheimer, each with a new book,
Where U.S. Foreign Policy each making his long-standing argument
Should—and Shouldn’t—Go about the failures of U.S. foreign policy
From Here with renewed ferocity. Walt’s is called
The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s
Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S.
Jake Sullivan Primacy; Mearsheimer’s is The Great
Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International
Realities. The titles give clear hints of the
The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s cases they lay out: against democracy
Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. promotion, humanitarian intervention,
Primacy nation building, and NATO expansion;
BY STEPHEN M. WALT. Farrar, Straus for restraint and offshore balancing.
and Giroux, 2018, 400 pp. Each of the two books does add some-
thing new. Walt’s contains an extended
The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and attack on the foreign policy community,
International Realities painting a dark picture, across multiple
BY JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER. Yale chapters, of a priesthood gripped by
University Press, 2018, 328 pp. various pathologies, leading the country
astray. Mearsheimer, meanwhile, turns
S
ince November 2016, the U.S. to political theory to explore the relation-
foreign policy community has ship among liberalism, nationalism, and
embarked on an extended voyage realism. Liberalism, he says, cannot
of soul-searching, filling the pages of alter or abolish nationalism and realism,
publications like this one with essays on and where the three meet, the latter two
the past, present, and future of the liberal will prevail over the former. (Although
international order and the related ques- he takes pains to stress that he is talking
tion of where U.S. grand strategy goes about liberalism in the classical sense, not
from here. The prevailing sentiment is as it is understood in American politics,
not for just more of the same. Big ques- his repeated assaults on “social engineer-
tions are up for debate in ways they have ing” reveal that he may mean it both
not been for many years. What is the ways.) For Mearsheimer, analysis of the
purpose of U.S. foreign policy? Are three isms ultimately provides an alter-
native route to arrive at the conclusion
JAKE SULLIVAN is a Senior Fellow at the
that a strategy of liberal hegemony is
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. bound to fail—and has, in fact, failed
He served as Director of Policy Planning at the for the United States.
U.S. Department of State in 2011–13 and as
National Security Adviser to the U.S. Vice Both authors make a number of fair
President in 2013–14. points. But their books also suffer from
More, Less, or Different?
a failure to distinguish between clear service—even if they find plenty of

mistakes—such as the war in Iraq—and fault with their decisions.
flawed outcomes flowing from imperfect This is what makes the new dimen-
options, which are the norm in a messy sion of Walt’s argument so troubling.
business like foreign policy. They also too Walt defines the object of his scorn—
frequently succumb to the temptation of the “foreign policy community”—as
caricature, playing up interventions and those “individuals and organizations that
playing down institution building, which actively engage on a regular basis with
was a more persistent and widespread issues of international affairs.” It is hard to
feature of the United States’ post–Cold come up with a broader definition than
War approach. The biggest disappoint- that. But then Walt names names. Lots
ment, however, is that neither author of names. He fills pages with lists of
really engages with the new debates think tanks, advocacy organizations,
currently preoccupying the foreign foundations, and specific individuals
policy community or the vexing ques- who compose “the Blob,” a term origi-
tions about U.S. strategy going forward. nally coined by Ben Rhodes, who was
deputy national security adviser in the
BAD FAITH AND THE BLOB Obama administration, but embraced
Walt and Mearsheimer have been fixtures and invoked repeatedly by Walt. And
in the foreign policy debate for a long although the phrase “good intentions”
time. Setting aside their joint polemic on appears in the title of his book, he
U.S.-Israeli relations, published in book ascribes anything but. After an obliga-
form in 2007, the two have provided the tory proviso that “most foreign policy
sort of iconoclasm that is essential to professionals are genuine patriots,”
public discourse, forcing proponents of a Walt zeroes in on what he sees as a key
forward-leaning foreign policy to sharpen motivation for their decision-making:
their arguments, think about mistakes,
The busier the U.S. government is
and face hard questions they would rather
abroad, the more jobs there will be for
gloss over. Mearsheimer has been espe- foreign policy experts, the greater the
cially powerful, including in this new share of national wealth that will be
book, in pointing out that too many liberal devoted to addressing global problems,
internationalists have failed to contend and the greater their potential influ-
with the enduring power of nationalism ence will be. A more restrained foreign
and identity. Recent history has proved policy would give the entire foreign
him more right and the American foreign policy community less to do, reduce its
policy community more wrong. On this status and prominence, . . . and might
and many other points, practitioners even lead some prominent philanthro-
owe these scholars (and the academy pies to devote less money to these
in general) a fuller hearing and more topics. In this sense, liberal hegemony
thorough consideration—even if they and unceasing global activism consti-
tute a full-employment strategy for
don’t end up agreeing with them. By
the entire foreign policy community.
the same token, these scholars (and the
academy in general) owe policymakers a Full disclosure: Walt would certainly
presumption of good faith and honest assign me a place in this group. So I

Jake Sullivan
cannot be entirely objective in assessing harden and why departing from it can
his ad hominem indictment. But experi- be difficult, and how a number of basic
ence and common sense tell me that it assumptions about geopolitical trends
is simply wrong. Walt has not spent time and the innate appeal of democracy have
working in the Pentagon or the State been taken for granted for too long.
Department or the Situation Room, But he is wrong that the intentions and
alongside Foreign Service officers and civil motives of foreign policy professionals
servants—and, yes, political appointees— mean their views are immutable, that
who believe sincerely that an active they cannot learn, adapt, and grow.
foreign policy serves the national interest Both Walt and Mearsheimer have
and the cause of global peace and progress. neglected the recent shifts in the center
If he did, I’m convinced he would revise of gravity of the Washington foreign
his view about what drives these officials. policy consensus. The debates of 2018
It’s true that there is a bias for action are not the debates of 2002. Their pas-
in government. But Walt would learn sionate case against the U.S. invasion of
how much practitioners struggle with Iraq, for example, seems frozen in time.
the decisions they face, and how they Most in the foreign policy community
earnestly debate the merits of doing would oppose another conflict of choice
something more, less, or different. He in the Middle East. The debate now is
would be surprised, contrary to his over how to pursue an effective coun-
claim, that unorthodox ideas really do terterrorism strategy that relies less and
get a hearing in Washington, including less on direct military force. The same
Walt’s own ideas about pulling back goes for their argument for the need to
from the Middle East, and that the emphasize investments at home: since
reason his proposals don’t become policy 2016, liberal internationalists have been
isn’t because they aren’t considered. reflecting much more explicitly on the
He would find evidence that the causal relationship between foreign policy and
chain runs in the opposite direction domestic policy.
from the one he assumes: policymakers
don’t advocate a more ambitious approach POLICYMAKERS ARE FROM MARS
because foreign policy is their career; It’s often hard for policymakers—even
they tend to make foreign policy their those sympathetic to some of the
career because they believe it can accom- critiques—to know what to do with
plish ambitious things. Practitioners do Walt and Mearsheimer. They make
themselves no favors when they carica- promises about their approach, includ-
ture academic critics; the same applies ing rosy results from drastic actions
in reverse. such as military withdrawal from
Walt’s assignment of bad faith to the Europe, with a certitude that resem-
Blob causes him to miss the churn in the bles the exaggerated portrait they
community since 2016. He makes reason- paint of liberal internationalists. And
able points about the ways in which the their style of argument inflames the
Washington foreign policy conversation problem of incumbency: they blame
has too often been gripped by group- U.S. decision-makers for every prob-
think, how conventional wisdom can lem, tragedy, and unanticipated side
effect, while taking for granted every risks and manipulate them to its advan-
achievement reached or disaster averted. tage. Setting aside the grim quality of
Sins of commission count, whereas sins this logic, it’s not at all clear that it’s
of omission don’t, or at least not very right. Walt cites the first half of the
much, so that action leading to unin- twentieth century as proof that offshore
tended consequences is treated differently balancing—the hands-off approach to
from inaction leading to unintended regional security that he prefers—has a
consequences. The intervention in Libya “reassuring history.” But is there anything
contributed in unanticipated ways to reassuring in two catastrophic world wars
the refugee crisis in Europe, but the that inevitably drew in the United States?
lack of intervention in Syria may have It is difficult to embrace an approach that
done so, too. counts the 1930s as a success.
These disconnects contribute to a There are other reasons for the
core challenge: virtually every argu- Mars-Venus quality of the conversation
ment policymakers make in response between policymakers and these two
to the scholars’ critique has to lean on scholars. Walt and Mearsheimer can
counterfactuals. If Washington hadn’t gloss over the expense of bringing U.S.
expanded NATO, would what is happen- troops home from around the world
ing in Ukraine today be happening in and then sending them back out when
the Baltics or Poland instead? If it had trouble arises, while policymakers have
pulled out of Japan in the 1990s, what to take those costs into account. Walt
kind of hand would it have to play and Mearsheimer can downplay the
against China now? “The alternative instability that would come from a
would have been worse!” is never a fun country like Iran acquiring nuclear
argument to resort to in a debate, and weapons, while policymakers think
yet sometimes it’s just the right answer. about worst-case scenarios, including a
Consider the cases of postwar Germany regional arms race and the possibility
and Japan, which Mearsheimer down- of the bomb falling into the hands of
plays with a fleeting reference halfway terrorists. They can argue for stripping
through his book. Imagine the second liberalism out of U.S. foreign policy,
half of the twentieth century if the but policymakers have to deal with the
United States had followed Walt’s and fact that the United States’ system,
Mearsheimer’s prescriptions for these and not just its strategy, points toward
countries in 1945, by withdrawing U.S. liberalism. That is, authoritarian govern-
forces and letting Europe and Asia solve ments face pressure not just from the
their own problems. The regions would U.S. government but also from U.S.
look far different, and possibly far society—The New York Times, for exam-
darker, today. ple, is not going to stop investigating
Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s basic corruption in the Chinese Communist
strategic premise appears to be that Party, and the release of the Panama
U.S. withdrawal would probably make Papers provoked Russian President
the world more dangerous, but given Vladimir Putin’s ire as much as NATO
its geography and its power, the United expansion did—and that’s not going to
States could both avoid the resulting stop. Finally, when Walt writes that

Jake Sullivan
Presidents George W. Bush, Barack short on guidance for how to proceed

Obama, and Donald Trump are basically in this new context.
indistinguishable in their approach to Walt basically throws up his hands,
foreign policy, he is operating at a level writing that “Asia may be the one place
of such extreme generality that the where U.S. leadership is indeed ‘indis-
analysis loses meaning. pensable.’” (For someone who must hate
the words “indispensable” and “leader-
HARD CHOICES ship,” that is quite a statement.) If Walt
But in a way, all that is something of a has to carve out an exception for the
distraction. The battle lines between the biggest national security issue of our time,
realists and the liberal internationalists this suggests that his overall approach
have been so well drawn, the debates so may need rethinking. Mearsheimer, who
well rehearsed, that it is hard to add much was a China hawk before it was fashion-
to them now. Fighting over how things able, has argued in the past that realism
would have looked today had Washington and restraint have to diverge when it
adopted the Walt and Mearsheimer comes to China. But in this most recent
approach over the last 25 years is not as book, he is so fixated on destroying
productive as debating what it should do “liberal hegemony” that he comes close
for the next 25. And even as they insist to rooting for China’s continued rise,
that it would be easy for policymakers seeing an increasingly powerful China as
to get things right if only they followed less of a threat to international stability
a few simple rules, both authors have than sustained American unipolarity. That
remarkably little to say about the central may or may not be sound as an argument
debates in U.S. foreign policy today— from the perspective of the international
the vexing questions that the Blob has system, but it is not particularly useful
been wrestling with since 2016. for U.S. policymakers looking out for
The first is how to shape a deterio- national interests. Nor does either author
rating U.S.-Chinese relationship so help policymakers prepare for competition
that it advances U.S. interests without on an emerging field of play that is as
turning into outright confrontation. much about economics, technology, and
The “responsible stakeholder” consensus ideas as it is about traditional security
in the American strategic community, considerations. That is a serious gap in
premised on integrating China into a their analysis, as geopolitics unfolds
U.S.-led order, has come apart. The across an expanding range of domains—
emerging theme is that Washington cyberspace, space, economics and energy,
got China wrong, and the watchword and so on.
of the day is “strategic competition” This flaw leads to a second hard
(although competition to what end is question, inextricably tied to the first:
not clear, especially if one assumes that To what extent are the United States’
China, unlike the Soviet Union, is not main competitors systematically export-
destined to fail). It has been disorient- ing their illiberalism, and what are the
ing to watch the pendulum swing so implications for U.S. strategy? Observers
fast from a benign view of China to a such as Kelly Magsamen and her co-
dark one. The books are surprisingly authors at the Center for American
Progress are increasingly emphasizing Mearsheimer does posit that pursuing

that both China and Russia have an “liberalism abroad undermines liberalism
overriding objective of maintaining at home.” But his modern-day examples
their authoritarian models, which of domestic consequences (wiretapping,
creates incentives for them to increase government secrecy, the “deep state”)
the pressure on liberalism abroad as a relate to the war on terrorism, which was
means of reducing the pressure on their hardly a liberal project. That raises a third
regimes at home. As Thomas Wright hard question: Given their constrained
of the Brookings Institution has put it, bandwidth, how should decision-makers
China and Russia “share the objective deal with the gap between the objective
of targeting free and open societies to threat posed by terrorism and the subjec-
make the world a safer place for authori- tive threat felt by the American public?
tarianism,” and therefore U.S. foreign Both Walt and Mearsheimer develop an
policy needs to privilege the defense elaborate caricature of a bloodthirsty
of democracy in the context of great- foreign policy community dragging a
power competition. more pacifistic public into foreign mili-
Both Walt and Mearsheimer pre- tary adventures. But when it comes to
sume that the United States’ major fighting terrorism abroad, the public—
competitors are acting largely accord- encouraged by politicians who themselves
ing to realist dictates, that domestic are skeptics of liberal internationalism—
politics isn’t a major factor. As a result, sees terrorism as an urgent, even
they offer a backward-looking critique existential priority that requires the use
of the American “impulse to spread of military force. The foreign policy
democracy,” as Mearsheimer puts it, community is increasingly responding
without really addressing the challenge to that demand rather than driving it.
of defending democracy against increas- Consider Obama’s experience with
ingly ambitious, organized, and effec- Iraq. He had taken a page out of the
tive dictatorships. The foreign policy Walt/Mearsheimer playbook by pulling
community’s emerging diagnosis may every last U.S. troop out in 2011. Then,
be wrong or overstated, but if it is, in the summer of 2014, the Islamic State,
neither of these two authors explains or ISIS, swept into Mosul and shot to the
why. They don’t deal with the range of center of the American public conscious-
practices that U.S. competitors are ness. Those of us on the president’s
pursuing to put pressure on the Ameri- national security team had vigorous
can economic and political system, debates about whether and how to
from direct election interference to the respond with U.S. military force. But
strategic use of corruption and state that debate was quickly swamped by
capitalism as tools for building lever- public sentiment: after the beheading
age and influence. And if the emerging of two American journalists, the public
diagnosis is right, would their preferred demanded action, swift and decisive,
strategy of unraveling NATO, pulling not to contain ISIS but to defeat it. In
out of Europe, and telling like-minded that instance, the public was more right,
allies to bid for U.S. affection really more quickly than the professionals.
be a logical next step? But the broader dynamic remains: the

Jake Sullivan
political dimensions of the terrorism to the role that crippling sanctions,

issue, and its susceptibility to dema- combined with the credible threat of
goguery, mean that policymakers have military force, played in helping bring it
to place it in a different category from about. The demonstration of reassurance
other national security challenges, and and resolve in the service of diplomacy
objective measures of the threat have is a key advantage of having U.S. forces
their limits. In debates about strategy deployed globally, and it raises the ques-
and resources in the years ahead, figuring tion, Which does Walt value more—
out how to manage this dynamic will making it harder to make mistakes like
be essential. It is a blind spot for both Libya or making it easier to engage in
Walt and Mearsheimer. successful diplomacy like Iran?
Another blind spot concerns a fourth The final area where Walt and
question that policymakers are presently Mearsheimer offer surprisingly little
grappling with: In light of both rising guidance is on the future of humanitarian
geopolitical competition among states intervention. After the last 25 years,
and the diffusion of power away from Washington is grappling with the ques-
states, how do policymakers design tion, What is the right set of conditions,
effective mechanisms to address major if any, for U.S. military intervention on
threats shared by all? Cooperation is humanitarian grounds? Criticizing past
required to tackle climate change, pan- interventions is a central pillar in both
demic disease, the spread of weapons of scholars’ cases against liberal internation-
mass destruction, and the risk of another alism. And yet neither comes out and says
global economic crisis. At least in the that such interventions should never be
context of mobilizing this kind of collec- attempted. Mearsheimer’s critique of the
tive action, Mearsheimer misses that Libya operation is not that the United
the motivating theory for many in the States shouldn’t have intervened to stop a
foreign policy community may actually massacre. Instead, he simply declares
be closer to classical republicanism—with that the threat of a massacre was a “false
its emphasis on institutions, interdepen- pretext”—in other words, it was all made
dence, and the rule of law—than to up. This provides a convenient way for
classical liberalism. And neither Walt him to avoid the real question.
nor Mearsheimer provides a convincing As for Walt, he is surprisingly
explanation for how such cooperation supportive of the use of American
will come about without U.S. leadership, power to “prevent wars, halt genocides,
or without sound rules rooted in sound or persuade other countries to improve
institutions, or without taking into account their human rights performance.” Indeed,
the roles of nonstate and substate actors. he would “countenance using force to
They do both pay homage to effective halt mass killings when (1) the danger
diplomacy, but neither gives a credible was imminent, (2) the anticipated costs
account of how a significant U.S. retrench- to the United States were modest, (3)
ment would enhance, rather than detract the ratio of foreign lives saved to U.S.
from, the United States’ ability to conduct lives risked was high, and (4) it was clear
it. Walt, for example, seems to like the that intervention would not make
Iran nuclear deal, but he gives little credit things worse or lead to an open-ended
commitment.” These are the same international economic policy, a concen-

criteria that policymakers have applied tration on combating corruption and
to each of the humanitarian interven- kleptocracy and neofascism, an emphasis
tions the United States has pursued on diplomacy over the use of military
over the last quarter century. (Iraq force, an enduring commitment to
belongs in a separate category because democratic allies. Perhaps most impor-
it was not a war waged on humanitarian tant, the left and the center share a
grounds.) The various post–Cold War growing recognition and appreciation
interventions mainly met the first three of the fact that many successes of the
criteria. Walt provides no more guidance liberal project have been profound—
on the fourth, which is where most of such as the advances against global
the debate over whether to act (Libya) poverty and disease and the enduring
or not act (Syria) takes place, and where peace between France and Germany,
most of the difficult tradeoffs lie. There which formed the European Union
is also the problem that neither scholar rather than being doomed to compete.
considers that humanitarian interventions None of this is to discount the role
can also have strategic motives. Letting that Walt and Mearsheimer can and
Syria burn didn’t just risk a massive loss should play in the debates to come.
of life; it also risked destabilizing not one Their focus on first principles is espe-
but two areas (Europe and the Persian cially important at a moment when so
Gulf) that both Walt and Mearsheimer much is up for grabs. Their admonition
consider vital. to think differently is useful in a time
of rapid change. Policymakers should
THE NEW CONVERGENCE read these books and consider their
This list of hard questions is hardly arguments carefully. And Walt and
exhaustive. The Trump era, along with Mearsheimer, for their part, should
broader changes in the international welcome the chance, in good faith and
environment, has put many assumptions with goodwill, to engage with policy-
back up for debate. Walt, especially, sees makers on the difficult questions about
this moment as a golden opportunity how to approach the decades ahead.∂
for progressives, libertarians, and aca-
demic realists to join together to defeat
the liberal internationalists. The real
trend appears to be going in a different
direction. A number of recent medita-
tions, including foreign policy com-
mentaries by Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts, point the way toward
a kind of convergence of the left and
the center. This convergence will hardly
be complete, but some common priori-
ties are coming into focus: an elevated
concern for the distributional effects of

The second voice is that of the nu-

Snake-Oil anced advocate. In this case, economists
advance a point of view while recognizing
Economics the diversity of thought among reasonable
people. They use state-of-the-art
theory and evidence to try to persuade
The Bad Math Behind the undecided and shake the faith of
Trump’s Policies those who disagree. They take a stand
without pretending to be omniscient.
N. Gregory Mankiw They acknowledge that their intellectual
opponents have some serious arguments
and respond to them calmly and
without vitriol.
Trumponomics: Inside the America First The third voice is that of the rah-rah
Plan to Revive Our Economy partisan. Rah-rah partisans do not build
BY STEPHEN MOORE AND their analysis on the foundation of profes-
ARTHUR B. LAF F ER. All Points sional consensus or serious studies from
Books, 2018, 287 pp. peer-reviewed journals. They deny that
people who disagree with them may have
W
hen economists write, they some logical points and that there may be
can decide among three weaknesses in their own arguments. In
possible voices to convey their view, the world is simple, and the
their message. The choice is crucial, opposition is just wrong, wrong, wrong.
because it affects how readers receive Rah-rah partisans do not aim to persuade
their work. the undecided. They aim to rally the
The first voice might be called the faithful.
textbook authority. Here, economists Unfortunately, this last voice is the
act as ambassadors for their profession. one the economists Stephen Moore and
They faithfully present the wide range Arthur Laffer chose in writing their
of views professional economists hold, new book, Trumponomics. The book’s
acknowledging the pros and cons of over-the-top enthusiasm for U.S. Presi-
each. These authors do their best to dent Donald Trump’s sketchy economic
hide their personal biases and admit that agenda is not likely to convince anyone
there is still plenty that economists do not already sporting a “Make America
not know. According to this perspective, Great Again” hat.
reasonable people can disagree; it is the
author’s job to explain the basis for that ECONOMIC TRIBALISM
disagreement and help readers make an Moore and Laffer served as economic
informed judgment. advisers to Trump during his campaign
and after he was elected president (along
N. GREGORY MANKIW is Robert M. Beren with Larry Kudlow, the current director
Professor of Economics at Harvard University. of the National Economic Council, who
From 2003 to 2005, he was Chair of the Council
of Economic Advisers under U.S. President wrote the book’s foreword). From this
George W. Bush. experience, Moore and Laffer apparently
Snake-Oil Economics
Seller in chief: Trump promoting his tax cut package in Hialeah, Florida, April 2018
learned the importance of flattering the Economic Advisers during the George W.
boss. In the first chapter alone, they tell Bush administration, so do I.) But the
us that Trump is a “gifted orator” who Obama administration was filled with
is always “dressed immaculately.” He is prominent economic advisers who were
“shrewd,” “open-minded,” “no-nonsense,” well within the bounds of mainstream
and “bigger than life.” He is a “common- economics: Jason Furman, Austan
sense conservative” who welcomes “honest Goolsbee, Alan Krueger, Christina
and fair-minded policy debates.” He is Romer, and Lawrence Summers, to name
the “Mick Jagger of politics” with a but a few. It is not tenable to suggest
contagious “enthusiasm and can-doism.” that with all this talent, the administra-
The authors’ approach to policy is tion made only wrong decisions, and
similarly bereft of nuance. In Chapter that they were wrong simply because
3, they sum it up by proudly recounting those who made them were Democrats.
what Moore told Trump about U.S. The tribalism of Moore and Laffer’s
President Barack Obama during the approach stems primarily from their
campaign: “Donald, just look at all devotion to a single issue: the level of
the things that Obama has done on the taxation. Obama pursued higher taxes,
P A B L O M A R T I N E Z M O N S I VA I S / A P
economy over the past eight years, and especially on higher-income households.
then do just the opposite.” His goal was to fund a federal govern-
It is hard to imagine more simplistic, ment that was larger and more active than
misguided advice. To be sure, Moore many Republicans would prefer and to
and Laffer can reasonably hold policy use the tax system to “spread the wealth
positions and political values to the right around,” as he famously told Joe Wurzel-
of those of Obama. (As someone who bacher, known as Joe the Plumber, a man
chaired the White House Council of he encountered at a campaign stop in

N. Gregory Mankiw
Ohio in 2008. By contrast, Moore and tradeoff between equality and efficiency
Laffer want lower taxes, especially on just won’t go away.
businesses, which in their view would
promote faster economic growth. LESSONS FROM ECON 101
The debate over taxes reflects a Trumponomics is full of exhortations about
classic, ongoing disagreement between the importance of economic growth. Why,
the left and the right. In 1975, Arthur Moore and Laffer ask, should Americans
Okun, a Brookings economist and former settle for the two percent growth that
adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, many economists have been projecting?
wrote a short book called Equality and Wouldn’t every problem be easier to
Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Okun argued solve with a more rapidly expanding
that by using taxes and transfers of economy? The book quotes Trump as
wealth to equalize economic outcomes, claiming, when announcing his tax plan
the government distorts incentives—or in December 2017, that it would not
that, to put it metaphorically, the harder increase the budget deficit because it
the government tries to ensure that the would raise growth rates to “three, or
economic pie is cut into slices of a similar four, five, or even six percent.”
size, the smaller the pie becomes. Based The authors offer no credible evi-
on this argument, the main priority of dence that the tax changes passed will
the Democratic Party is to equalize the lead to such high growth. Most studies
slices, whereas the main priority of the yield far more modest projections. The
Republican Party is to grow the pie. Congressional Budget Office estimates
Yet Moore and Laffer aren’t willing that the Trump tax cuts will increase
to admit that making policy requires growth rates by 0.2 percentage points
confronting such difficult tradeoffs. per year over the first five years. A
Laffer is famous for his eponymous study by Robert Barro (a conservative
curve, which shows that tax rates can economist at Harvard) and Furman (a
reach levels high enough that cutting liberal economist at Harvard) published
them would yield enough growth to in 2018 estimates that the tax bill will
actually increase tax revenue. In that increase annual growth by 0.13 percent-
scenario, the tradeoff between equality age points over a decade. And that is
and efficiency vanishes. The government if the changes are made permanent.
can cut taxes, increase growth, and use Barro and Furman estimate that as the
the greater tax revenue to help the less legislation is written, with many of the
fortunate. Everyone is better off. provisions set to expire in 2025, it will
The Laffer curve is undeniable as a increase annual growth by a mere 0.04
matter of economic theory. There is percentage points over ten years.
certainly some level of taxation at which It is conceivable that standard eco-
cutting tax rates would be win-win. nomic models underestimate the impact
But few economists believe that tax of tax cuts on growth. A research paper
rates in the United States have reached by the economists Christina Romer and
such heights in recent years; to the con- David Romer published in 2010 examined
trary, they are likely below the revenue- historical tax changes and found that they
maximizing level. In practice, the big had larger effects on economic activity
than standard models suggest. (It is worth
noting that these two authors’ political
leanings are left of center, so their findings
are not the result of ideological taint.)
One might reasonably argue that Trump’s
tax cuts will increase growth over the next
decade by as much as half a percentage
point per year. But that is a long way
from the one- to four-percentage-point The Internship
boost that the president and his associates Program
have bragged of, and that Moore and
The Council on Foreign Relations is seek-
Laffer quote without explanation, caveat, ing talented individuals who are consider-
or apology. ing a career in international relations.
The authors of Trumponomics do depart Interns are recruited year-round on a semester
from the president on one piece of his basis to work in both the New York City and
agenda: his approach to international Washington, D.C., offices. An intern’s duties
generally consist of administrative work,
trade. Moore and Laffer are ardent free editing and writing, and event coordination.
traders; as such, their views are well
The Council considers both undergraduate
within the mainstream of modern eco- and graduate students with majors in Interna-
nomics. Ever since Adam Smith took on tional Relations, Political Science, Economics,
the mercantilists in The Wealth of Nations or a related field for its internship program.
in 1776, most economists have come to A regional specialization and language skills
believe that international trade is win-win. may also be required for some positions. In
addition to meeting the intellectual require-
They reject the idea that a trade imbalance
ments, applicants should have excellent
between two nations means that one of skills in administration, writing, and re-
them must be the loser, and they applaud search, and a command of word processing,
agreements, such as the North American spreadsheet applications, and the Internet.
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and To apply for an internship, please send a
international organizations, such as the résumé and cover letter including the se-
mester, days, and times available to work
World Trade Organization, that reduce to the Internship Coordinator in the Hu-
trade barriers around the world. man Resources Office at the address listed
Moore and Laffer recognized early below. Please refer to the Council’s Web
in the campaign that Trump rejects site for specific opportunities. The Coun-
cil is an equal opportunity employer.
this consensus. To their credit, they
do not back down from their views in
Trumponomics. They acknowledge that
the president is playing a “high-stakes
game of poker” and that “if it doesn’t
work, the ramifications scare us to death.”
Council on Foreign Relations
But they also give Trump the benefit Human Resources Office
of the doubt by expressing the hope 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065
tel: 212.434 . 9400 fax: 212.434 . 9893
that his belligerent approach toward
humanresources@cfr.org http://www.cfr.org
U.S. trading partners will somehow
lead to better deals and freer trade.
179
N. Gregory Mankiw
Hostility to globalization did not, of Trump were able to negotiate trade deals
course, begin with Trump. It may be hard that solved this problem, the accomplish-
to remember now, but when Obama was ment would be significant. But in light
a senator, he opposed many free-trade of how much other nations benefit from
initiatives advanced by the administration not protecting U.S. intellectual property,
of then U.S. President George W. Bush, a negotiated solution won’t come easy.
such as the Dominican Republic–Central
America Free Trade Agreement. When GIVING THE PRESIDENT A PASS
Obama ran for president in 2008, he spoke Perhaps the most disappointing aspect
about the need to renegotiate NAFTA, of Trumponomics is the long list of crucial
although he quickly put that goal aside issues on which the authors are largely
after moving into the White House. silent. They offer no cogent plans to deal
Similarly, during the 2016 U.S. presiden- with global climate change, the long-
tial campaign, Senator Bernie Sanders term fiscal imbalance from growing
of Vermont made hostility to free trade a entitlement spending, or the increase in
central tenet of his platform. So popular economic inequality that has occurred
did that position prove among Democrats over the past half century. Many reason-
that he managed to pressure the Demo- able Republicans would support a tax
cratic candidate Hillary Clinton into on carbon emissions, for example. Such
opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership— a policy would slow climate change by
the very trade deal she had backed as incentivizing the movement toward
secretary of state during the Obama cleaner energy, as well as provide
administration. The bottom line is that for revenue that could be used to close the
a politician seeking election, opposing fiscal gap or to help those struggling at
free trade is a lot easier than supporting the bottom of the economic ladder.
it. Many voters are more likely to view Rather than suggesting coherent
foreign nations as threats to U.S. prosper- policies, Moore and Laffer seem to hope
ity than as potential partners for mutually that a much more rapidly growing
advantageous trade. Economists have a economy will provide the resources to
long way to go to persuade the body politic address all these problems, and they seem
of some basic lessons from Econ 101. to believe that this growth will follow
To be fair to Trump and other anti- ineluctably from the lower taxes and
globalization zealots, amid all their mis- deregulation that lie at the heart of
information and bluster is a kernel of truth. Trump’s agenda. It would be wonderful if
The United States produces a lot of that were possible. Maybe rah-rah parti-
intellectual property, including movies, sans really believe it is. But more likely,
software, and pharmaceuticals. The failure it is just wishful thinking. Trump appears
of countries, especially China, to enforce eager to avoid most of the economic
the copyrights and patents that protect problems facing the nation. By banking
intellectual property constitutes a loss to on so much growth from cutting taxes,
the United States similar to outright Moore and Laffer are, in effect, giving
theft. The Commission on the Theft of him a pass and kicking the can down the
American Intellectual Property puts the road to a future leader more interested in
loss at up to $600 billion per year. If confronting hard policy choices.∂
do their bit maintaining the “jewel in

When Empires the crown” of the British Empire, as
generations had done before them.
End Instead, they found themselves witness-
ing the demise of the British Raj, when
a long nationalist struggle culminated
The Last Days of British India in 1947 with the partition of British
India and the independence of India
Maya Jasanoff and Pakistan.
Fighting for independence from
oppressive imperial rule can look in
The Last Englishmen: Love, War, and the retrospect like one of those black-and-
End of Empire white choices—resisting fascism is
BY DEBORAH BAKER. Graywolf another—where it seems obvious what
Press, 2018, 352 pp. stand anyone with principle would take.
What the deeply researched, marvelously
portrayed life stories recounted in The
T
he pupils of Miss Higgins’ Last Englishmen show is just how muddled
School in Calcutta had lined up these world-historical changes actually
neatly for the photograph, the look when you’re living in the middle of
girls’ shoulders draped by braids, the them. That makes the book a valuable
boys’ knees peeping below shorts. Their supplement to the more conventional
tropical uniforms blazed brightly in the accounts of decolonization as a process
black-and-white photograph. Many of the driven by clear-eyed activists and histori-
children, including my mother and my cal logic. If anything, histories like Baker’s
uncle, were Bengali. Some were European, may be precisely what are needed in the
and at least one was half-Bengali, like present heated moment, as reminders of
me. “Her uncle was W. H. Auden,” my the many ways in which people find their
grandmother said, pointing to a girl way through political transformation.
named Anita.
If I didn’t know who the poet W. H. IMPERIAL MEN
Auden was when I first saw these pictures John Auden was fresh out of Cambridge
from my mother’s 1950s schooldays, I when he traveled to Bengal, the most
knew nothing whatsoever about his populous province in the Raj, in 1926.
brother John Bicknell Auden, Anita’s He was there to take a job with the
father, until reading The Last Englishmen Geological Survey of India. His first
by Deborah Baker. Auden is one of the assignment had him surveying steamy,
leading characters in this group biography smoky coalfields north of Calcutta, but
of young British men who set out for he dreamed of exploring the fractured
India in the 1920s to work as imperial peaks of the Himalayas. Auden was
administrators. They went expecting to one of many young Europeans fired up
by an intensifying competition among
MAYA JASANOFF is Coolidge Professor of
History at Harvard University and the author of European powers to be the first to
The Dawn Watch: Joseph Conrad in a Global World. summit Mount Everest. Whoever

Maya Jasanoff
climbed Everest, ran the implicit rule. Instead, British administrators

logic, was on top of the world. granted only moderate reforms, which
Baker finds a perfect narrative foil to were offset by enhanced policing of
Auden amid the incestuous ranks of the dissent. In 1919, British troops opened
British upper-middle class. Michael fire on a peaceful nationalist gathering in
Spender was a schoolmate of W. H. the city of Amritsar and killed nearly
Auden and the brother of a different 400 unarmed protesters. The massacre
poet, Stephen Spender. An Oxford galvanized the first India-wide protest
graduate to John Auden’s Cambridge, a led by Mahatma Gandhi, who applied
geographer to his geologist, Michael his philosophy of nonviolence to the
Spender trained in mapmaking and aerial nationalist cause.
photography in the Alps and went on to The 1920s and 1930s would be
land the post that Auden craved, when, in marked by a cat-and-mouse game of
1935, he was chosen as the chief surveyor protests, crackdowns, and compromises.
for an expedition to reconnoiter Everest. British authorities jailed independence
Auden and Spender weren’t simply leaders, then freed them under duress.
among the last Englishmen to be em- Gandhi orchestrated ever-larger civil
ployed by the colonial state. They were disobedience campaigns and won further
among the last propelled into adulthood legislative reforms. But these still fell
on a tail wind of imperial self-confidence. short of home rule, and when British
They came of age after World War I, authorities unilaterally brought India
when the British Empire was larger into World War II, without promising
than ever on paper, with a clutch of independence in return, the thread of
former Ottoman and German colonies nationalist patience snapped. In 1942,
transferred into British hands as League Gandhi called for the British to “quit
of Nations mandates. The British Empire India” and deliver immediate home rule.
was being managed more liberally, too, By then, the Bengali militant Subhas
with self-government (or “home rule”) Chandra Bose was gathering an army,
having been extended to the so-called with Japanese support, to drive out the
white colonies of Canada, Australia, British by force.
New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland.
Few Britons at the end of the war sup- A CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE
ported independence for tropical colonies. In any history of British India, these
If anything, they may have expected that events appear as milestones on the road
a new era of enlightened administration to independence. In The Last Englishmen,
was just getting under way. they’re pebbles in the streams of the
In practice, however, the imperial protagonists’ lives. “If the nineteenth
edifice was cracking under pressure from century had been all about piling up
nationalists—and nowhere more conse- one scarcely credible heroic exploit after
quentially than in India, the biggest, another,” Baker writes, “the twentieth
most valuable colony of all. India had century . . . seemed to be all about sitting
contributed massively to the war effort, down and taking apart one’s motives.”
and in exchange, Indian political leaders Auden started psychoanalysis during a
hoped for substantive steps toward home furlough in Paris and used his journal
When Empires End
At His Majesty’s service: King George VI inspecting Indian troops, 1940
writing as a kind of therapy. Spender for social equality and democratic

met the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung on government across the empire.
a ship from India and began a course of It wasn’t only the British who
Jungian analysis. underwent transformations during these
Auden’s and Spender’s self- fraught years. Baker also introduces
examinations reflected a more general readers to Sudhindranath Datta, a member
crisis of confidence in the imperial system. of Calcutta’s English-educated Indian
Another member of the Auden-Spender elite, whose family fortunes had grown
social circle, Michael Carritt, became a in step with British imperialism in Bengal.
minor district officer in Bengal, where In 1929, Datta toured the United States
(like George Orwell in Burma) he grew with the Nobel Prize–winning poet
disgusted with the performance of white Rabindranath Tagore, but he returned
supremacy. Carritt became an informant disgusted both by Western Orientalism
for the Communist Party of India and and by what he saw as Calcutta’s decay.
funneled notes to the radical League He started a literary magazine and an
Against Imperialism in London. His adda (salon) in his family mansion in
specific trajectory from imperial servant North Calcutta. On Friday nights, be-
to anti-imperial activist aligns with a tween bookshelves with serried volumes
broader turn in British opinion. As of Sir Walter Scott and Alfred Lord
Gandhi was launching the Quit India Tennyson, the Bengali intelligentsia
movement, the Labour Party passed (and a suspected English police infor-
the Charter of Freedom for Colonial mant) gathered to debate Indian politics
Peoples at its 1942 conference, calling and world affairs. The adda acted as a
AP

Maya Jasanoff
barometer of Indian anticolonialism, promised him her ongoing affections “as

where Gandhi’s gradualist vision for long as it doesn’t hurt Louis or interfere
independence competed with the ideas with Bill.” It was an impossible calculus,
of militant rivals, including the Com- and when John returned to India, his
munists and Bose. place was taken by another man to whom
Although Auden and Spender are he himself had introduced Nancy. That,
nominally the book’s centerpieces, inevitably, was Michael Spender.
perhaps the most compelling figure to Was Nancy Coldstream also a “last”?
animate The Last Englishmen is an Eng- For all the women’s liberation of the
lishwoman who connected with them interwar years—including the right to
both. Nancy Coldstream, née Sharp, vote and a relaxing of divorce laws in
daughter of a Cornish country doctor, women’s favor—hers was a classic case
moved to London in 1928 to enroll as a of a career irretrievably curtailed by
student in the Slade School of Fine Art. marriage and childbearing. And although
Canny about the reality that a woman’s Baker notes in a postscript that Nancy
path to fortune depended on attaching was “memorialized as one of the most
herself to the right man, she swiftly underrated painters of her generation,”
married the most promising artist in the the story of her life, at least as described
class, Bill Coldstream. Almost equally in these pages, is the story of the men
promptly, the couple ran out of money she loved. Given how many of the con-
and into marital difficulties. Nancy’s time straints she faced still ring true today,
for art making got consumed by caring it’s no coincidence that women’s history
for an infant daughter. Bill’s creativity is more often told in “firsts” than “lasts.”
sputtered, although he persisted dog-
gedly enough that when he couldn’t find LOOSE ENDS
a blank canvas, he took one of Nancy’s Baker has a gift for scene writing and
best portraits and painted over it “with- designs the book accordingly, breaking
out a second thought.” each chapter into segments headed by
Things started looking up for the an address and a date, as if in a play.
Coldstreams in 1935, when Bill took a She conjures up “rippling curtains of
job editing films for the British postal rain” draping over the countryside and
system’s documentary unit and brought the “silken currents of the Brahmapu-
a new colleague home to lodge with tra” running “through loosening skeins
them: W. H. Auden. Auden and Nancy toward the Bay of Bengal,” as well as
became fast friends, and through him, the crush of urban India, where “every
Nancy met a series of men who would veranda held a crowd, every window a
change the course of her life. First came curious face” and “grocers slept among
Auden’s friend Louis MacNeice, a young vegetables in elevated bamboo huts
Irish poet, who fell madly in love with along crowded roadways.” A trove of
her and began an affair, declaring that wonderfully candid diaries and letters
“until he’d met Nancy, he’d been color lets Baker get deep inside the characters’
blind.” Then came Auden’s brother John, heads and hearts. Reading The Last
who was promptly “bewitched” by Nancy. Englishmen, one can almost screen the
She started an affair with him, too, and television adaptation in one’s head.
But a powerful drama needs its scenes
to build into acts, and it’s often hard to
know where The Last Englishmen is Not all readers
going—both figuratively and literally. A
given chapter might start in a London are leaders,
neighborhood, leap to a Himalayan pass,
stop by a Calcutta office, and end up in but all leaders
a Darjeeling boarding house (Chapter 10),
or it might open in a Cornish home before are readers.
staying in a New York hotel, visiting the - Harry S. Truman
viceroy’s palace in New Delhi, and attend-
ing Datta’s adda (Chapter 14). Baker’s
taste for one-line paragraphs enhances the
staccato feel. It’s a rhetorical technique SIGN UP for the
that can be very effective in ramping up Foreign Affairs
anticipation or nailing down a point, Books & Reviews
newsletter
but here it reads too often as an inter-
ruption or an irrelevance.
This is a particular liability when it
comes to extracting what, if anything,
Baker wants to conclude about the
nature of Indian independence. One
promise of this book lies in its potential
to explore how people make sense of
their roles in a system that is failing.
Yet for all the vividness of their profes-
sional and romantic travails (or perhaps
because of it), it is rather difficult to
glean how self-conscious Auden and
Spender really were about their posi-
tions as agents of British power in a
period of escalating opposition. Maybe
the lesson is a timeless one, that history
happens to people far more than people
happen to make history. Or maybe it’s
that political scruples alone seldom stall
the complex engine of life, greased by
love, ambition, curiosity, desire, loyalty,
anxiety, and hope.
With the onset of World War II, the
engine whirred fast and furiously. Nancy
Coldstream becomes an ambulance
driver. Spender reads aerial photographs ForeignAffairs.com/newsletters
for the Royal Air Force. Auden, despite
185
Maya Jasanoff
being an amateur flyer, fails the RAF’s Trunk Road and all the deserted can-
pilot test. Meanwhile, in India, violence tonments,” MacNeice wrote in a verse
reaches a new pitch. Japanese bombers in his diary. “On jute mill and ashram,
strafe Calcutta. Famine devastates Bengal, on cross and lingam . . . / On the man
killing more than three million people; who has never left the forest / On the
Datta will see the starving straggle into last Englishman to leave.”
the stairwells of his apartment building But they didn’t all leave just yet. Early
to avoid being scooped up by vans sent to in 1939, Datta had introduced Auden to
drive them out to the countryside to die. the woman who finally became his wife.
When the war ends, the violence does She was a vivacious Bengali painter
not: in the Great Calcutta Killings of 1946, named Sheila Bonnerjee, and she had
up to 15,000 people, mostly Muslims, recently returned from studying in
are slaughtered in communal riots. London. Auden himself was surprised
To give away specific characters’ when his mother accepted the news of
endings would spoil the plot, but it won’t his marriage to an Indian without batting
surprise anyone that the book wraps up an eye, “telling him that people treated
with independence in 1947 (at which the subject rather differently nowa-
time, incidentally, Mount Everest had days.” The couple’s daughter Anita was
still not been summited, despite the born in 1941; a second daughter, Rita,
imperial competition of the prewar in 1942. I wonder if they would have
years). For all that Gandhi had charted looked back at a photo of their school-
a course to freedom on the principle of days and seen it as I did, as empire’s
nonviolence, the independence of India shadow in a postcolonial dawn.∂
and Pakistan—and the drawing of borders
between them—was accompanied by
mass migration and horrific violence.
This was “liberty and death,” as the
cover of Time indelibly put it.
It was neither an Auden nor a Spender
who saw the transfer of power up closest;
it was their acquaintance MacNeice. Sent
by the BBC to report on the transition,
he watched celebratory fireworks in
New Delhi and interviewed Jawaharlal
Nehru, independent India’s first prime
minister, before heading to Pakistan. In
a refugee camp near the new border,
MacNeice encountered the horrifying
obverse of freedom: hundreds of men,
women, and children “shot, stabbed,
speared, clubbed, or set on fire” on their
way to India, crammed into a tiny field
hospital with just one doctor to attend
them. “Night falls on Kipling’s Grand
hair and beard.” And to cap it all off, a

Life After Georgian woman dreams of Joseph
Stalin visiting her at night: “He gazes
Liberation at me, puffs on his pipe, and twirls his
moustache. He smiles, and then heads
for the door. Then I weep and cry for
The Long Shadow of Eastern him to stay.”
Europe’s Communist Past Dancing Bears, the latest book by the
Polish journalist Witold Szablowski, is
Timothy Garton Ash never dull. This is Tom Wolfe meets
Franz Kafka, or perhaps a Milan Kun-
dera remake of Dances With Wolves. The
excellent English version by Antonia
Dancing Bears: True Stories of People Lloyd-Jones, a leading translator from
Nostalgic for Life Under Tyranny Polish, perfectly captures Szablowski’s
BY WITOLD SZABLOWSKI. pithy, staccato prose.
TRANSLATED BY ANTONIA LLOYD - Yet niggling questions remain. The
JONES. Penguin Books, 2018, 256 pp. subtitle of the American edition promises
readers “true stories of people nostalgic
for life under tyranny.” Szablowski’s
W
elcome to the Wild East. account hardly bears out this diagnosis.
First, there are Bulgarian As a collection of vivid, skillfully crafted
Gypsies with dancing bears. reportage from the wilder corners of
Then there is a Polish village whose the postcommunist world, Dancing
inhabitants dress up as Hobbits from The Bears is a rattling good read. But in
Lord of the Rings, along with Gandalf, what sense, precisely, are these stories
played by a woman, and Gollum—in true, and what do they actually tell us
private life a farmer who receives Euro- about life in postcommunist Europe?
pean Union subsidies. There are hundreds
of thousands of communist-era bunkers EXOTIC EAST
in Albania, some of them now being Szablowski’s report is divided into two
demolished by men in search of rebar. halves. The first is about the dancing
Meanwhile, a Serbian remembers being bears once kept by Bulgarian Gypsies
“treated” by the former Bosnian Serb (now more politely called Roma). After
leader Radovan Karadzic in Belgrade, Bulgaria joined the European Union in
where the notorious war criminal was 2007, animal-rights activists persuaded
in hiding, disguised in a ponytail and the last remaining bear keepers to hand
beard and pretending to be a faith their animals over to a reserve, the Danc-
healer: “At one point he told me that ing Bears Park, in Belitsa, in southwestern
cosmic energy came to him via the Bulgaria. “The animals were taught how
a free bear is supposed to move about,”
TIMOTHY GARTON ASH is Professor of Szablowski writes. “How to hibernate.
European Studies at the University of Oxford
and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at How to copulate. How to obtain food.
Stanford University. The park at Belitsa became an unusual

Timothy Garton Ash
‘freedom research lab.’” Yet “for every hand and Kapuscinski’s 1992 book, The
retired dancing bear, the moment comes Soccer War, in the other. There are the
when freedom starts to cause it pain. same short paragraphs, punchy prose,
What does it do then? It gets up on its surreal stories, and first-person narra-
hind legs and starts to dance.” tion; the same short, apparently discon-
When Szablowski heard about this nected chapters, presented in a strictly
story, it occurred to him that the bears nonlinear order; the same devotion to
were in the same condition as the people showing, not telling.
of eastern Europe. “Ever since the transi- But there is a problem with Kapuscin-
tion from socialism to democracy began ski. The maestro played fast and loose
in Poland in 1989,” he writes, “our lives with the facts; he borrowed anecdotes
have been a kind of freedom research and turned them into what looked like
project—a never-ending course in what his own reporting; he embroidered,
freedom is, how to make use of it, and fabricated, and fabulated. The scholar
what sort of price is paid for it.” Abbas Milani, an authority on the shah
The dancing bears therefore serve as an of Iran, once told Kapuscinski’s biogra-
allegorical leitmotif in the book’s second pher, Artur Domoslawski, that “you can
half. The chapters in Part 2 have the same open [Kapuscinski’s] Shah of Shahs at
titles—“Love,” “Freedom,” “Negotiations,” any page, point to a passage, and I will
“Hibernation,” “Castration”—as those tell you what is wrong or inaccurate.”
in Part 1, and each has an epigraph with A resident of Addis Ababa complained
a putatively apt quotation from the that Kapuscinski’s celebrated book about
earlier description of the bears and their the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie
keepers. But this time, Szablowski is “like a tale from The Thousand and
whizzes around the postcommunist One Nights.” The biographer showed
world, from Cuba—assuming we can the former Bolivian guerilla Osvaldo
now call Cuba postcommunist—to Peredo what Kapuscinski wrote about
Ukraine, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, his family. “This is fiction,” an indig-
Estonia, Georgia, and that Polish Hobbit nant Peredo responded. “It may be
village. At the end of his tour, Szablow- colorfully written, but it’s entirely
ski takes an unexpected turn to Greece, untrue. Well, almost entirely.”
where he finds a young architecture Distinguished wordsmiths still
student, Maria, protesting for an end to defend Kapuscinski on the grounds that
capitalism. The book closes with her this was Literature, with a capital L, not
prophecy: “We’re starting a landslide mere reporting. But that’s not what it
here that will engulf the entire world.” says on the label. When his work was
No wonder Szablowski’s previous translated into English, Kapuscinski
reporting received the Polish Press was celebrated as a great reporter:
Agency’s Ryszard Kapuscinski Award. someone who had seen, heard, endured,
Kapuscinski is the founding father and accurately recorded everything he
and presiding deity of the contempo- wrote about.
rary Polish school of reportage, of In these times of industrial-scale
which Szablowski is now a leading online disinformation, hyperpolarization,
practitioner. Take Dancing Bears in one and general all-around “Trumpery,” such
Life After Liberation
trespassing is more dangerous than ever. slightly smaller than Maryland, inhabited
We writers of nonfiction need to guard by barely three million people,” readers
the bright line between fact and fiction are told, “the Communists built about
with every weapon at our disposal. 750,000 of them.” That would be roughly
This is not to suggest that Szablowski one bunker for every four inhabitants.
willingly distorts facts or misleads his Yet at the end of the same paragraph,
readers as Kapuscinski did. But he Szablowski quotes his source as saying,
certainly operates within the loose “Someone once suggested that there
conventions of the Kapuscinski school are 750,000 of them, and now everyone
of reporting. Leave aside, as enjoyable keeps repeating that.” Why include this
ludic ursology, several passages in figure if it represents an unfounded and
which he tells us what individual bears obviously ridiculous claim?
“probably” thought and felt. (“Misho is Another symptom of mild Kapuscinski-
not capable of getting his head around itis is the author’s self-dramatization as
Dimitar’s death. Probably all he knows an intrepid reporter risking his neck on
is that the man was there . . . and then the reader’s behalf. When Szablowski
suddenly that man was gone.”) But take makes a trip to the Estonian city of
those Albanian bunkers. “In a country Narva, he excitedly reports warnings

Timothy Garton Ash
of “Mafiosi, hired assassins, polluted WEEPING FOR TYRANNY?

air, and exploding cars.” He suggests This brings us to the strange matter of
he was “probably the first hitchhiker in the subtitle of the American edition:
independent Kosovo.” As someone who True Stories of People Nostalgic for Life
hitched several rides in Kosovo immedi- Under Tyranny. Very few of the protago-
ately after the 1999 NATO invasion, I nists in Szablowski’s political reportage
beg to differ. However harmless these seem to fit this bill. A Ukrainian who
individual exaggerations may be, taken works as a cleaning lady in Poland admires
together, they contribute to a narrative how EU membership has transformed
in which everything becomes wilder, the country: “You Poles are looking better.
more extreme, and more exotic. The And you’re eating better too. These
British writer John Ryle, in his analysis days every Biedronka supermarket sells
of Kapuscinski’s writings about Africa, olive oil.” And she concludes: “I pray
called this style “tropical baroque.” for the EU to come to us too.” In the
One might also call it Orientalism. Polish Hobbit village, the author sits on
There is a long tradition, stretching a bench with Gollum (AKA Zenon Pusz,
back to the Enlightenment, of western a villager), drinking beer, smoking
Europeans and North Americans oriental- Marlboros, and “remembering the days
izing eastern Europe, as Voltaire did with when in the countryside you smoked
Russia and Rousseau did with Poland. filterless cigarettes and drank cheap
What is unusual about Szablowski is wine known as ‘brainfuck.’” Nostalgic
that he is orientalizing his own region. for brainfuck, anyone?
Dancing Bears is, so to speak, the self- Nor will readers find much evidence
orientalization of eastern Europe (perhaps here that the Serbs—let alone the
better in German: die Selbstorientalisierung Bosnians—are nostalgic for Karadzic,
Osteuropas.) Odder still, Szablowski is even in his capacity as a faith healer, or
writing his account at a time when that the Kosovar Albanians are pining
eastern Europe—or at least east-central for the days of domination by Serbia.
Europe, from Poland to Bulgaria—has Yes, some of the ethnic Russians the
never been closer to the West. All of its author meets in Estonia are indeed
states have some version of the politi- nostalgic for the Soviet Union, and
cal and economic system prevalent in Szablowski is rightly critical of the early
the West, and most of them are mem- years of Estonian policy toward the
bers of the same political, economic, country’s Russian minority. But even
and security communities—the EU, among that minority, we encounter the
NATO—as their western neighbors, figure of “Asya’s mom,” a presumably
something unprecedented in European middle-aged or elderly Russian woman
history. How nice, then, for Westerners who passes her Estonian language exam
to be reassured that they are, after all, on the seventh attempt, opening the
still on a higher plane of civilization, door to Estonian citizenship.
reason, and Enlightenment, while One of Szablowski’s finest characters,
eastern Europeans remain, under their and a testament to his empathetic report-
L’Oréal-smoothed skin, the same old er’s eye, is an old woman who hails from
dancing bears. the provincial Polish town of Pabianice
but now spends her life on the streets
around the Victoria coach and railway
stations in London. She goes by the
name Lady Peron (peron means “railway
platform” in Polish). Is she nostalgic for
life under communism? Apparently not:
“Suddenly the Lady falls silent, smiles,
and takes me by the arm. ‘But tell me Assistant Editor
frankly, mister. Many a healthy person
hasn’t seen as much of the world as this
Foreign Affairs is looking for
cripple from Pabianice.’”
Assistant Editors to join our
Only two people in the pages of
editorial team.
Dancing Bears genuinely are nostalgic
for tyranny: first, the widow of the
The Assistant Editor position
Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha, and
is a full-time paid job offering
second, the Georgian woman who works
exceptional training in serious
at the Joseph Stalin Museum and is
journalism. Previous Assistant
visited in her dreams by the mustache-
Editors have included recent
twirling charmer Uncle Joe. Well, they
graduates from undergraduate and
would be nostalgic, wouldn’t they?
master’s programs. Candidates
To be sure, some people in postcom-
should have a serious interest in
munist Europe will say that they miss
international relations, a flair for
some good things about the bad old days.
writing, and a facility with the
They may, for example, mention a kind
English language.
of rudimentary economic security—“we
pretend to work, and they pretend to
Assistant Editors work for one year,
pay us,” as the old quip went—or say
starting in June.
that their lives were once less stressful.
Others may recall a sense of equality
For more information about how
and solidarity among those below the
to apply for the 2019–20 Assistant
small communist ruling class, the
Editor position, please visit:
nomenklatura. There’s an interesting
subject there, one for another, less
colorful, but perhaps deeper, book. www.foreignaffairs.com/Apply
THE ROOTS OF DISCONTENT Applications are due by

Such a book might start by asking how February 5, 2019.
it could happen that as we approach
the 30th anniversary of the revolutions
of 1989, leaders such as Viktor Orban
in Hungary and Jaroslaw Kaczynski in
Poland have achieved high levels of
electoral support while systematically
eroding the checks and balances of their
191
Timothy Garton Ash
countries’ still fragile liberal democra- the old familiar solidarities of Christian
cies. To what extent are these leaders churches and ethnically defined national
part of a wider populist and antiliberal communities? A new saying is making
movement that includes such figures as the rounds in Warsaw: “Where do Poles
Donald Trump in the United States, meet? Answer: only at the gas station.”
Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, For an author, it is always supremely
and Matteo Salvini in Italy? And how irritating to be criticized on the grounds
much of their success is due to the that you did not write a different book—
specific circumstances of postcommu- the one the reviewer would have liked
nist central and eastern Europe? to read. I raise the alternative here only
Did the absence of a major public because the American publisher gave
reckoning with Hungary’s and Poland’s Szablowski’s book that subtitle about
communist past open the door to a nostalgia for tyranny, suggesting a thesis
pseudo-revolutionary politics in which the book does not advance, let alone
a turn to illiberalism is justified as the sustain. The original Polish edition had
only way to end the legacy of commu- no subtitle, whereas a more recent Polish
nism? How significant is it that societies edition has a subtitle that translates
behind the Iron Curtain had relatively roughly as Freedom Means New Chal-
little experience of immigration, let lenges, New Smells, New Sounds, a New
alone western European–style multi- Great Adventure. Notice that there’s no
culturalism, so that nativistic sentiment mention of nostalgia for tyranny, a
is now easily mobilized against potential notion that most Polish readers would
newcomers—especially Muslim ones? laugh out of court.
Or is the cause more a wounded national A skilled reporter such as Szablowski
pride, a sense of humiliation, of being could potentially do a fascinating job
perceived only as poor copies of western of talking to the voters for Kaczynski’s
European societies, and a desire for a Law and Justice party in his own coun-
new, heroic role as the true defenders of try and unpacking the warp and woof
a more traditional, Christian Europe? of their discontents. I enjoyed this
This narrative upends former U.S. book, but I would love that to be his
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s next one. The explanation of what is
famous comment dismissing disgruntled happening in eastern Europe today lies
western European allies as “old Europe”: not in dancing bears but, perhaps, in
instead, populist leaders in Budapest stationary people who feel the world is
and Warsaw claim they are defending dancing around them.∂
the old Europe, while decadent, multi-
cultural western Europe is the new.
How far are we simply witnessing an
understandable human reaction against so
much rapid change—liberalization, global-
ization, Europeanization, digitalization—
all hitting at once? Or is it the atomization
of consumer society, especially in the
digital age, that is leading people back to
history are arrayed against that endeavor,

Recent Books so leaders and people across the liberal
democratic world must turn it into an
active political project.
Political and Legal
Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs
G. John Ikenberry to Know
BY ERICA F RANTZ . Oxford
University Press, 2018, 200 pp.
Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the
Politics of Resentment After decades of retreat, authoritarian-
BY F RANCIS FUKUYAMA . Farrar, ism is on the rise. This poses a political
Straus and Giroux, 2018, 240 pp. challenge to liberal democracies. But it
also poses an intellectual challenge to
I
n the decades since writing his scholars. In this short study, Frantz
famous essay “The End of History?,” provides an illuminating guide to today’s
Fukuyama has explored an often authoritarian wave. Authoritarianism,
forgotten yet critical dimension of liberal she shows, is a moving target. It can
democracy: the desire for dignity. In take the form of strongman rulers, as in
an ideal world, citizens would ground sub-Saharan Africa; autocratic regimes
their identity in their shared humanity. led by a party or the military, as in Latin
But now, people are seeking recognition America; or hereditary dictators, as in
in narrow identity groups, based on North Korea. Frantz is at her most
nationality, religion, sect, race, ethnicity, insightful in her description of the ways
and gender. Identity politics has always in which authoritarian regimes have
existed, but leaders on the left and the taken on “pseudo-democratic” character-
right have exploited the fears created by istics in order to survive. Today, over 80
economic and social upheavals to build percent of dictatorships hold elections,
political coalitions around particular for example. How authoritarianism
groups and their demands for recogni- arrives has changed, too. Military or
tion. For Fukuyama, this is the greatest elite coups are out of fashion, replaced
threat to liberal democracy. He sees the by more gradual usurpations of power
politics of resentment being expressed by carried out through rigged elections and
Vladimir Putin in Russia, Xi Jinping in biased political rules. Turkey and the
China, and Viktor Orban in Hungary— Philippines fit this model, with elected
and, in only slightly less overt ways, in populists slowly dismantling the institu-
established liberal democracies. As tions of democracy. Authoritarians have
Fukuyama writes, a sense of nation is new tools: the co-optation of institu-
essential for liberal democracy, precisely tions, the use of patronage networks,
because it speaks to the human desire and the control of information. It is
for identity and respect. The challenge harder to fight back against this subtle
is to foster an inclusive and civic-minded democratic subversion, because a single
nationalism that appeals to humanity’s moment of truth never occurs.
most generous spirit. Great forces of

Recent Books
Chaos in the Liberal Order: The Trump The Myth of International Order: Why
Presidency and International Politics in the Weak States Persist and Alternatives to the
Twenty-first Century State Fade Away
EDITED BY ROBERT JERVIS, BY ARJUN CHOWDHURY . Oxford
F RANCIS J. GAVIN, JOSHUA University Press, 2018, 272 pp.
ROVNER, AND DIANE LABROSSE .
Columbia University Press, 2018, 448 pp. The title of this book is exactly backward.
Chowdhury makes a convincing case for
This sprawling set of 32 short essays is the reality, not the myth, of international
one of the first scholarly efforts to reckon order. He notes that most countries in
with the Trump administration’s assault the world are weak, with wobbly central
on the international liberal order. It is as governments that fail to provide basic
lively as it is incoherent and inconclusive. economic and social services—and yet
As Jervis argues in the introduction, the they muddle through, thanks to an
Trump years provide, if nothing else, a international order that protects all
chance for political scientists and histori- sovereign territorial states against their
ans to test their theories. The essays rivals. The myth that Chowdhury
show that scholars differ on the sources exposes is the realist narrative in which
of the crisis—whether President Donald countries compete for survival in a state
Trump is the cause or the effect—and the of Hobbesian anarchy. As Chowdhury
scope of it. Realists look to the long-term shows, this classic model fits the Euro-
decline of U.S. power. Others focus on pean experience but little else. He argues
Trump and the institution of the presi- that the wars of modern Europe con-
dency, examining how the national security vinced citizens to support centralized
state constrains its leader. Scholars of power and pay high taxes, whereas states
international institutions see Trump’s outside the West, because they developed
presidency as a test of the theory that later, did not go through this cycle of
institutions and long-standing strategic war making and state building. That
bargains will prove resilient. Michael means the modern international order
Barnett suggests that Trump is so unusual hits young countries with a double
that he escapes the confines of most whammy: by dampening conflict, it
international relations theory—realist, makes it harder for them to grow strong
liberal, or otherwise. The book also while also raising the expectations for
features a good debate over the resiliency what governments must do when it
of the liberal order; like most of the comes to education, health care, and
volume’s other discussions, it hinges other social services. Chowdhury is
on each author’s assumptions about the surely correct that state building is
sources of political order and whether harder now than a century ago. The
domestic political coalitions can be challenge is to find peaceful incentives
rebuilt around internationalism. for effective governance.
Recent Books
Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain Economic, Social, and

and Unexpected in World Politics
EDITED BY PETER J. KATZENSTEIN Environmental
AND LUCIA A. SEYBERT . Cambridge
University Press, 2018, 382 pp. Richard N. Cooper
International relations scholars have
repeatedly found themselves surprised
by grand historical upheavals: the Money and Government: The Past and
Russian Revolution, the end of the Future of Economics
Cold War, the 2008 financial crisis, the BY ROBERT SKIDELSKY . Yale
Arab Spring, Brexit, the election of University Press, 2018, 512 pp.
Donald Trump. In this ambitious book,
T
Katzenstein and Seybert argue that his masterly exposition of the
scholars need to rethink their assump- history of economic thought—
tions about knowledge and uncertainty and the context in which it
in world politics and equip themselves developed—goes back to the seventeenth
with new ideas about power and inno- century but concentrates on the last
vation. Theorists tend to see a world in hundred years. It sketches the historical
which uncertainty can be reduced to background to the emergence of classical
calculable risk. This view of knowledge economics, monetarism, Keynesianism,
is like throwing a die: we don’t know and neoclassical economics. Skidelsky
what a specific throw will yield, but wrote a biography of John Maynard
we do know the probability of each Keynes, so it’s not surprising that his
outcome. Katzenstein and Seybert interpretations of Keynes’ thought are
argue that the world is just too complex especially subtle. As Skidelsky writes,
and contingent for this kind of social Keynes emphasized unknowable uncer-
inquiry. If the world is seen this way, tainty about the future, a contrast to
leaders need to adopt more open-ended the deterministic way that his theory,
and improvisational forms of decision- which served as the origin of modern
making—what the authors call “protean macroeconomics, is usually presented
power”: “a creatively generated shift in in textbooks and taught to students.
accepted problem-solving that circulates Skidelsky also offers an illuminating
across different sites of political life.” treatment of the 2008 financial crisis,
the ways in which economists were
blindsided by it, the monetary and fiscal
policies that governments adopted in
response, and the fragile and sometimes
faltering recovery.

Recent Books
The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Davos, Switzerland. The WEF has no

Robotics, and the Future of Work formal authority, but it has become a
BY RICHARD BALDWIN . Oxford major forum for elites to discuss policy
University Press, 2019, 304 pp. ideas and priorities. In this informative
study, Garsten and Sorbom explore
This speculative book attempts to both the inner workings and the com-
describe the future of work and explain munication strategies of the WEF. They
how to prepare for it. Baldwin lays out are troubled by its lack of democratic
various different attributes of working accountability, but it is difficult to
life, according to the different talents replicate democratic institutions such
and industries involved. He then charac- as elected parliaments in international
terizes what kinds of things intelligent bodies. As appealing as an international
robots and remote workers, helped by parliament might be, the world is not
better software and communications likely to see one anytime soon, espe-
technology, can and can’t do today and cially not one that can discuss complex
what they’ll be able to do within the issues in a common language rather
next few decades. Finally, he matches than simply make speeches designed
the two up to see which tasks and jobs for domestic constituents. In the end,
will fall to automation. Baldwin argues the authors conclude that the WEF does
that in the last century, most people perform a useful service, even if it is
moved from relying on their hands in biased toward elite perceptions.
their work to relying on their heads. In
the future, they will have to rely on The Willing World: Shaping and Sharing a
their hearts, because machines won’t be Sustainable Global Prosperity
able to replicate such human abilities as BY JAMES BACCHUS . Cambridge
nonverbal communication, compassion, University Press, 2018, 524 pp.
creativity, and face-to-face contact. Many
jobs that rely on these attributes will be Bacchus, a former U.S. congressman
safe from robots for decades. Artificial and former chair of the appeals court
intelligence excels at classifying what it of the World Trade Organization, is a
sees, searching huge databases, and strong advocate for international law,
recognizing patterns, but it cannot which he views as necessary for sus-
copy other, more human qualities. tained global economic growth. In this
book, he champions free foreign trade
Discreet Power: How the World Economic and free foreign investment, as long as
Forum Shapes Market Agendas they are subject to international rules
BY CHRISTINA GARSTEN AND and the right institutions are set up to
ADRIENNE SORBOM . Stanford settle inevitable disputes. He argues
University Press, 2018, 240 pp. that the rules should be formulated to
ensure sustainability and suggests that
For more than half a century, the World they should accord with the UN’s Sustain-
Economic Forum has organized an able Development Goals, which set
annual gathering of politicians, business global targets for social and economic
executives, experts, and policymakers in development by 2030. He also makes a
In partnership with
10 YEARS AFTER THE

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS,
THE SYSTEM IS SAFER
In 2008, the world witnessed one of the worst financial crises in global history. Now ten years
later, has the world learned its lesson? On January 16th, Intelligence Squared will bring together
leading economists, best-selling authors, and a Federal Reserve Bank president to debate
whether the system has shored up its weaknesses, or if in the face of a booming economy,
the United States and countries around the world are repeating the mistakes of the past.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16TH, 2019 AT 6:30PM

LOCATION:
KAYE PLAYHOUSE
115 EAST 68TH STREET, NYC
JOIN US IN PERSON IN NYC, OR LIVE ONLINE AT IQ2US.ORG/DEBATES/GFC

Use promo code ForeignAffairs for 30% off
Recent Books
persuasive case that international policies Military, Scientific, and

to address environmental issues, includ-
ing both the global problem of climate Technological
change and more local ones, can boost
economic growth rather than hurt it. Lawrence D. Freedman
Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution—and
Why America Might Miss It
BY SUSAN CRAWFORD . Yale Haig’s Enemy: Crown Prince Rupprecht
University Press, 2019, 264 pp. and Germany’s War on the Western Front
BY JONATHAN BOF F . Oxford
This trenchant and personal book University Press, 2018, 400 pp.
describes the powerful benefits that
result from bringing ultrafast fiber- The First Soldier: Hitler as Military
optic Internet cables directly to house- Leader
holds and small firms. Singapore, BY STEPHEN G. F RITZ . Yale
Stockholm, and Tokyo; parts of South University Press, 2018, 480 pp.
Korea; and a scattering of U.S. cities
M
have accomplished this. Crawford, who ilitary history tends to be
has visited many of those places and seen through the eyes of
interviewed many people involved, the victors, but these two
castigates U.S. telephone and cable books show the two world wars from the
companies and their lawyers for actively perspective of the defeated Germans.
discouraging the rollout of fiber-optic Archival research on German military
cables to houses and offices (even as decision-making during World War I
they themselves use them). She berates has been hampered by the destruction of
them for their high prices, which they the bulk of the records in World War II.
can charge because they often operate Boff has managed to fill some of the gaps
as local monopolies, which they want to by supplementing standard sources with
preserve. Crawford ends her indictment the detailed diaries of Crown Prince
of the current state of affairs—and the Rupprecht of Bavaria. Rupprecht, who
political system that permits it—with a ended the war as a field marshal in the
call for a new federal initiative to install German army, was a constant presence
fiber-optic cables throughout the on the western front, from the failure to
United States, modeled on past infra- achieve the planned gains in the original
structure programs, such as rural German offensive of 1914 to General
electrification and the building of the Erich Ludendorff ’s final push in 1918.
interstate highway system. This led to the Allied offensive that
ended with Germany’s capitulation.
Recent historians have argued that the
Allies adapted well to the demands of
this attritional warfare. Boff picks up
on this theme by demonstrating that,
Recent Books
despite their assumed operational war from the Communists’ uprising

superiority, the Germans adapted poorly. against the French in 1945 to their
Adolf Hitler’s role as an active mili- victory over the South in 1975. As a
tary leader clearly added to the stress of foreign correspondent, he was one of
being a German commander in World the last to leave Saigon. In this masterly
War II. But Hitler left no memoir of and engrossing account, he uses the
his own, and those of his generals were same techniques that have served him
self-serving. So a narrative has emerged well in his histories of the two world
that Germany’s professional soldiers wars, exploring the war from the bottom
struggled to cope with the Führer’s up as well as the top down. He is scath-
manic interference. Yet Fritz’s original ing about delusionary U.S. decision-
and compelling account of Hitler’s making and the hopeless efforts to
military strategy demonstrates that, as compensate for the South’s political
often as not, his judgment was as good weakness by military means. But he is
as those of his senior commanders. He also harsh in his depiction of the callous
could be well informed and imaginative North Vietnamese and the Vietcong.
and had flashes of real strategic insight. The strengths of the book lie in Has-
By avoiding caricature, Fritz shines a tings’ ability to describe, with extensive
new light on Hitler’s arguments with use of diaries, memoirs, and interviews,
his generals, from the early prepara- the chaos of battle in a war of ambushes
tions for war to his determination to and without obvious frontlines.
fight to the bitter end. Early on, he VanDeMark is returning to a story
could be realistic about the obstacles he has told before, notably in partner-
and, at times, cautious. But he refused ship with former U.S. Secretary of
to abandon his expansive ambitions Defense Robert McNamara, but now
and fought on in Russia when all hope with new material. He sticks largely to
of victory had gone. He was prepared the Kennedy and Johnson administra-
for the Third Reich to go down in tions and focuses on the question of
flames, regretting only that he would how smart men could have not only
not die fighting. misread the conflict so badly but also
refused to change course when their
Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy, 1945–1975 mistakes became evident. He opens
BY MAX HASTINGS . Harper, 2018, with the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, in
896 pp. 1961, in Cuba, which might have served
as warning enough of how schemes that
Road to Disaster: A New History of sound great in a briefing can go horri-
America’s Descent Into Vietnam bly wrong in practice. He then moves
BY BRIAN V AN D E MARK . Custom through the assassination of South
House, 2018, 656 pp. Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem,
the U.S. bombing campaign, the Tet
These two books take on a familiar Offensive, and the first tentative peace
topic but manage to be original and negotiations. Throughout, he shows how
thought provoking—and very different little the key players in Washington
from each other. Hastings covers the understood what was happening on the

Recent Books
ground. VanDeMark’s extensive use of The United States

research on the psychology of decision-
making can be interesting, although it
sometimes interrupts the flow of his Walter Russell Mead
narrative. The sense of introspection it
provides adds poignancy to the records
of meetings and field trips by U.S. Fear: Trump in the White House
civilian and military leaders, who BY BOB WOODWARD. Simon &
never quite came to grips with the Schuster, 2018, 448 pp.
unfolding tragedy.
I
n this, the latest of Woodward’s
Terrorism, Betrayal, and Resilience: My 12 books of instant history based on
Story of the 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings insider access to the White House,
BY PRUDENCE BUSHNELL . Potomac the author spotlights the struggles of the
Books, 2018, 288 pp. often dysfunctional Trump administra-
tion. Some of the divisions he chronicles
Despite the overwhelming focus on pit professional staffers against Trump
al Qaeda’s role in the 9/11 attacks, far family members. Others reflect the
less has been written about the group’s personality clashes typical of every
attacks against the U.S. embassies in high-pressure workplace, although they
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam three years are more acute than usual in the Trump
earlier. Bushnell was the U.S. ambas- White House because the president’s
sador to Kenya at the time and was inner circle includes so many outsize
caught up in the blast that killed 213 egos. The most significant battles, in
people and left some 4,000 wounded. Woodward’s telling, were those between
She describes how she had pressed for a a protectionist, “America first” president
more secure embassy before the bomb- and his like-minded staffers on one side
ing, the experience of the day itself, and the more globalist and pro-free-trade
and the painful aftermath. The book is officials on the other. Trump sought to
an autobiography, an investigation into make policy choices, such as withdraw-
the origins of the attack, and a lament ing from the World Trade Organization,
about bureaucratic failings at the U.S. that filled his staff with horror. Like
State Department, along with a discus- Sir Humphrey Appleby in the British
sion of how these might be addressed television show Yes Minister, the inter-
with better leadership. It is an angry nationalists did what they could to delay
book. Bushnell was told that she was him. His impulses thwarted, Trump
overloading the circuits by pressing for grew frustrated and lashed out. There
better security, and the sloppy depart- matters rested when Woodward finished
mental response to the blasts still stings. his book; since then, it appears, Trump
Yet she also makes a compelling case that has started imposing his will on his
good diplomats can make a difference. officials. It will be interesting, to put it
mildly, to see what comes next.
Recent Books
Reconstruction: A Concise History Lords of the Desert: The Battle Between

BY ALLEN C. GUELZO . Oxford the United States and Great Britain for
University Press, 2018, 192 pp. Supremacy in the Modern Middle East
BY JAMES BARR . Basic Books, 2018,
The failure of Reconstruction remains a 464 pp.
pivotal event in U.S. history, and the
changing ways in which successive genera- The British Labour government that
tions of historians have understood the took power in the summer of 1945 soon
period illustrate the dramatic shifts in concluded that keeping as much of the
American attitudes on race over the last Middle East’s oil as possible under British
140 years. For almost a century after the rule—and thus within the sterling zone—
Civil War, white southerners and their offered the best, perhaps the only, hope of
allies dominated the study of Reconstruc- maintaining the United Kingdom’s place
tion. Their narrative—of southern whites in the first rank of world powers. This
uniting to overthrow corrupt and incompe- conviction became the lodestar of post-
tent governments that were maintained war British policy. At first, the prospects
by federal bayonets—was received almost looked good. Pro-British monarchs ruled
everywhere as gospel. Beginning in the in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, and the
civil rights era, however, historians shifted Gulf kingdoms. There were, however, two
their focus to the nobility of Reconstruc- problems with the plan: Arab nationalists
tion’s central aim: ensuring equal rights for wanted no part of British rule, and the
newly freed slaves. Guelzo offers a concise, United States was willing and able to
clear, and temperate account of one of displace the United Kingdom as the domi-
the most complex periods in U.S. history. nant regional power. As Barr describes,
Unlike earlier historians, he never loses the United States did indeed gradually
sight of the cause of the newly free. But marginalize the United Kingdom in the
he points to the lack of political experience Middle East. This is a gripping story, and
that left Reconstruction-era southern Barr, a gifted narrative historian, tells it
governments vulnerable to pressure from well, casting light on both the history of
wealthy and wily white oligarchs. Guelzo the U.S. presence in the modern Middle
also underscores the collapse of political East and the dilemmas U.S. policy
will in the North for a long-term occupa- continues to face there today.
tion, which is what a serious Reconstruc-
tion strategy would have required. In Grand Improvisation: America Confronts
his telling, Reconstruction emerges as a the British Superpower, 1945–1957
terrible but probably inevitable tragedy. BY DEREK LEEBAERT . Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 2018, 624 pp.
Contemporaries experience the history

of their times as full of chaos and impro-
visation; historians try to find patterns in
the maelstrom. The decade after World
War II was especially uncertain. Nobody
in 1946 understood the depth of the

Recent Books
United Kingdom’s exhaustion or the spectrum of American thought—for

severity of the Soviet challenge. Ameri- example, from the abolitionist Frederick
can public opinion strongly favored rapid Douglass to the pro-slavery theorist
demobilization and military withdrawal George Fitzhugh—clashes with her
from Europe. Leebaert’s history of the desire to impose order on her procession
U.S.-British relationship from V-E Day of thinkers, and some of her assessments,
to the aftermath of the 1956 Suez crisis such as the high place she gives the
highlights this complexity and attacks critic and journalist Margaret Fuller in
the widespread view that the immediate American intellectual history, would be
postwar period saw a smooth handoff of more convincing if she provided readers
world power from London to Washington. with a more expansive account of the work
In his telling, far from ceding the world in question. Nevertheless, her curiosity
to the Americans, the British fought about ideas, her determination to under-
tenaciously to preserve their strategic stand a diverse set of authors and points
independence. American strategists of view on their own terms, and her con-
were ambivalent, confused, and lacked viction that the messiness of the American
the coherent grand designs for a liberal intellectual tradition is an essential feature
international order that historians would of American life make this book a stimu-
later attribute to them. Leebaert’s revi- lating read.
sionism is not always convincing, but he
is right to challenge the narrative of a
seamless transition—and right, too, that
a sentimentalized vision of this history Western Europe
will make it harder for policymakers
to deal with the enormous challenges Andrew Moravcsik
facing the United States in the twenty-
first century.
The Ideas That Made America: A Brief Plugging In the British: Completing the
History Circuit
BY JENNIF ER RATNER- BY SOPHIA BESCH, IAN BOND, AND
ROSENHAG EN . Oxford University CAMINO MORTERA-MARTINEZ .
Press, 2019, 240 pp. Centre for European Reform, 2018, 98 pp.
B
Ratner-Rosenhagen teaches intellectual rexit has proved surprisingly
history at the University of Wisconsin– difficult to implement, not just
Madison, and if this concise book is in economic affairs, where ana-
any indication of what her courses are lysts always expected problems, but in
like, her students can count themselves many other areas, too. The EU quietly
fortunate. She offers a brisk walk through coordinates European policy on devel-
the American intellectual tradition, from opment, human rights, sanctions, polic-
New England Puritanism to modern ing, human trafficking, external border
pragmatism. Ratner-Rosenhagen’s control, military missions, diplomacy, the
determination to incorporate the full UN, defense industries, cybersecurity,
Recent Books
intelligence sharing, space exploration, girl from the provinces arrives in Berlin
scientific research, judicial cooperation, and is swept up in a world of convinced
and much more. Many of these policies Communists, militant Nazis, disillusioned
were created with strong British sup- Social Democrats, conservative business-
port. So Brexiteers confront the same men, impoverished workers, dissipated
basic dilemma that they face on eco- elites, spirited youth exploring new
nomic issues: defending vital British lifestyles, and Jews seeking to preserve
interests requires that most cooperation ancient identities—as well as cruel police,
with Europe remain unchanged, yet tortured drug addicts, wounded veterans,
domestic politics dictates that the final black jazz musicians, and closeted gay
result be spun as something totally people. Some of the events Lutes por-
new. Even limiting the exercise to mere trays are grim, others inspiring, and still
political rebranding requires changes in others confusing and troubling. Through-
the legal form or underlying substance out, one is constantly aware of an eerie
of thousands of rules, regulations, and resemblance to today’s world.
procedures. Since it would be unac-
ceptable to the other 27 EU members Empires of the Weak: The Real Story of
for London to pick and choose when European Expansion and the Creation of
and how it cooperates with its neigh- the New World Order
bors, the result has been a series of BY J. C. SHARMAN . Princeton
deadlocked talks. This tidy little report University Press, 2019, 216 pp.
summarizes the major issues. The
authors show that sober negotiations The imperialism through which France,
could preserve most current cooperation Spain, the United Kingdom, and other
under another name—but that the European countries came to dominate
changes that must occur will generally the globe was not simply a function of
disadvantage the United Kingdom. superior military technology, naval power,
or administrative organization. Europeans
Berlin were rarely in a position to dominate the
BY JASON LUTES . Drawn & world solely by means of their military
Quarterly, 2018, 580 pp. might. Instead, they subtly co-opted
foreign elites by trading with them, hiring
Berlin under the Weimar Republic was them as mercenaries, supporting them in
a crucible that helped forge modern their struggles against local enemies, and,
society and politics. Its violent partisan if all else failed, bribing them or block-
conflicts, extreme disparities between ading their ports. Sometimes the spread
social classes, floods of rural and foreign of infectious diseases did the work. This
migrants, and fluid cultural and gender adds up to a more nuanced story than
identities set the tone for urban life ever one might think, although Sharman
after. Lutes, a legendary artist, devoted does admit that this informal imperial-
two decades to this magisterial graphic ism ran out of steam in the late nine-
novel. Its multilayered story line follows teenth century, when Europe simply
a set of loosely connected characters in rolled over Africa. Anyone even slightly
Berlin between 1928 and 1933. A young familiar with the historical literature will

Recent Books
be baffled by the book’s repeated claims but only through common EU rules:
of originality for a thesis that echoes the threat of exclusion from the Euro-
(daringly, without citation) the ideas of pean market means Commonwealth
Karl Marx, Ronald Robinson and John leaders have unanimously denounced
Gallagher, and generations of eminent Brexit. Murphy ends by encouraging
historians of empire. Yet in an era when the United Kingdom to shed its post-
great-power competition seems to be imperial delusions—even though that
on the rise, this book reminds readers may put him out of a job.
that few, if any, modern nations have ever
been strong enough to dominate all those Islamist Terrorism in Europe
around them through brute force alone. BY PET TER NESSER . Oxford
The Empire’s New Clothes: The Myth of
the Commonwealth This sober and detailed analysis of
BY PHILIP MURPHY . Oxford Islamist terrorism in Europe general-
University Press, 2018, 256 pp. izes not just from the attacks that have
succeeded but also from the over two-
Murphy, the director of the University thirds of planned attacks that have been
of London’s Institute of Commonwealth foiled. Nesser shows that although their
Studies, argues that the Commonwealth basic goals are constant, Islamist terror-
of Nations does not exist. Formally, to ists adapt their tactics with the times.
be sure, the organization encompasses In recent years, heightened security has
one-third of the world’s population in its made complex bombings and aircraft
53 postimperial member states. Queen hijackings all but impossible—so terror-
Elizabeth II is its titular head, Prince ists have gone minimalist. Attacks today
Charles is her presumed successor, and tend to be one-man operations, carried
Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, are out with vans and knives. Most perpe-
freshly minted Commonwealth youth trators are refugees or European-born
ambassadors. Euroskeptics profess a jihadists. They are almost always moti-
deep faith that Brexit offers a golden vated by religion, and they communicate
opportunity for the United Kingdom to with outside groups through encrypted
reembrace the Commonwealth, thereby messaging tools, such as WhatsApp. This
unleashing a bonanza of trade and invest- form of terrorism is, as Nesser says, “less
ment. Yet all of this, Murphy argues, is lethal, but almost impossible to stop.” So
little more than pomp and circumstance. although the annual European death toll
Commonwealth members disagree about from terrorism is far below what it was
almost everything, even basic human during the 1970s and 1980s, the number
rights. The organization coddles “a grim of attacks is higher than ever. Nesser
collection of charlatans, chancers and concludes that military operations abroad
outright villains.” Decades ago, citizens do less to quash terrorism than sound
of member countries could immigrate to policing at home. Police, he says, should
the United Kingdom, but no more. The focus on stopping “entrepreneurs”—skilled
United Kingdom still grants Common- jihadist activists who assist perpetrators—
wealth members preferential tariffs, through aggressive surveillance. He ends
Recent Books
on a pessimistic note, but perhaps the enforce immigration laws and deter
striking decline in successful European additional waves of undocumented
terrorist attacks over the past year would immigrants. Lindskoog provides a
lead him to reconsider his conclusion. valuable road map of the tangled law
and politics of U.S. immigration poli-
cies. He fails, however, to detail more
Western Hemisphere humane alternatives to cope with the
burgeoning flows of immigrants.
Richard Feinberg The 15 essays in Immigration Policy
in the Age of Punishment argue that
contemporary immigration policies in
some late-capitalist countries exem-
Detain and Punish: Haitian Refugees and plify broader trends toward bureau-
the Rise of the World’s Largest Immigration cratic authoritarianism. The volume’s
Detention System sociologists (following the French
BY CARL LINDSKOOG . University of social theorist Michel Foucault) view
Florida Press, 2018, 220 pp. detention and deportation as disci-
plinary measures designed to foster
Immigration Policy in the Age of law-abiding behavior and productivity
Punishment: Detention, Deportation, and in the broader immigrant community.
Border Control Anticipating U.S. President Donald
EDITED BY DAVID C. Trump, they also detect a strong emo-
BROTHERTON AND PHILIP tional and theatrical theme in punitive
KRETSEDEMAS . Columbia University anti-immigrant policies and racially
Press, 2018, 344 pp. tinged vindictiveness among adminis-
trative judges and other law enforcement
E
ach year, the United States officials. Yet they do not just fault
incarcerates more than 400,000 Republicans in the United States. In
people in a network of over 200 her contribution, Tanya Golash-Boza
detention facilities for immigration- names former U.S. President Barack
related offenses, even more than it impris- Obama “the Deporter in Chief,” since
ons for drug crimes. In Lindskoog’s view, his administration expelled some
prolonged detention—rather than release three million immigrants. Essays on
into the community on parole—violates Australia, Canada, France, and the
international norms of human rights United Kingdom find a global trend
and U.S. constitutional guarantees of of more restrictive attitudes toward
due process. Lindskoog examines the immigrants, including asylum seekers,
precedents for the system of mass incar- although not all the case studies are
ceration of immigrants in U.S. policies fully convincing. Overall, the volume
toward Haitian immigrants since the is more denunciatory than prescrip-
1970s and in the use of Guantánamo tive, but one essay, by Brotherton and
Bay for extraterritorial detention. Both Sarah Tosh, does laud those western
Democratic and Republican administra- European countries whose detention
tions have resorted to detention to facilities pay more attention than most

Recent Books
to the consequences for the families of After Insurgency: Revolution and Electoral
those detained. Politics in El Salvador
BY RALPH SPRENKELS . University of
We Fed an Island: The True Story of Notre Dame Press, 2018, 484 pp.
Rebuilding Puerto Rico, One Meal at a Time
BY JOSÉ ANDRÉS WITH RICHARD In 1992, a negotiated peace concluded
WOLF F E . Anthony Bourdain Books, El Salvador’s prolonged, bloody civil
2018, 288 pp. war and paved the way for an electoral
democracy. The leftist insurgents emerged
This book tells the inspiring story of as a political party and eventually took
the rapid response by Andrés, a celeb- the presidency. Sprenkels, who aided the
rity chef and restaurateur, to the hu- guerrilla forces during the war, used his
manitarian crisis in Puerto Rico after grass-roots contacts to conduct revealing
Hurricane Maria. Although it isn’t a interviews with wartime combatants. The
full-blown business school case study, book gives a nuanced, humane assessment
it illustrates Andrés’ preferred model of the lives of former revolutionaries in
of social enterprise. He argues that peacetime. Sprenkels avoids the simple
those attempting to feed large popula- tropes of postrevolutionary political
tions should use professional supply- disillusionment and moral decay. Rather,
chain management, source ingredients he identifies five peacetime narratives,
locally, and hire expert chefs to prepare each of which shows up among the former
nutritious, high-calorie meals (in Puerto revolutionaries: permanent revolution-
Rico, meat-and-vegetable stew, chicken- ary pride amid social tensions; persis-
and-rice paella, and ham-and-cheese tent civil war animosities and loyalties;
sandwiches). Andrés employed 20,000 the tendency to see politics as a conspir-
volunteers across 24 kitchens, relying acy, often of the powerful against the
on seven local food trucks for distribu- poor; reliance on a system of patronage,
tion. Yet the book is more than the story with its logic of reciprocal exchange; and
of Andrés’ heroic efforts to feed Puerto an emphasis on democratic citizenship.
Rico. It also offers a forceful indictment Particularly interesting is his discussion
of the actions of the Trump adminis- of the conversion of clandestine trust
tration and the Federal Emergency networks between former insurgent
Management Agency, as well as those commanders and the rank and file into
of various nongovernmental organiza- patronage systems. Sprenkels asks,
tions. Andrés accuses U.S. President “To what extent should we interpret
Donald Trump and his public relations post-insurgent clientelism as distinctly
team of carrying out blatantly mislead- new?” Or were the former rebels simply
ing celebrations of the government’s absorbed into age-old methods of
grossly inadequate relief efforts and of machine politics?
cronyism in awarding FEMA contracts.
Recent Books
Eastern Europe and Former were the West’s own methods of waging
the Cold War, which they now see being
Soviet Republics used against Russia once again.
Robert Legvold The Kremlin Letters: Stalin’s Wartime

Correspondence With Churchill and
Roosevelt
EDITED BY DAVID REYNOLDS AND
Russian “Hybrid Warfare”: Resurgence and VLADIMIR PECHATNOV . Yale
Politicisation University Press, 2018, 680 pp.
BY OF ER F RIDMAN . Oxford
University Press, 2018, 288 pp. This is the most ambitious and impor-
tant book from Yale University Press’
A
ccording to widespread belief invaluable series of documentary
in the United States and histories drawn from the Soviet ar-
Europe, Vladimir Putin’s chives. Winston Churchill, Franklin
Russia has unleashed “hybrid war” Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin exchanged
against the West. The concept covers all 682 messages between Nazi Germany’s
forms of assault short of war itself: attack on the Soviet Union, in June
cyberattacks, targeted propaganda, 1941, and Roosevelt’s death, in April
“little green men” (Russian “volunteers” 1945. Three-quarters of them are
appearing in Ukraine without insignia), published here. Beyond the messages
aid to fringe opposition parties, and themselves, what makes this volume so
military threats. In this disciplined valuable are the editors’ brisk and
study, Fridman does not deny that penetrating historical introductions and
Russia does all these things, but he is the context they provide for each
more interested in scraping away the message: the author’s mood and calcula-
misunderstandings surrounding the tions, the political advice each leader
concept itself. He explains where the was receiving, and sometimes the
notion of hybrid war comes from, how hidden diplomacy complementing the
Americans and Russians understand it message. Scarcely any aspect of World
differently, and, above all, why and how War II has been more thoroughly
it has been deployed and politicized in written about than the relationships
the war in Ukraine. The idea of com- among these three leaders, but docu-
bining military force with other re- menting their wartime communication
sources to sap an opponent’s will to in such detail gives new depth to this
fight is as old as war itself. But the history. Stalin’s more cordial attitude
modern concept of war fought by toward Roosevelt than Churchill, for
multiple means, on and off the battle- example, is unmistakable, as is the
field, originated with the U.S. military subtle shift in the dynamic among the
over the course of several wars. The three in Stalin’s favor beginning in 1943.
current, more expansive Russian version
reflects what its Russian authors believe

Recent Books
Laboratory of Socialist Development: Cold A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of

War Politics and Decolonization in Soviet Judeo-Bolshevism
Tajikistan BY PAUL HANEBRINK . Harvard
BY ARTEMY M. KALINOVSKY . University Press, 2018, 368 pp.
Cornell University Press, 2018, 336 pp.
The long history of anti-Semitism
In the 1950s and 1960s, during the postwar includes many strains. One of the more
wave of decolonization, the United States virulent and enduring is the phantasm
and other Western countries attempted of Judeo-Bolshevism—the notion that
to foster economic development in newly communism was, and remains, a Jewish
independent but poor countries. In the plot. Hanebrink follows the myth’s twisted
Soviet Union, something similar occurred course from its European origins in the
in the less developed regions of the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik
country, not least because Moscow wanted Revolution, through the jaundiced politics
to prove that it could engineer economic of the interwar period, to its devastating
development better than its capitalist culmination in Nazi Germany. Yet World
competitors. In this original contribution, War II did not kill it, and he picks up the
Kalinovsky outlines the calculations of story with its reappearance in postwar
the national and local figures who led the Eastern European politics, where it was
effort and then looks at the case of Tajiki- exploited by those on both sides of the
stan to explore how it worked in practice. ideological divide. He argues that it
He assesses specific elements of Soviet survives today in the resurgent right-wing
plans, such as the massive Nurek Dam, nationalism cropping up in many Western
and their effects on the lives of those countries. From the start, the fantasy
involved and the broader population. held that an alien element—the Jews—
By the 1980s, in both the West and the aimed to subvert the cultural values and
East, early illusions about how easily national identities of Western societies.
the Western or the Soviet model of As Hanebrink points out, this theme is
economic modernity could be cut and echoed in modern anti-Muslim conspir-
pasted onto traditional cultures had acy theories. The writers, politicians, and
faded. As Kalinovsky shows, in the Soviet shills whose poisonous ideas he exhumes
case, policymakers came to the awkward have many contemporary admirers.
realization that instituting markets and at
least partly preserving local traditions The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest
promised better results than state plan- Espionage Story of the Cold War
ning. But as the country came apart BY BEN MACINTYRE . Crown, 2018,
under Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, this 368 pp.
belated awareness quickly succumbed to
recriminations over the entire enterprise. Even a reader not enamored of spy stories
will have trouble putting this one down.
Oleg Gordievsky was a true child of the
KGB; his father and his brother were both
dedicated lifelong officers. Gordievsky
joined the international arm of the agency
Recent Books
in the early 1960s, but he began to have inside Russia and in its relations with
doubts about the system he was serving. NATO, the EU, and the Organization for
In 1973, while posted in Denmark, he Security and Cooperation in Europe
was recruited by British intelligence. He over the last 25 years. If Russia and
would eventually rise to head the KGB Europe are to recover from their fail-
operation in London. Over the years, he ures and build a system that includes
provided critical information to the West, Moscow, he concludes, these institu-
bringing down Soviet spy operations in tions will have to be either refurbished
several European countries and in one or replaced.
instance alerting London and Washing-
ton to Moscow’s dangerous misreading
of a NATO war game that could have led Middle East
to nuclear disaster. The whole story,
including Gordievsky’s return to Moscow, John Waterbury
where, unbeknownst to him, he had been
unmasked to the KGB by Aldrich Ames,
their man in the CIA, followed by his
harrowing, made-for-Hollywood escape The Burning Shores: Inside the Battle for
from the Soviet Union, unfolds with a the New Libya
pace and drama that recall the novels of BY F REDERIC WEHREY . Farrar,
John le Carré. Straus and Giroux, 2018, 352 pp.
W
No Place for Russia: European Security ehrey brings the eye of a
Institutions Since 1989 military professional, a
BY WILLIAM H. HILL . Columbia scholar, and a journalist to
University Press, 2018, 536 pp. this vivid depiction of the Libyan conflict.
He describes the places and people at
Hill offers a balanced history of the sad the center of the struggle, from jihadists
devolution of relations between Russia to secular feminists. His lengthy account
and the West, from the high hopes in of the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris
the years after the Cold War to today’s Stevens, in 2012, shows that Stevens
fractured situation. The stark divisions was aware of the dangers he faced in
between eastern and western Europe, Benghazi and took the calculated risk
he argues, are the result of decisions to go there anyway. Wehrey also gives a
taken by each of the participants that good sense of Libya’s division into two
“made very good sense at the time” and dominant factions, one based in Ben-
“were the product of a conscious choice ghazi and aligned with Khalifa Haftar, the
between important alternatives.” Often head of the Libyan National Army, and
leaders were oblivious to “unforeseen the other based in Misurata and Tripoli
and unintended” consequences. Some- and with a major Islamist element.
times, they simply followed “the path Wehrey sees Haftar as a real danger, a
of least resistance.” Hill uses abundant would-be military dictator in the mold of
examples to trace more thoroughly than Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi,
any other historian what has happened with the backing of Egypt, Saudi Arabia,

Recent Books
and the United Arab Emirates. On Ottoman nationalist themes popularized

top of the domestic conflict, Wehrey by Talaat.
shows that the Islamic State (or ISIS) has
managed to establish a foothold in Libya Destroying a Nation: The Civil War in Syria
between the two factions. Although he BY NIKOLAOS VAN DAM . I.B. Tauris,
explains this mess effectively, Wehrey 2017, 256 pp.
offers no way out of it.
This concise guide to Syria’s intractable
Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, conflict provides a nuanced analysis of
Architect of Genocide Syrian sectarianism and national iden-
BY HANS-LUKAS KIESER . Princeton tity. It also offers a useful history of the
University Press, 2018, 552 pp. Baath Party’s dominance in Syria since
1966 and the near-total capture of the
In 1910, Mehmed Talaat, a leader of military and intelligence infrastructure
the Young Turks movement and future by the minority Alawite sect, which
grand vizier (essentially, the prime was led first by Hafez al-Assad and since
minister) of the Ottoman Empire, 2000 has been led by his son Bashar.
began planning the extermination of Van Dam chronicles the efforts since
the empire’s Armenians. In 1915, he 2011 to find a negotiated solution to
began to implement his scheme. Kieser’s the civil war, which has claimed at least
portrait of Talaat shows this architect 450,000 lives and displaced some six
of genocide as a charming monster, million people. He dismisses the possi-
brilliant tactician, and fanatical ideologue. bility of an insider coup against Assad
Kieser’s prose is sometimes tangled, by the Alawites themselves and deplores
and his narrative can be confusing, but the excessive idealism and lack of realpo-
his tale is gripping and well researched. litik displayed by outside forces, espe-
Talaat traded a wartime alliance with cially Western governments’ refusal to
Germany for German silence in the include Assad in any negotiated transi-
face of an estimated 800,000 Armenian tion. Van Dam sees no way out in the
deaths. His actions left Weimar Germany short term, but nor does he feel that
morally blemished, and they scuttled the Assad can sustain a military victory even
possibility that the Ottoman Empire if, with Iranian and Russian help, he
might turn in a more liberal direction. achieves one.
After fleeing to exile in Berlin, Talaat
was assassinated in 1921 by an Arme- Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of
nian militant. Even in death, Talaat the Islamic Republic
cast a long shadow. Kieser argues that BY AMIN SAIKAL . Princeton
his movement served as “a paradigm” University Press, 2019, 344 pp.
for the Nazi Party. He also debunks the
notion that the rise of Kemal Ataturk This survey of Iranian politics and
in the 1920s marked a rupture with the society relies on secondary sources and
Young Turks; rather, it was a continua- so offers little new material. Its value
tion. Likewise, today, Turkish President comes from its lucid exposition of the
Recep Tayyip Erdogan invokes the Islamic Republic’s two main ideological
Recent Books
and policy axes: the jihadists, embodied new social contract within the Gulf
by the country’s founder, Ayatollah states, illegal fishing and piracy off the
Ruhollah Khomeini, and the ijtihadists, coast of Somalia, and the impact of
the more flexible and rational pragma- energy subsidies on economic growth.
tists, two of whom, Mohammad Khatami The collection offers no big takeaways;
and Hassan Rouhani, have been elected indeed, there is no concluding chapter.
president. The current supreme leader, Each story is one of almost bewildering
Ali Khamenei, bridges both camps but complexity and contingency.
favors the jihadists. Saikal gives a good
explanation of Iran’s illiberal pluralism
and the checks and balances that operate
among its institutions. He also leads the Asia and Pacific
reader through a careful analysis of Iran’s
relations with regional and global pow- Andrew J. Nathan
ers. Throughout, he rightly stresses the
country’s resilience in the face of conflict
and sanctions. For any foreign country,
he says, war with this middle power A Misunderstood Friendship: Mao Zedong,
would be extremely costly. He does not Kim Il-sung, and Sino–North Korean
anticipate regime change, only shifts in Relations, 1949–1976
the balance of power back and forth BY ZHIHUA SHEN AND YAF ENG
between the jihadists and the ijtihadists. XIA . Columbia University Press, 2018,
376 pp.
Environmental Politics in the Middle East:
Local Struggles, Global Connections Mao and the Sino-Soviet Split, 1959–1973:
EDITED BY HARRY VERHOEVEN . A New History
Hurst, 2018, 336 pp. BY DANHUI LI AND YAF ENG XIA .
Lexington Books, 2018, 342 pp.
Many of the essays in this interesting
T
collection are only tenuously linked to hese two books extend their
the overall environmental theme. Yet authors’ series of important
that does not detract from their qual- contributions to Cold War
ity. In a particularly excellent contribu- history. Shen and Xia reveal harsh
tion, Francis Ghilès and Eckart Woertz conflicts between the leaders of China
analyze Tunisia’s phosphate-rich region and North Korea during the Korean
of Gafsa, which is vital to the country’s War over who would command the two
economy but neglected by the central countries’ troops, who would control
government, so it consistently produces Korean railways, and how far to chase
labor activism and jihadism. Other the Americans as they retreated in the
contributors examine the illegal charcoal face of the initial Chinese attack. In
trade between Somalia and the United 1956, Mao Zedong was so angry with
Arab Emirates, the oil-rich dictatorships Kim Il Sung that he told Moscow he
around the Caspian Sea, the dynamics of might use the 400,000 Chinese troops
cross-border environmental protests, the still in North Korea to “help Kim Il-sung

Recent Books
correct his mistakes,” a thinly veiled Gandhi: The Years That Changed the
proposal to depose him. But Mao later World, 1914–1948
came to regard Kim as a loyal son, to the BY RAMACHANDRA GUHA . Knopf,
point of promising him that if the United 2018, 1,104 pp.
States attacked the North, Kim could use
China’s northeastern provinces as a rear This second and final volume of Guha’s
area under his own command. Relations huge, definitive biography of Mahatma
between Beijing and Pyongyang were Gandhi draws on every imaginable source,
strongest in the first half of the 1970s, including a recently opened archive of
when Mao and Chinese Premier Zhou letters to and from Gandhi. The narra-
Enlai took advantage of their negotia- tive is dramatic and detailed, with little
tions with the United States to press explicit judgment or analysis. Vivid
North Korea’s case with Washington. In impressions emerge: of Gandhi’s restless
those years, Chinese aid helped North energy and frequent bouts of ill health; of
Korea reach what turned out to be the his willingness to treat his wife, children,
height of its prestige as a development helpers, and followers as instruments
model among some Third World nations. of his will; of his hold over all sectors
Li and Xia track each twist and turn in of India’s fissiparous population; and of
the painful and public divorce that China the restraint with which the British
and the Soviet Union underwent in the treated him despite their anger at his
1960s and 1970s. The big puzzle is that constant troublemaking. Guha reveals
both countries lost more from the split Gandhi’s inconsistencies and confusions,
than they gained. Not only did the collapse as well as his titanic self-regard. Many
of the alliance hand a strategic advantage other talented contenders for leadership
to the United States; it also put pressure in India disapproved of his behavior and
on Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to politics. But Gandhi had remarkable
move his domestic policies leftward and success in promoting his idiosyncratic
encouraged Mao to launch the disastrous views on economics, caste, diet, sexuality,
Cultural Revolution. In explaining why the and political action. Although he failed
two countries pursued a seemingly irra- to heal the tragic rift between Hindus
tional split, Li and Xia argue that state-to- and Muslims, he did much to create the
state relations in the socialist camp during overarching sense of national identity
the Cold War differed from those in the that has so far held India together.
capitalist world. Communist parties saw
themselves not just as national parties but Dynasties and Democracy: The Inherited
also as members of a global movement Incumbency Advantage in Japan
guided by a scientifically correct ideology. BY DANIEL M. SMITH . Stanford
When divergent personalities, domestic University Press, 2018, 384 pp.
politics, and state interests gave rise to
disagreements on matters of ideological The ability of prominent politicians to
principle, communist party leaders could pass their government positions on to
not compromise for the sake of mere their wives, children, and grandchildren
national interests. On matters of ideology, is a phenomenon found everywhere,
only one party could be correct. but understanding why it occurs in
Recent Books
democracies as well as autocracies is change, and use a variety of methods,

something of a puzzle. Part of the answer from smuggling information to the
is that legacy politicians in democracies North Korean population through
are able to exploit their families’ name broadcasts and thumb drives to lobby-
recognition and local networks in their ing the UN Human Rights Council.
campaigns. Smith tests this insight by Seoul and Washington support the
looking at how legacy candidates fared activists when they want to put pres-
in Japan before and after 1994, when the sure on Pyongyang—and regard them
country reformed its system for electing as an inconvenience when they want to
delegates to the lower house of the Diet. negotiate. Despite the movement’s lack
Under the pre-1994 system, each district of coordination, it has had some suc-
elected more than one representative to cesses. Human rights conditions in the
the lower house, which enabled candi- North are now more widely known. In
dates to win with less than a majority 2013, the UN created a commission of
and thus advantaged those with strong inquiry on human rights in the country,
networks based on family connections. which issued a devastating report on the
Legacy candidates became less numerous abuses. Pyongyang has responded with
after the switch in 1994 to single-member diplomatic and propaganda pushback
districts. Even so, political dynasties still and some cosmetic legal changes. But
have an advantage, because local politi- as is often the case with human rights
cians have resisted the efforts of the ruling work, the real impact on conditions on
Liberal Democratic Party’s central party the ground awaits a political break-
apparatus to nominate candidates with through in the North.
broader national appeal. And legacy
candidates who make it to the Diet still Where the Party Rules: The Rank and File
have a better chance of being promoted of China’s Communist State
to cabinet posts. BY DANIEL KOSS . Cambridge
North Korean Human Rights: Activists and
Networks The disciplined, top-down Chinese
EDITED BY ANDREW YEO AND Communist Party, some 90 million
DANIELLE CHUBB . Cambridge strong, extends throughout the Chinese
University Press, 2018, 330 pp. government, society, and economy like a
nervous system: its health determines
This book describes the international how well the central authorities can
advocacy movement that has emerged control what goes on in every part of
over the past two decades to combat the country. Scholars tend to think of
human rights violations in North Korea. the CCP as omnipresent, but Koss uses
The movement is made up of North extensive archival and statistical research
Korean defectors joined by activists from to show that its power varies from place
not only South Korea but also Canada, to place. When the (now abandoned)
Japan, the United States, and Europe. one-child policy was in effect, for exam-
They pursue a range of goals, from ple, the ban on sex-selective abortions
humanitarian assistance to regime was implemented more fully where the

Recent Books
local party apparatus was strong than them, thereby suppressing rural con-
where it was weak. Koss also shows sumption, and reinvest it in an effective
that strong local party organizations agricultural extension program that
are correlated with lower levels of tax popularized the use of new seeds, fertil-
evasion. But powerful local cells may izers, and machinery. This in turn freed
also resist central policy more effec- some of the rural work force up for light
tively than weak ones, as happened industry. Starting in 1978, however,
during the Great Famine of 1958–61 the communes were dissolved because,
and the Cultural Revolution in the Eisenman argues, Deng Xiaoping’s faction
late 1960s. Surprisingly, variations in wanted to remove the cap on peasant
local party strength can be traced all consumption in order to generate support
the way back to the Sino-Japanese for economic reforms. Eisenman’s analysis
War of 1937–45, when peasant resis- implies that Western scholars who once
tance to the Japanese spurred strong held up Maoist practices as a model for
party growth in the areas immediately developing countries were not entirely
threatened by Japanese troops, whereas wrong, at least when it came to lifting
those areas outside the war zone did traditional peasant farmers out of the trap
not have the same catalyst. Koss adds an of low productivity and low investment.
important dimension to scholars’ under-
standing of how the Chinese system
works—and of its vulnerabilities. Africa
Red China’s Green Revolution: Nicolas van de Walle
Technological Innovation, Institutional
Change, and Economic Development
Under the Commune
BY JOSHUA EISENMAN . Columbia The Kenyan TJRC: An Outsider’s View
University Press, 2018, 472 pp. From the Inside
BY RONALD C. SLYE . Cambridge
At the start of the Great Leap Forward, University Press, 2018, 308 pp.
in 1958, China formed communes to
I
organize agriculture. Because of the n the wake of the violence sur-
huge famine caused by the campaign, rounding the 2007 Kenyan presi-
historians have given the communes a dential election, the country created
bad name. But Eisenman argues that the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation
after the famine, and especially in the Commission. It was tasked with exam-
early 1970s, the reorganized communes ining the recent events but also given a
fostered a green revolution that laid the daunting broader mandate: to examine
basis for the rapid economic growth of all forms of egregious bad government
the post-Mao era. He uses previously in Kenya since 1963. That meant that it
unexamined data on the production of was always likely to come under enor-
grain, pork, and edible oils to show that mous pressure from Kenya’s corrupt and
the communes enabled the state to take entrenched political class. The commis-
most of the farmers’ profits away from sion delivered its report in 2013. Slye, a
Recent Books
legal expert, was its sole non-African systems have done much better at taxing
member. This fascinating book delves average Africans than they get credit
into the fissures that emerged among for. Finally, that means African tax
the commissioners, why the international systems are highly regressive, with
members of the commission issued a poorer citizens paying much higher
dissent from some of the body’s find- rates than richer ones.
ings, and the broader implications of
the commission’s work for Kenya and Reel Pleasures: Cinema Audiences and
other postconflict societies. Slye’s book Entrepreneurs in Twentieth-Century
makes for compelling reading, whether Urban Tanzania
he is discussing the personal foibles of BY LAURA FAIR . Ohio University
the commissioners, the backroom negotia- Press, 2018, 472 pp.
tions and compromises that mark such
work, the legal issues involved, or the Fair’s superb social history of cinema in
broader context of Kenyan politics. Tanzania is rich with keen insights into
urban life in East Africa throughout the
Taxing Africa: Coercion, Reform, and twentieth century. From the late 1910s
Development onward, Tanzania had more cinemas than
BY MICK MOORE, WILSON any other country in Africa, except South
PRICHARD, AND ODD -HELG E Africa, as well as a less segregated film-
FJELDSTAD . Zed Books, 2018, 288 pp. going experience, which allowed whites,
Africans, and South Asians to attend
Although taxes are a fundamental part the same shows. Fair recounts efforts by
of any modern economy, taxation in South Asian businesspeople to import
Africa remains poorly understood. The films from India in the early twentieth
authors of this concise and masterly century, and later from the entire world,
introduction to the topic go some way to show on Tanzanian screens. By the
toward filling that gap. The book starts 1950s, eight movie theaters catered to
by showing how international tax law 16,000 people a week in the capital, Dar
disadvantages African governments. It es Salaam, and became the city’s center
then discusses the attempts by African of social and cultural life. Indian films,
states to tax multinational corporations, with their singing and dancing, were
especially in the oil and mining sectors. long local favorites, although American
The book then turns to formal and westerns were popular, as well. In the
informal domestic tax systems. It has 1970s, blaxploitation movies, such as
a tendency to gloss over the variation Shaft and Hell Up in Harlem, arrived
among countries, but it does provide and began to shape the fashion tastes of
powerful evidence for several important the young. Fair’s impressive versatility
generalizations. First, foreign companies, means she is equally at ease discussing
especially in the extractive industries, midcentury international film distribu-
pay remarkably little in taxes. Second, tion networks as she is explaining the
the richest Africans also pay very little local appeal of obscure Indian movies.
and have managed to park enormous
sums abroad. Third, African fiscal

Recent Books
Africa: War and Conflict in the Twentieth improving infrastructure to addressing

Century the massive structural unemployment
BY TIMOTHY STAPLETON . that results from Africa’s continuing
Routledge, 2018, 202 pp. rapid population growth. Sy often
returns to the problem of mobilizing
This concise history of warfare in Africa enough foreign and domestic invest-
in the twentieth century covers a large ment, as capital shortages remain the
number of conflicts, from the wars of most significant constraint on the rapid
colonial conquest waged by European growth he thinks Africa can achieve.
armies in the earliest parts of the century, He is so bullish about the returns on
to the participation of African troops in investment in Africa that he does not
World War I and World War II, to interview the rising debt burdens of coun-
state wars since decolonization. Some of tries such as Ghana, Nigeria, and
these conflicts are well known; others, Zambia as posing serious problems.∂
such as the wars to quell various rebel-
lions during the colonial era, get little
academic or popular attention. Given
Stapleton’s previous scholarly work on
South African military history, it is not
surprising that the long section on the
Second Boer War, from 1899 to 1902, is
rather more detailed than the book’s
cursory treatment of several bloodier
conflicts, most notably the First and
Second Congo Wars, from 1996 to 2003.
Although maps of the different campaigns
would have made the book easier to follow,
Stapleton nonetheless offers a useful
introduction to an important topic.
Africa Through an Economic Lens

BY AMADOU SY . Brookings Institution
Press, 2018, 224 pp.
Sy, a former career International

Monetary Fund economist, lays out
the optimistic vision of how economic
growth could transform Africa. The
book can feel a little haphazard—it is
partly cobbled together from a blog
Sy wrote at the Brookings Institution—
but it offers interesting prescriptions
for how Africa can overcome the
constraints to faster growth, from
on land targets beyond the contested

Letters to the islands and the waters around them,
whether carried out by the United States
Editor against Chinese territory or by China
against U.S. overseas bases, would be
aimed at military installations and
systems that supported the maritime
campaign—ports, air bases, and
WOULD CHINA GO NUCLEAR? command-and-control centers. The
To the Editor: intercontinental nuclear deterrent forces
I read with interest Caitlin Talmadge’s of both countries are physically separate
article “Beijing’s Nuclear Option” from these facilities.
(November/December 2018), in which In addition, U.S. planners are very
she quotes me estimating in 2015 that mindful of the danger of attacking any
the odds of a U.S.-Chinese nuclear state’s nuclear arsenal and take extraor-
exchange were “somewhere between nil dinary precautions to avoid doing so.
and zero.” She then goes on to make a Although there is always a chance for
case against remaining complacent in an isolated mistake, it is in fact possible
the face of the risk of escalation, with no to distinguish nuclear-armed submarines
discussion of what is in fact a very high from conventional ones. Likewise, it is
nuclear threshold in a U.S.-Chinese possible to distinguish the shorter-range,
confrontation or conflict. I continue to dual-use missiles that threaten Taiwan,
believe that the chances of nuclear use China’s neighbors, and U.S. bases in the
are very small. Pacific from the intercontinental mis-
Talmadge’s basic argument is that in siles that threaten the United States.
any conflict with China, the United If by mistake a U.S. strike destroyed
States will immediately launch a full-scale a land-based medium-range nuclear mis-
air and missile assault against military sile or sank a ballistic missile submarine,
targets in mainland China and against China would be greatly concerned, but
Chinese attack submarines at sea. In so it is highly unlikely that Beijing would
doing, she argues, the United States will respond by reflexively launching a nuclear
inadvertently hit either China’s ballistic attack against the United States. Rather,
missile submarines or its mobile nuclear before even considering violating their
missiles. That, in turn, will present long-held “no first use” doctrine, Chinese
Chinese leaders with a “use it or lose it” leaders would wait to see if a concerted,
dilemma concerning their nuclear arsenal, sustained U.S. campaign against their
and they may well decide to launch a nuclear arsenal was under way. The United
nuclear attack against the United States. States has no incentive to attempt such
Such a scenario is extremely unlikely; a campaign and in fact would take every
indeed, I would say the odds are some- precaution to avoid it.
where between nil and zero. A U.S.- The real danger of escalation in these
Chinese conflict would be a maritime conflicts would be when a Chinese
campaign in which the two sides tried attempt to capture a disputed island—
to conquer or defend islands. Attacks Taiwan, one of the Diaoyu/Senkaku

Islands, or an island in the South China

Sea—was failing. A failed attempt to
regain territory that the Chinese gov-
ernment has claimed as its own would
undermine the legitimacy of the Chi-
DIRECTORY nese Communist Party and could make
Beijing desperate enough to threaten
Subscriber Services the use of nuclear weapons. Again, U.S.
www.foreignaffairs.com/services planners are aware of that danger and
TEL: 800.829.5539 would seek to manage the end of a
INTERNATIONAL TEL: 845.267.2017
maritime conflict with China in a way
Academic Resources that minimized the incentives for
www.foreignaffairs.com/classroom escalation.
E-MAIL: fabooks@cfr.org DENNIS C. BLAIR
TEL: 800.716.0002
Chair of the Board, Sasakawa Peace
Submit an Article Foundation USA; U.S. Director of Na-
www.foreignaffairs.com/submit tional Intelligence, 2009–10; Commander
of U.S. Pacific Command, 1999–2002
Bulk and Institutional Subscriptions
E-MAIL: jchung@cfr.org
Talmadge replies:
Advertise in Foreign Affairs Dennis Blair’s letter reflects the
www.foreignaffairs.com/advertise conventional wisdom about a potential
E-MAIL: ewalsh@cfr.org
TEL: 212.434.9526
U.S.-Chinese war: virtual certainty that
if the United States picked the right
Permissions set of targets, China would understand
www.foreignaffairs.com/permissions that the war was limited, and nuclear
weapons would be irrelevant. Everyone
INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS should hope that Blair is right, but amid
Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica the fog and suspicion of war, China’s views
www.fal.itam.mx of both U.S. intentions and nuclear
E-MAIL: fal@itam.mx deterrence could change radically. Were
a U.S. campaign to erode significant
Rossia v Globalnoi Politike
components of China’s deterrent capa-
(Russian)
www.globalaffairs.ru
bility, Chinese leaders could conclude—
E-MAIL: globalaffairs@mtu-net.ru reluctantly—that limited escalation,
such as a demonstration strike at sea,
Foreign Affairs Report (Japanese) was a viable option.
www.foreignaffairsj.co.jp
E-MAIL: general@foreignaffairsj.co.jp
Blair downplays growing linkages
between China’s nuclear forces and its
conventional forces. He states that in
a maritime conflict, the United States
would attack only Chinese ports, air
bases, and command-and-control centers
on the mainland, ignoring that some of
218
Letters to the Editor
these onshore assets support China’s does, that China’s behavior will be both
nuclear-armed submarines, not just predictable and proportional.
its conventional naval forces. With
respect to a land-based conflict, I agree FOR THE RECORD
with Blair that the United States can An article by Darren Walker (“Old
distinguish China’s intermediate-range Money, New Order,” November/
nuclear missiles from its intercontinen- December 2018) misnamed the Chinese
tal nuclear missiles. The question, how- organization to which the Ford Founda-
ever, is whether the United States can tion has provided seed funding. It is the
distinguish among different types of China Foundation Center, not the China
intermediate-range missiles, attacking Global Philanthropy Institute.∂
only conventional ones while leaving
the nuclear ones untouched. If it cannot
do that—and as I explained in my article,
it probably cannot—the question becomes
whether China would worry about the
security of its small force of nuclear-
armed intercontinental ballistic missiles
once the intermediate-range missiles
and their air defenses were degraded.
Nevertheless, Blair overstates our
differences in some places. I concur,
for example, that “it is . . . possible to
distinguish nuclear-armed submarines
from conventional ones,” and I agree
that “there is always a chance for an
isolated mistake.” Where we depart,
however, is on how China might react
to such a mistake, one that would elimi-
nate a quarter of the country’s naval
nuclear deterrent.
My article explicitly notes that the
likelihood of Chinese nuclear escalation
is not high in absolute terms. The danger
is of high consequence, not high prob-
ability. Yet the likelihood of a nuclear
confrontation will grow if the United
States confidently assumes, as Blair
Foreign Affairs (ISSN 00157120), January/February 2019, Volume 98, Number 1. Published six times annually (January, March, May,
July, September, November) at 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10065. Print subscriptions: U.S., $54.95; Canada, $66.95; other
countries via air, $89.95 per year. Canadian Publication Mail–Mail # 1572121. Periodicals postage paid in New York, NY, and at
additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Foreign Affairs, P.O. Box 324, Congers, NY 10920. From time to
time, we permit certain carefully screened companies to send our subscribers information about products or services that we believe
will be of interest. If you prefer not to receive such information, please contact us at the Congers, NY, address indicated above.

The Wrong Middle East Strategy?

Foreign Affairs Brain Trust
We asked dozens of experts whether they agreed or disagreed that the United States should stop trying
to solve the regional problems of the Middle East. The results from those who responded are below.
10
STRONGLY DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY

DISAGREE AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 9 STRONGLY AGREE, CONFIDENCE LEVEL 10
David Petraeus Madawi al-Rasheed

Former Commander of Coalition Forces in Visiting Professor at the Middle East
Iraq and Afghanistan and former Commander Centre, London School of Economics
of U.S. Central Command “Consider the United States’ previous record,
“The situation in the Middle East is exceedingly in which diplomatic and military interventions
complex, and the various conflicts and challenges proved to be futile. From Camp David to the
often seem intractable; we have seen, however, occupation of Iraq, success was in short supply.”
what happens when the United States and its allies
withdraw prematurely from situations there and
when they seek to avoid engagement in others.”
See the full responses at ForeignAffairs.com/USMiddleEastStrategy

Foreign Affairs January Feburary 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Affairs January Feburary 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreign Affairs January Feburary 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELIZABETH WARREN: A FOREIGN POLICY FOR ALL

Run the World?

The CSS Point, Pakistan’s The Best

WHO WILL RUN THE WORLD?

How a World Order Ends 22

The Stealth Superpower 31

The Age of Uneasy Peace 40

A Foreign Policy for All 50

The Eroding Balance of Terror 62

Januar y/Februar y 2019

America’s Middle East Purgatory 88

The Crisis of Peacekeeping 101

The Free-Trade Paradox 119

Trump Versus the Government 129

America’s Long Goodbye 138

Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War 147

The Unhackable Election 156

Januar y/Februar y 2019

Snake-Oil Economics 176

When Empires End 181

Life After Liberation 187

Recent Books 193

Januar y/Februar y 2019

STEPHANIE SOLOMON Chief Revenue Officer

LISA SHIELDS, IVA ZORIC, ZACHARY HASTINGS HOOPER Media Relations

SUBSCRIP TION SERVICES: Foreign Affairs

In her years as a law professor, ELIZABETH WARREN re-

SÉVERINE AUTESSERRE started her career working for

One of the foremost chroniclers of modern European

Buy CSS Books Online https://cssbooks.net

Both the order

The Fourth Founding The Stealth Superpower

How a World Order Ends The Age of Uneasy Peace

So how should the nation behave during

Coming at the problem a few decades

After some experimentation, over Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman

Januar y/Februar y 2019 11

FIRST FOUNDING racies would be less warlike in general.

The peacemakers: at the World War I peace conference in Paris, 1919

Januar y/Februar y 2019 13

istration had tried to be soft on Germany to different constituencies. Because

to be part of any American system, so it

postwar project. They had their own

Januar y/Februar y 2019 17

the order once accomplished, its day

rapid advance of markets in the post– Since it is easier to mobilize on fear

Januar y/Februar y 2019 21

But if the end of every order is

its ending are not. Nor is what comes

Concert crashers: British officers during the Crimean War, 1855

Januar y/Februar y 2019 23

came to view the status quo as inconsis-

Januar y/Februar y 2019 27

also be insufficient, thanks to the emer-

has no interest in establishing a web of

WHO WILL RUN THE WORLD?

Januar y/Februar y 2019 31

strategy of accumulating power, make In the political realm, China has

Containing a superpower: at the Port of Shanghai, January 2011

Januar y/Februar y 2019 33