Stabilizing Iraq and Syria post-ISIS
The National Press Club last Wednesday hosted the Foreign Policy Research Institute‘s launch of the latest issue of their journal, Orbis, entitled “Stabilizing the Fertile Crescent after the Fall of the Caliphate.” The papers aim to analyze the current state of ISIS as well as society in Iraq and Syria, and to assess and recommend possible guidelines and tactics for American action in the region. To accompany the issue’s launch, FPRI invited the following speakers to discuss the topic of stabilization in Syria and Iraq:
Moderator: Samuel Helfont – Assistant Professor, Naval War College, Monterey
Tally Helfont – Director of Program on the Middle East, Foreign Policy Research Institute
Barak Mendelsohn – Associate Professor, Haverford College
Assaf Moghadam – Adjunct Associate Professor, Columbia University
Mendelsohn asserted that to deal with global jihadi movements like al-Qaeda and ISIS we need to more accurately assess the scope of their threat and capacities. The challenge they pose to local and American security is often overblown. Focusing on jihadi terrorist attacks is counter-productive. A single successful terrorist attack can lead to the impression that the jidadis are “winning,” when the situation is often more complex. Terrorism is an instrument for political, not strategic or military objectives. Jihadi movements consistently fail to achieve their political objectives – for instance, setting up a sustainable ISIS caliphate – through terrorism.
Mendelsohn also emphasized the systemic challenges that constrain the threat posed by transnational jihadi movements. National and subnational identities, which are usually of national or ethnic nature, constrain the appeal of transnational movements based on religious identity. It is not sufficient to practice Islam to find religious political leadership appealing. Political as well as religious or social affiliation is needed. As transnational political movements, cross-border logistical coordination is also an issue for jihadi groups. Finally, they are plagued by infighting, further reducing their capacity to operate effectively.
Moghadam agreed with Mendelsohn on the constraining factors jihadi groups face. He hoped, however, that policy-makers would not confuse “jihadism constrained” with “jihadism declining.” While their threat might often be overblown, jihadi groups will not disappear any time soon. Their ideology continues to appeal to some people. Jihadi movements are by nature highly decentralized. Their lack of a “center of gravity” means they cannot be easily eradicated with a precise military attack.
Decentralization also means that jihadi groups’ constituent parts are adaptable and innovative. Key individuals play an oversized role, making jihadi groups capable of reacting to changing environments. In addition, the conditions that gave rise to jihadi groups such as ISIS are still in place. In Syria especially, regions devastated by ISIS will face governance and resource issues for decades to come, providing fertile ground for radical military groups to thrive.
Moghadam concluded by predicting that we will witness a shift in the global jihadi movement from a “bipolar” structure – centered around the poles of ISIS and al-Qaeda – to a “multipolar,” localized structure, with smaller groups gaining influence in a greater number of locations. This will make it harder to fully eradicate the threat of jihadism. When it comes to counter-terrorism, he advocated for a less reactionary stance. Jihadi groups use terrorism to provoke Western governments into over-reacting, thus alienating Muslim communities and reinforcing the appeal of the groups Western states are trying to combat. He called for better cooperation with Muslim communities in Europe and the US.
Tally Helfont focused on what Gulf states can do to counter the influence of jihadi groups in the Middle East. These states are worried about the appeal of transnational jihadism in the Gulf, but are also seeking to counter Iranian influence and fill the vacuum left by American political withdrawal. Gulf states’ counter-terrorism strategy has focused on stopping “men, money, and ideas.” This means increasingly trying to curb the radical messages and influence of local religious leaders as well as stopping financial flows to terrorists from private citizens in the Gulf.
Countering jihadi ideas is especially important, both in education and in mosques. Helfont asserts that Gulf states – particularly Saudi Arabia and UAE – have begun to see the appeal of critical thinking and want to create new generations of citizens who are capable of thinking for themselves and innovating with the best on the international stage.
Caveat emptor: It was hard to decipher useful lessons from the panelists’ statements. While the jihadi threat is often overblown, it is essential for the American government to portray ISIS as a genuine threat to national security to justify continued involvement in Syria and Iraq. A Muslim terrorism group is also a useful foil in electoral campaigns. Doubts should be raised about the capacity of stabilization to succeed without subsequent peace-building and reconstructing projects afterwards. There’s still a lot to consider before we can get a clear idea of how to durably stabilize the Fertile Crescent.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Life ain’t fair
The Trump-Putin press conference after their meeting in Helsinki merits little comment. It wasn’t a lovefest, but they mostly avoided points of friction. The only obvious one was on Crimea, where Putin essentially said they had agreed to disagree on the legitimacy of Russia’s annexation. Trump said nothing.
On Syria, they are hoping for unspecified cooperation. The Syrian opposition, under bombardment by Russian warplanes, will be glad to hear that. Putin emphasized the importance of humanitarian assistance, but Russia essentially provides none (other than a bit of air transport). The US provides the lion’s share.
Both presidents want the summit to mark the beginning of a more normal relationship between the two powers. Putin was pleased to appear on an equal footing with Trump and emphasized nuclear weapons, as did Trump. No one mentioned that Russia is a declining regional power with an economy more or less the size of Spain’s.
Trump acknowledged that he had pushed American liquified natural gas as an alternative to Germany’s import of Russian gas through the Nordstream pipeline. Never mind that it would be far more costly. I think Chancellor Merkel might have noticed though.
The lies were fast and furious. Putin claimed the referendum on Crimea’s annexation was conducted according to international standards. Hardly. It didn’t even offer an option to keep Crimea’s autonomous status inside Ukraine, not to mention that it was conducted under Russian military occupation.
Trump tried to distract attention to a question about whether he believed the US intelligence community assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election by ranting about “where is Hillary Clinton’s server!” It’s with the FBI. He should ask there. Trump also said Putin forcefully denied the charge. That should settle it.
Putin referred to an implementation issue with the INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty. Hardly. Russia is violating the treaty.
He also tried to suggest that he knew nothing about the Russian officials Mueller has indicted but that some of what the Americans are complaining about might be the handiwork of private Russian companies. Does anyone think Putin doesn’t know precisely what the GU (Russian military intelligence) is up to? Does anyone think private Russian companies don’t do the bidding of the Russian government?
Putin also generously offered cooperation with the Mueller investigation, on a reciprocal basis. We need only arrest Bill Browder, Putin’s nemesis and the originator of the Magnitsky Act. Then Mueller can participate in the interrogation of the indicted GU officials and Russian law enforcement will participate in the interrogation of Browder. Even Trump might not fall for that one.
Had a Democratic president appeared with Putin in this fashion a few days after the indictment of Russian officials for interfering in a US election and a few months after the Russians tried to kill a defector in Great Britain, the Republicans would be getting out the noose. The president wouldn’t even have to be black, just liberal. But this pair of white nationalist liars get to display their mendacity with impunity. Life ain’t fair.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Best summit EVER!
Hard to write anything you haven’t already read about the Mueller indictment of 12 Russian officials for cyberattacks on the United States. This is the second shoe to drop. The first consisted of indictments for the social media campaign intended to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
The President is now golfing to get ready to meet with “not my enemy” Vladimir Putin in Helsinki tomorrow. Trump intends to start the summit one-on-one, with only interpreters. That way he can say whatever he wants about what transpired, as the interpreters won’t leak. While he has said he would ask about interference in the US election, Trump has also repeated Putin’s earlier denials, indicating he believes them. I don’t know anyone else in Washington who does.
Trump is fresh from London meetings during which he offended the Queen, supported the Prime Minister’s leading rival, and claimed immigration was ruining both Europe and the US. That followed on a NATO summit at which he trashed America’s allies, then (falsely) pretended that they had yielded to his will on military spending. Today he even responded to a question about America’s worst enemy by saying the EU is a foe. This is Putin’s wet dream: the United States split from Europe and in particular from its militarily strongest ally.
Where and when does this nightmare end? Not in Helsinki, where Trump will likely serve up Syria on a silver platter, asking only that Moscow promise to get he Iranians out, or at least off the Israeli border. Putin will promise, the Americans will bail, but neither Russia nor Iran will feel any pressure to fulfill any commitment Putin has made. Their attacks on the agreed de-escalation zones in Syria, and Trump’s abandonment of the rebel forces in the south, tells you all you need to know about how Moscow, Damascus, and Washington are approaching Syria these days. Moscow and Damascus are trying to win. Washington doesn’t care about losing. Once the Americans are gone from Syria, Iran and Russia will be free to do as they like.
The only good news is that Trump might be boxed in on Ukraine. While he has personally expressed the view that Crimea should belong to Russia because people there speak Russian, the Administration and Congress seem solidly opposed to any compromise on Ukraine before withdrawal of Russian forces. Trump will have a hard time promising Putin relief from Ukraine-related sanctions if the Congress stands its ground. That said, any indication of indifference towards the Russian annexation of Crimea will be a big win for Putin, even if the sanctions remain in place for now.
Of course Trump will declare the Helsinki summit a great success, one much more successful than any previous meeting with an American president. People will be saying it was the best summit EVER!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 15 – 21
1. The Legacy of the July 15 Coup Attempt on Civil-Military and US-Turkey Relations | Monday, July 16, 2018 | 10:30 am – 3:30 pm | The SETA Foundation | Register Here
On July 15, 2016, the Turkish people demonstrated their commitment to democracy and civil rights by peacefully resisting and stopping an attempted coup by a faction within the Turkish Armed Forces. In the two years since, Turkey has changed its system of government and overhauled its military forces, reforms which have had marked effects on the nature of civil-military relations in Turkey. These changes will have significant impact on the future of the US-Turkey relations as well as the democratic development of the country.
On July 16, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC will host a conference on the anniversary of the July 15 coup attempt with a Keynote Address by Dr. Ravza Kavakci Kan, Deputy Chairperson of the AK Party. Two panel discussions will focus on the future of civil-military relations in Turkey and the changes in Turkey since the 2016 coup attempt will mean for the future of the US-Turkey security partnership, which has long been a strong bond between the two nations.
10:30 – 12:00 Panel I: The Future of Civil-Military Relations in Turkey
Sener Akturk, Associate Professor, Koç University Department of International Relations
Edward Erickson, Scholar-in-Residence in the Clark Center for Global Engagement, State University of New York at Cortland
Mark Perry, Author and Foreign Policy Analyst
Moderated by Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC
12:00 – 1:00 Keynote Address by Dr. Ravza Kavakci Kan, Deputy Chairperson of the AK Party
1:00 – 1:30 Lunch
1:30 – 3:00 Panel II: The Future of the US-Turkey Security Partnership
Mark Kimmitt, Defense Consultant, MTK Defense Consultants
Richard Outzen, Senior US Army Advisor & Member of Policy Planning Staff, US Department of State
Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Moderated by Kilic B. Kanat, Research Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington DC
2. Second Anniversary of the July 15 Coup Attempt | Monday, July 16, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | Held at the United States Institute for Peace, Auditorium – 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Please join THO and Bau International University on Monday, July 16, for an exclusive interview with Ret. General, Commander of the Turkish Land Forces, Salih Zeki Colak. This event will focus on the second anniversary of the July 15 coup attempt that took place in 2016.
Speakers:
Salih Zeri Colak – Retired General, Commander of the Turkish Land Forces
Dr. M. Hakan Yavuz – Professor of Political Science, University of Utah
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr. – Chairman Emeritus, Stimson Center
3. JCPOA 2.0: Iran, Europe, Trump, and the Future of the Iran Deal | Monday, July 16, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm | National Iranian American Council | Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC-210/212 | Register Here
Nearly two months have passed since President Trump exited from the Iran nuclear deal and announced the reimposition of nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. While major businesses have withdrawn from the Iranian market in the wake of the decision, the remaining parties to the accord have continued to engage in dialogue about how to keep the accord alive.
Speakers:
John Glaser – Director of Foreign Policy Studes, Cato Institute
Kelsey Davenport – Director for Nonproliferation Policy, Arms Control Association
Reza Marashi – Research Director, National Iranian American Council
Jamal Abdi – Vice President of Policy, National Iranian American Council
4. Are Americans Giving Up on Democracy? | Tuesday, July 17, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | New America | Register Here
How committed are Americans to the values, norms and processes of democracy itself? As non-democratic and illiberal movements take hold across the globe, and with democratic norms and voting rights under threat in the U.S., this question has gained urgency. Recently, two major studies of public attitudes, from the Democracy Fund’s Voter Study Group and from Pew Research Center, have delved deeply and rigorously into this question.
Please join us for a lunchtime conversation about the state of our democracy, what citizens want to see from their country, and how to move forward. Lee Drutman of New America and Jocelyn Kiley from Pew Research Center will present the key findings of the results, followed by a discussion involving journalists and academics who have watched the shifting ground of American democracy from different angles.
Speakers:
Lee Drutman – Senior Fellow, Political Reform, New America
Jocelyn Kiley – Associate Director, US Politics, Pew Research Center
Perry Bacon, Jr. – Political Writer, FiveThirtyEight
Vanessa Wiliamson – Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
Henry Olsen – Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
5. Supporting Democracy in Challenging Times | Tuesday, July 17, 2018 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
For more than three decades, the United States has provided bipartisan support to secure freedom, human rights and democratic governance for countries around the world through the work of the National Endowment for Democracy, along with its four core institutes, the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the Solidarity Center.
Over the past decade, the work of promoting democracy has been increasingly challenging amidst a phenomenon of democratic recession and resurgent authoritarianism, which is increasingly viewed by scholars as a new era of ideological and political contestation. Systemic corruption, deep inequality and injustice, and the failure of governments to address the needs of ordinary citizens breed political instability, terrorism, and massive flows of refugees – conditions that threaten our own security and well-being. Authoritarian leaders are capitalizing on these conditions and accelerating their efforts to penetrate and corrupt fragile states through aggressive political, economic, technological and cultural mechanisms with the goal of reaping political influence and acquiring strategic resources. Please join us at CSIS on July 17 as we host the heads of the NED, CIPE, IRI, NDI, and the Solidarity Center to discuss the new challenges in supporting democracy.
Speakers:
Carl Gershman – President, National Endowment for Democracy
Andrew Wilson – Executive Director, Center for International Private Enterprise
Daniel Twining – President, International Republican Institute
Kenneth Wollack – President, National Democratic Institute
Shawna Bader-Blau – Executive Director, Solidarity Center
Daniel F. Runde – William A. Schreyer Chair and Director, Project on Prosperity and Development, CSIS
6. Oil and Iran: How Renewed Sanctions Will Affect Iran and World Markets | Wednesday, July 18, 2018 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
In exiting the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration has vowed to drastically reduce Iran’s oil exports below figures reached during negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Administration officials have been traveling the globe urging importers of Iranian oil to cut purchases to zero by Nov. 4, the deadline for re-imposition of US secondary sanctions. The panel will discuss whether this goal is realistic and the impact the US campaign is having on global production and prices as well as on Iran.
Speakers:
Moderator: Barbara Slavin – Director, Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council
Anna Borshchevskaya – Ira Weiner Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Amos J. Hochstein – Senior Vice President, Marketing, Tellurian Inc.
Robin Mills – CEO, Qamar Energy
Brian O’Toole – Non-resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council
Sara Vakhshouri – Founder and President, SVB Energy International
7. From Washington to Brussels: A Discussion on the NATO 2018 Summit | Thursday, July 19, 2018 | 8:30 am – 9:15 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Please join us on Thursday, July 19 for a timely conversation with Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Co-Chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group and members of the U.S. delegation to the July 11-12 NATO Summit, for post-summit analysis as well as a discussion of the vital role that bipartisan Congressional leadership plays in tackling transatlantic security challenges. Our speakers will share details about the specific role the newly constituted Senate NATO Observer Group will play in providing Congressional support for NATO and U.S. strategic interests in Europe.
8. No Friends, No Enemies? Trans-Atlantic Relations after Trump’s Europe Trip | Thursday, July 19, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm | Brookings Institution | Register Here
What is the state of the Atlantic alliance following the July NATO summit and the meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki? Where are relations heading between the Trump administration and the European Union, which Trump has claimed “was set up to take advantage” of the United States? What are the implications of the Trump administration’s protectionism for trans-Atlantic relations? Where do Brexit Britain and post-election Turkey fit in an evolving West? Under pressure from within and without, can the European Union forge a stronger independent foreign policy and preserve multilateralism and liberal order in a world where these concepts are under assault?
On July 19, the Center on the United States and Europe, in partnership with the Turkish Industry and Business Association (TÜSİAD), will host a panel discussion examining recent developments in Europe and trans-Atlantic relations, including the outcomes of Trump’s July trip to Brussels, London, and Helsinki. Following the discussion, the panelists will take questions from the audience.
Speakers:
Introduction: Bahadir Kaleagasi – CEO, TUSIAD
Moderator: Susan B. Glasser – Staff Writer, The New Yorker
Robert Kagan – Stephen & Barbara Friedman Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Kemal Kirişci – Senior Fellow, TUSIAD; Director, The Turkey Project, Brookings Institution
Angela Stent – Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Thomas Wright – Director, Center on the United States and Europe, Brookings Institution
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin’s pet
President Trump is on his way to a meeting Monday with Russian President Putin. Along the way, he is doing precisely what Putin most wishes for.
First Trump trashed NATO. That’s the alliance Putin loves to hate. Trump not only criticized the allies for failing to meet the 2024 2% target for defense spending, he also fired a salvo at Germany for importing gas from Russia. Sitting next to him when he did that at breakfast were Secretary of State Pompeo, Ambassdor to NATO Hutchison, and Chief of Staff Kelly. All looked stunned, but Kelly did not bother hiding his discomfort. The White House spokesperson put him in his place by claiming he was disappointed in the breakfast offerings.
Then last night, in an interview that became public while he was at dinner with Prime Minister May in London, Trump compounded the felony. He not only blasted his host for not favoring “hard” Brexit and allowing immigrants to damage the “fabric” of British society, but also attacked the mayor of London for being soft on terrorism. The racist tone of these remarks is apparent to anyone who listens. The “special relationship” between the US and UK hasn’t known a lower moment in the past 100 years.
Then this morning we read that Trump is preparing to cut a “deal” on Syria in which Putin promises something he can’t deliver: withdrawal of the Iranians and their proxies from Syria’s border with Israel. In return, the US would withdraw from Syria, something Trump has promised publicly he would do, leaving the Kurds to cut a deal with Assad. This is an idea Netanyahu is pushing, along with relieving Russia from US and European sanctions.
The next shoe to drop will be Ukraine. Trump believes Crimea rightfully belongs to Russia, since people speak Russian there. Never mind that many people throughout Ukraine speak Russian, as well as Ukrainian. He may accept the Russian annexation, thereby putting a big smile on Putin’s face and completing an extraordinary week for the Russian president: NATO undermined, the UK/US relationship weakened, Syria won, and Crimea absorbed. What else could go right?
The pattern is clear: Trump is Putin’s pet president doing precisely what Moscow wants. The only real question is why.
I have favored the view that money is the main reason. Trump’s real estate empire, about which he cares more than anything else, is heavily dependent on Russian investment and purchases of condos. Putin could turn off the flow of rubles in an instant. No wealthy Russian would buck the president, who gets to decide which oligarchs prosper and which don’t. Trump’s finances wouldn’t survive a month without Moscow’s support.
But it is also possible that Trump himself was recruited long ago. He hired people for his campaign who were Russian intelligence assets. Special Counsel Mueller has already indicted some of them. Trump’s visit to Moscow in the late 1980s, when it was still the capital of the Soviet Union, has raised questions. The Republican attempt yesterday in Congress to discredit the former chief of FBI counter-intelligence operations, Peter Strzok, suggests how desperate they are to stymie an investigation that has already gotten to one degree of separation from Trump.
But the Congress is also beginning to react appropriately to Trump’s surrender of American interests to Putin. It has passed a strong resolution in support of NATO and against concessions to Putin on Ukraine. Republican discomfort with Trump’s “national security” tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and the European Union is starting to show. The trade war with China is causing a lot of heartburn in the Middle West and other areas of the country the Republicans need to keep on their side.
But Putin is still making Trump sit and beg. He is Putin’s pet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rebooting globalization
The American Enterprise Institute yesterday hosted a panel discussion entitled “Rethinking Globalization: How do we Rebuild Support?” to kickstart a joint project by AEI and Brookings about “Reconceptualizing Globalization.” The panelists were Jared Bernstein (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities), Daniel Drezner (Tufts University), Stephen Hadley (RiceHadleyGates), and Merit Janow (Columbia University). Neena Shenai (AEI) and Joshua Meltzer (Brookings) moderated the discussion.
Shenai highlighted the timeliness of the initiative and stressed the critical importance of understanding globalization’s flaws, which have led to the populist discontent that precipitated the rise of Trump and other leaders whose rhetoric and trade policies threaten the institutional foundations of the post- World War II international order. Shenai asked each of the panelists to identify key factors that have led to the current hostility towards globalization and to propose possible solutions to the issue.
Bernstein began by pointing out that the benefits of comparative advantage-based trade are such that the winners can compensate the losers and still come out ahead. But political realities in the US mean that this does not occur. Instead, the benefits of trade accrue to corporate leaders, who use their political capital to negotiate trade agreements that are advantageous to them, and not necessarily their workers. Thus, the benefits of globalization, a positive sum game, have remained with elites, causing widespread dissatisfaction among the working class, many of whom lose their livelihoods due to trade-associated job destruction.
Further, Bernstein pointed out that wages increased with productivity from the 1940’s until the 1980’s. Since then, wages have stagnated, even as productivity continued to increase. The globalization backlash arises from workers not being fairly compensated for the gains from trade. Globalization needs to be reset in favor of the worker. US workers should be better represented in trade negotiations, and US policymakers should give domestic manufacturers tax cuts. On a monetary policy level, the US should also take aim at currency manipulators.
Hadley traced the origins of current discontent with Western international institutions to the elites’ decision to ignore their deficiencies following the 2008 financial crisis. This refusal resulted in the Tea Party’s political success in 2010, as well as the rise of Trump in 2016. Internationally, US dominance of the Bretton Woods system led new economic powers, like China, to create their own banks, institutions, and trade alliances. The legitimacy of Bretton Woods is thus threatened by domestic pressures within countries in the US bloc, as well as by international pressures.
The solution to the problem, however, does not lie in the destruction that Trump has wrought on global institutions and US alliances since his election. Hadley believes that the US would be better served by reforming Bretton Woods to appease populist discontent, and adjusting these institutions’ leadership structure to better reflect the current, multipolar global political and economic landscape.
Janow agreed that international institutions are a major part of the globalization problem, using her time at the WTO as an example. She argued that the WTO is weak and ineffective. The international trade body should generate its own work program to address its deficiencies instead of relying on the activity of member nations to solve its shortcomings.
In spite of these, Janow emphasized that policymakers should place more weight on what gave birth to multilateralism in the first place as they evaluate its benefits and drawbacks. Global institutions have contributed immensely to world peace and security by significantly raising the cost of war and conflict between trading partners. Further, globalization has reduced the negative externalities associated with individual countries not thinking beyond bilateralism in their approach to international economics. The global system is doomed if people do not believe these basic points.
Drezner questioned whether a globalization backlash was even occurring. The narrative that the 2008 financial crisis inspired a populist groundswell against elite-promulgated globalism is not supported by public opinion polls. In fact, 70% of Americans have supported globalization over the past 10 years, while 75% of Americans favor preserving US alliances over getting better terms on a trade deal. Further, even if there is a backlash, Drezner believes that the domestic economic damage Trump’s aggressive trade policies will cause will provide a strong incentive to not vote anti-globalists into office in the future.
The Bottom Line: Globalization is flawed. Significant portions of the US population have been left behind by current US trade policies. But the bellicose approach president Trump is taking provides no cure. The post-World War II economic order should not be destroyed. It needs to be rebooted, with US workers gaining their fair share of the benefits.
PS: apropos
RSS - Posts
