Hal Brands has published a long and thoughtful essay at War on the Rocks on the future of American Internationalism. Despite its length, or perhaps because of it, the piece is worthy of a careful read.
Echoing themes that I have discussed previously (e.g. here and here), Brands foresees two equally plausible scenarios: a return to the liberal international order (LIO) crafted and sustained by a bipartisan foreign policy elite since the end of World War II; or an enduring shift away from internationalism, a process decades‐in‐the‐making, but hastened by Trump’s presidency.
Brands is cautiously optimistic that the former will eventually prevail, provided that U.S. leaders undertake a series of reforms reflecting new geopolitical and domestic political realities. Fearful that Trump’s isolationism and hyper‐nationalism will prevail, I have argued for a third way. U.S. leaders should reiterate their commitment to economic openness and international engagement, but call on other wealthy nations to share in the burdens of maintaining it. And they should back up such rhetoric with actions, by renegotiating decades‐long alliance relationships, and avoiding intervening militarily in disputes that do not engage vital U.S. security interests.
Brands does shade the truth from time to time. For example, he claims that U.S. leaders “sought to sustain a global balance of power that favored America and its democratic allies, and to advance liberal concepts such as democracy and human rights.” A not‐complete list of the U.S. government’s perilous partners over the past 70 years reminds us that Washington’s commitment to promoting democracy and human rights has been inconsistent, at best.
- Chiang Kai‐shek (Taiwan)
- Syngman Rhee/Park Chung Hee/Chun Doo‐Hwan (South Korea)
- Ayub Khan/Zia‐ul‐Haq/Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan)
- The House of Saud
- The Shah of Iran
- Hosni Mubarak/Abdel Fattah el‐Sisi (Egypt)
- Plus a handful (or more) of generals and strongmen in Latin America