ミアシャイマー教授「米国の大いなる妄想」講演フル アメリカの失敗の数々 ※伊藤貫氏や中野剛志氏もたびたび引用する国際政治学者

ほぼミアシャイマーチャンネル【ほぼミアちゃん】
1 Jul 202348:43

Summary

TLDRこのビデオスクリプトでは、冷战後のアメリカの外交政策である「リベラルヘゲモニー」について批判的に分析しています。その戦略の失敗を指摘し、国家主義とリベラル主義の関係を解説します。さらに、アメリカが世界に植え付けようとしていた民主主義の価値観が、他国ではどう受け止められていたかについても触れています。また、中国の台頭とロシアの復興という新たな国際情勢下で、リベラルヘゲモニーが終焉を告げつつあると主張しています。

Takeaways

  • 🌍 アメリカは冷战结束后,以自由霸权主义政策为目标,试图按照美国的形象重塑世界,但这一政策自2001年以来遭遇了连续的失败。
  • 🤔 冷战结束后的乐观情绪和对自由主义的信仰导致了对世界改造能力的过分自信,但现实中自由主义与民族主义和现实主义的冲突导致了失败。
  • 🇺🇸 自由主义是美国的核心意识形态,它基于个人主义,强调个体权利和社会契约,而民族主义则强调群体忠诚和国家主权。
  • 📚 自由主义的两个基石是个体主义和对普遍原则达成共识的局限性,而民族主义则认为人类是社会动物,重视群体身份和国家主权。
  • 🏛️ 自由霸权主义的三个组成部分是:全球推广自由民主、整合更多国家进入开放的国际经济体系、以及将更多国家纳入国际机构。
  • 🔄 特朗普总统的外交政策反对自由霸权主义,他批评共和党和民主党的外交政策,并主张与独裁者建立良好关系。
  • 💡 自由霸权主义的支持者认为,通过推广自由民主可以消除严重的人权侵犯,实现民主和平理论,并且保护自由民主免受内部威胁。
  • 🔍 美国的自由霸权主义政策在中东、俄罗斯和中国等地区遭遇了失败,这些失败揭示了民族主义和现实主义对自由主义政策的抵制。
  • 🛑 民族主义的力量是强大的,它强调自我决定和主权,这与自由主义推广个体权利的理念相冲突,导致在国际政治中的失败。
  • 🛠️ 现实主义认为,在多极世界中,自由霸权主义不再适用,美国需要关注大国政治,特别是中国的崛起和俄罗斯力量的复兴。
  • 🏠 自由主义在国外的推广可能导致国内自由主义的侵蚀,长期的战争状态可能导致国家安全状态的建立,影响国内公民自由。

Q & A

  • 冷戦終結後のアメリカの対外政策の名称は何ですか?

    -リベラル・ヘゲモニーと呼ばれ、アメリカの価値観を世界に広めることを目指した政策です。

  • リベラル・ヘゲモニーの主要な目的は何でしたか?

    -アメリカのイメージに基づいて世界を再構築することが主要な目的でした。

  • リベラル・ヘゲモニーの失敗の主な理由は何ですか?

    -ナショナリズムとリアリズムがリベラリズムに対して常に勝利するためです。

  • リベラリズムの基礎となる二つの前提は何ですか?

    -一つは個人主義であり、もう一つは根本的な善の問題について普遍的な合意を得ることができないということです。

  • ナショナリズムの基本的な考え方は何ですか?

    -人間は社会的な動物であり、部族に属しており、各部族が独自の国家を持つべきだという考え方です。

  • リベラル・ヘゲモニーの三つの主要な目標は何ですか?

    -自由民主主義の普及、開かれた国際経済への統合、そして国際機関への統合です。

  • ドナルド・トランプはリベラル・ヘゲモニーに対してどのような立場を取っていましたか?

    -トランプはリベラル・ヘゲモニーに反対し、自由民主主義の普及、開かれた国際経済、国際機関への統合に反対しました。

  • リベラル・ヘゲモニーの失敗の一例を挙げてください。

    -中東における失敗が一例であり、アフガニスタンやイラクでの紛争が含まれます。

  • ナショナリズムがリベラリズムに勝る理由は何ですか?

    -ナショナリズムは自己決定権と主権を重視し、外部からの干渉を嫌うためです。

  • 講演者が提案する賢明な対外政策は何ですか?

    -抑制政策を提案し、自由民主主義の普及をやめ、バランス・オブ・パワーの維持に集中することです。

Outlines

00:00

😐 リベラルヘゲモニーの失敗

コルドバ戦後のアメリカは世界をアメリカのイメージに再造するというリベラルヘゲモニー政策を追求したが、2001年以降の外交政策は失敗に終わっている。ナショナリズムとリアリズムがアメリカのリベラルな外交政策を常に打ち破っていると主張する。

05:01

🤔 リベラル主義とナショナリズムの基礎

アメリカは個人主義を重んじるリベラルな国として成立し、憲法や人権宣言はその思想を根底に置いている。一方、ナショナリズムは人々が部族社会に属する社会的な動物であると仮定し、個々人が国家を形成するのではなく、国家が個々のアイデンティティを形づけると説く。

10:02

🏛️ 国家主義とリベラル主義の違い

ナショナリズムは社会動物である人間の集まりである国家を重視し、主権や自己決定を重要視する。これに対して、リベラル主義は個人主義に基づく思想であり、個々人が社会契約を形成する。国家は個人を保護し、個々の自由を守る「夜間警備員」として機能する。

15:03

🌏 リベラルヘゲモニーの3要素

アメリカは世界中の国々をリベラル民主主義に変えることを目指し、国際経済への参加を促進し、国際機関への加盟を増やすことで世界をアメリカのイメージに再編するリベラルヘゲモニー政策を展開している。しかし、ドナルド・トランプはリベラルヘゲモニーに反対し、独裁者との親善や貿易保護主義を提唱している。

20:03

💡 リベラルヘゲモニーのメリット

リベラルヘゲモニーは人権侵害の排除、民主主義国家間の平和、国内での民主主義の安定化という3つの大きなメリットがあるとされる。しかし、アメリカの外交政策は失敗に終わり、特に中東地域での介入は多くの犠牲者を出してしまった。

25:04

🇺🇸 アメリカのナショナリズムと優越感

アメリカは非常にナショナリズム的な国であり、自己優越感に駆られ、世界をアメリカのイメージに変える力を持っていると信じている。このナショナリズムとリベラル主義の組み合わせは、アメリカが世界を変える力を持っていると信じる要因となった。

30:05

🕊️ リベラルヘゲモニーの限界

アメリカは冷战後、一極化世界の唯一の超大国としてリベラルヘゲモニーを追求したが、中国の台頭とロシアの復興により多極化世界へと移行している。この変化はリベラルヘゲモニーの終焉を意味し、大国間の力関係が主要な外交政策の議題になる。

35:06

📉 リベラルヘゲモニーの失敗

アメリカの外交政策は中東での介入、ウクライナ危機、中国との関係の悪化を通じて失敗に終わっている。ナショナリズムの力とリアリズムの現実主義は、アメリカが他国に政治制度を押し付ける試みを常に打ち破している。

40:07

🛡️ 国家主義とリアリズムの力

アメリカは軍事力で政权を転覆できる力を持っているが、その後の社会工学は大きな問題を引き起こす。イラクの事例から、国家の主権と自己決定の権利を尊重しなければ、他国に政治制度を押し付けることは困難であると示されている。

45:10

🏠 リベラル主義の国内での影響

永続的な戦争状態にあると、国内の自由主義に影響を及ぼす。国家安保保障の状態が成立すると、人々のプライバシーを侵害するスパイ活動を含む様々な問題が生じる。

🔄 一極化からの多極化への移行

アメリカは一極化世界から多極化世界へと移行している。中国の台頭とロシアの復興によって大きなパワーポリティクスが再び重要になる。この変化はリベラルヘゲモニーの終焉を意味し、アメリカは中国とロシアという同等の競争相手と直面している。

Mindmap

Keywords

💡冷戦後

冷戦の終結後、アメリカは「リベラル・ヘゲモニー」と呼ばれる政策を追求しました。これはアメリカの価値観を世界中に広め、アメリカ型の民主主義を推進することを目的としていました。

💡リベラル・ヘゲモニー

リベラル・ヘゲモニーは、アメリカが世界を自国のイメージに作り直そうとする政策を指します。この戦略は、リベラル民主主義を広め、国際経済への統合を促し、国際機関への参加を推進することを目指していました。

💡ナショナリズム

ナショナリズムは、国民が自らの国家を持つべきだとする政治的信念です。ビデオでは、ナショナリズムがリベラリズムを打ち負かす強力なイデオロギーであると説明されています。

💡リアリズム

リアリズムは、国際政治において国家の権力と安全保障が最優先されるべきだという考え方です。ビデオでは、リベラリズムの政策がナショナリズムとリアリズムによって打ち負かされていることが強調されています。

💡リベラリズム

リベラリズムは、個人の権利と自由を重視する政治理論です。ビデオでは、アメリカがリベラルな国であり、その外交政策がリベラル・ヘゲモニーの形を取っていると説明されています。

💡個人主義

個人主義は、リベラリズムの核心にある概念で、個人の権利と自由を最優先する考え方です。ビデオでは、リベラリズムが個人の自由と権利を基盤としていることが述べられています。

💡主権

主権は、国家が他国の干渉を受けずに自らの政治を決定する権利を指します。ナショナリズムにおいては、国家の主権と自決権が非常に重要視されます。

💡国際機関

国際機関は、複数の国が参加する組織で、世界貿易機関や国際通貨基金、北大西洋条約機構などがあります。リベラル・ヘゲモニーの一環として、アメリカはこれらの機関への統合を推進しました。

💡ユニポラリティ

ユニポラリティは、一つの国家が圧倒的な力を持つ国際政治の状態を指します。冷戦後のアメリカは、この状態にあり、リベラル・ヘゲモニーを追求することができました。

💡多極化

多極化は、複数の強国が存在し、それぞれが国際政治に影響を及ぼす状態を指します。ビデオでは、現在の中国やロシアの台頭が、アメリカのリベラル・ヘゲモニーの終焉をもたらすとされています。

Highlights

The United States pursued a policy of liberal hegemony to remake the world in America's image after the Cold War.

Liberal hegemony has failed miserably, with significant foreign policy failures since the Cold War, especially post-2001.

The relationship between nationalism, realism, and liberalism is crucial to understanding these failures.

Liberalism in the John Lockean sense means the United States is a liberal democracy where both Republicans and Democrats are liberals.

Liberalism is fundamentally individualistic, emphasizing individual rights and the limitations of human critical faculties.

Nationalism is a powerful ideology that prioritizes group loyalty and social animals, often defeating liberalism.

Liberal hegemony attempts to spread liberal democracy, integrate countries into the open international economy, and promote international institutions.

Donald Trump opposed liberal hegemony, criticizing both Republican and Democratic foreign policies and rejecting spreading liberal democracy.

The failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East, NATO expansion, and engagement with China highlight the shortcomings of liberal hegemony.

Liberal hegemony fails due to the power of nationalism and realism, which emphasize sovereignty and self-determination.

The concept of liberal hegemony is based on a universalistic ideology that often oversells individual rights and misunderstands other cultures.

Nationalism emphasizes the importance of sovereignty, with nations wanting their own states and resisting external interference.

Liberalism abroad can lead to illiberalism at home, as a permanent state of war can undermine civil liberties.

The rise of China and the resurgence of Russian power signify the end of unipolarity and the transition to multipolarity, making liberal hegemony less feasible.

A policy of restraint, focusing on maintaining a favorable global balance of power, is advocated as a wiser foreign policy approach.

Transcripts

00:00

after the Cold War ended the United

00:01

States pursued a policy that I called

00:04

liberal hegemony

00:05

and the main aim of that strategy was to

00:09

remake the world in America's image

00:12

a policy has failed miserably if you

00:16

look at U.S foreign policy from the end

00:18

of the Cold War until now and especially

00:21

since 2001. it's marked by a whole

00:24

series of abject failures and I'll talk

00:28

about that at Great length and the sixty

00:31

four thousand dollar question is why why

00:33

was there all this optimism in the early

00:36

1990s why did people think we had the

00:39

wind at the back our back and we were

00:41

going to be able to remake the world in

00:42

our own image and today things

00:46

don't look good at all what went wrong

00:48

and my argument is that to understand

00:51

what went wrong you have to understand

00:53

the relationship between nationalism and

00:56

realism and liberalism and I believe

00:58

again that we have followed what is

01:01

essentially a liberal foreign policy

01:03

this is called liberal hegemony

01:05

and that it has been defeated at almost

01:08

every turn by nationalism and realism

01:13

okay now the way I want to proceed is

01:16

first of all I want to talk about what

01:18

liberalism is I don't want to talk about

01:21

what nationalism is and when I talk

01:23

about liberalism and nationalism I'm not

01:25

going to say anything about

01:26

International politics at least in any

01:28

meaningful way I just want to give you a

01:31

sense for what liberalism is the United

01:33

States is a thoroughly liberal country

01:36

it is a liberal democracy both

01:38

Republicans who we sometimes refer to as

01:41

conservatives are liberals and Democrats

01:44

are liberals I'm using the term liberal

01:47

in the John lockean sense of the term

01:49

the United States was born as a liberal

01:52

democracy the Declaration of

01:54

Independence the Constitution the Bill

01:56

of Rights these are thoroughly liberal

01:58

documents we are a liberal people

02:02

okay but what exactly does that mean

02:05

it's very important that you understand

02:07

it because you have to understand what

02:10

liberalism is to understand liberal

02:12

hegemony and what went wrong

02:15

then it's very important to understand

02:18

what nationalism is John's argument is

02:21

very simple here nationalism is the most

02:24

powerful ideology on the planet and in a

02:27

contest between liberalism and

02:29

nationalism nationalism wins every time

02:31

and what I want to do is explain to you

02:34

what liberalism is what nationalism is

02:37

and why nationalism defeats liberalism

02:40

then what I want to do is talk about

02:42

what liberal hegemony is what does it

02:44

mean to say that the United States is

02:46

interested in remaking the world in its

02:48

own image so I'll describe that I want

02:51

to talk about why we pursued liberal

02:53

hegemony and of course I've tipped you

02:55

off by telling you that the United

02:57

States is a thoroughly liberal country

02:58

but there's more to the story

03:01

then I want to tell you what our track

03:03

record is I want to describe our

03:04

failures in the Middle East with regard

03:07

to Nato expansion in Russia and with

03:09

regard to engagement in China let's talk

03:11

about

03:12

the evidence that we goofed

03:16

then I want to talk about why liberal

03:17

hegemony fails and this again is

03:19

basically a story about nationalism and

03:21

realism Trump being liberalism

03:23

and then I want to make the case for

03:25

restraint what I think is the wise

03:27

foreign policy okay

03:29

let me start

03:31

with what is liberalism

03:33

they're two Bedrock assumptions that

03:36

underpin liberalism

03:38

one is that it's individualistic at its

03:41

core

03:43

and number two is that there are real

03:45

limits to what we can do with our

03:46

critical faculties to reach agreement on

03:50

first principles or questions about the

03:52

good life

03:53

now what exactly am I saying

03:56

you

03:57

you have to decide when you think about

03:59

politics whether you think human beings

04:04

are first and foremost

04:07

individuals who form social contracts

04:14

you think that human beings are

04:17

fundamentally social animals who carve

04:22

out room for their individualism

04:26

this is very very important to think

04:28

about

04:29

right

04:31

liberalism is all about individualism

04:35

liberal theorists are known as social

04:38

contract theorists because they believe

04:42

that individuals come together and form

04:47

social contracts

04:49

so the focus is on the individual the

04:53

Assumption underpinning liberalism is

04:56

not that human beings are social animals

04:58

from the get-go

05:00

that's the first point

05:03

the second point is that liberalism

05:06

assumes that we cannot use our critical

05:10

faculties we cannot use reason to come

05:15

up with truth about first principles

05:17

think about issues like abortion

05:19

affirmative action you cannot get

05:23

Universal agreement on those issues

05:27

right and I'll talk about this more as

05:29

we go along but the roots of liberalism

05:31

are traced back in my opinion to the

05:35

religious wars in Britain between

05:37

Catholics and Protestants and the fact

05:39

is you cannot use your critical

05:41

faculties to determine whether

05:43

Catholicism is a superior religion to

05:45

protestantism or vice versa or whether

05:47

atheism is superior to both of them

05:50

where Judaism or islamist area to

05:53

Catholicism and protestantism who knows

05:57

right you just can't reach agreement

05:58

there are real limits

06:01

to what we can do with our critical

06:03

faculties okay so these are the two

06:06

Bedrock assumptions one you focus on the

06:09

individual

06:10

and number two you accept the fact that

06:13

you can't reach Universal agreement

06:15

now

06:18

central question how should politics be

06:21

arranged to deal with this potential for

06:24

violence and you say yourself what does

06:26

he mean potential for violence the fact

06:28

is that Catholics and Protestants were

06:30

killing each other in huge numbers not

06:32

only in Britain but all over Europe

06:35

people today she is in sunnis kill each

06:38

other because they can't agree on

06:39

whether she has a sonism is the correct

06:42

interpretation of Islam

06:45

Communists versus liberals people can't

06:48

agree on first principles and when they

06:50

can't agree on first principles if they

06:52

feel really strongly about them there is

06:54

potential for violence

06:57

so when you have all these individuals

06:58

running around

07:01

who

07:02

don't agree they may agree in some cases

07:05

but don't universally agree

07:07

there's tremendous potential for

07:09

violence

07:10

so liberalism is basically an ideology

07:12

that's based on conflict and the

07:14

question is how do you solve that

07:16

conflict

07:19

there's a three-part solution and this

07:22

should be dear to all of your hearts

07:24

the first is

07:27

you focus on individual rights remember

07:30

the importance of the individual

07:32

you know the Declaration of Independence

07:34

life liberty and the pursuit of

07:36

happiness

07:37

those are natural rights those are

07:39

inalienable rights this means that every

07:42

person on the planet has a particular

07:45

set of Rights

07:47

sometimes defined as freedoms

07:49

this is to say you if you want to be

07:53

Protestant have the right to practice

07:57

that religion and if I want to be a

08:00

Catholic I have the freedom I have the

08:03

right to be a Catholic

08:05

the name of the game is to recognize

08:08

that everybody has these freedoms to

08:11

choose

08:13

this makes perfect sense when you think

08:14

about Catholics killing Protestants

08:16

right or Jews killing Muslims or

08:18

whatever group you want atheists killing

08:20

believers

08:21

communist killing

08:24

whatever right the point is you want to

08:27

focus on the individual and let the

08:29

individual choose for him or herself

08:31

what kind of Life they want to lead you

08:35

want to let them lead as much as

08:37

possible their version of The Good Life

08:39

and very important every person on the

08:43

planet

08:44

has that right

08:46

and let me get ahead of myself here just

08:48

put this seed in your brain If you focus

08:52

on individualism and inalienable rights

08:55

you go almost automatically from an

08:59

individualistic ideology to a

09:02

universalistic ideology

09:05

right because again you're focusing on

09:07

the individual you're saying every

09:09

individual has a set of Rights every

09:11

individual on the planet that

09:13

individualistic

09:15

ideology becomes a universalistic

09:17

ideology

09:19

but we're talking about

09:22

the individual here the second is you

09:25

purvey the norm of Tolerance

09:28

we talk about tolerance all the time

09:30

universities are really big on tolerance

09:33

we're supposed to tolerate opinions that

09:36

we don't like

09:38

you bring in speakers or you allow

09:40

speakers to come in who say things that

09:42

you find reprehensible

09:45

right tolerance really matters

09:48

but the fact is the tolerance only takes

09:51

you so far because you're dealing with

09:53

people who sometimes are so committed to

09:56

their beliefs

09:57

you know somebody who believes that

09:59

abortion is murder is willing to murder

10:01

a Doctor Who practices abortion right so

10:05

you need a state that's the third

10:07

element of the equation you need a state

10:10

that's effectively a night Watchman that

10:13

makes sure that those people over there

10:15

who want to live as Protestants don't

10:17

attack those people who want to live as

10:19

Catholics or vice versa this is the

10:21

liberal solution this is what America is

10:24

all about

10:25

individualism we talk about it all the

10:28

time we talk about rights everybody has

10:30

rights my kids over the years have

10:33

always reminded me when I tell them that

10:35

they have to do X Y and Z that they have

10:37

rights

10:38

and I cannot interfere with their rights

10:42

right that's the way we're educated from

10:44

the get-go and of course we're a

10:46

remarkably tolerant people as societies

10:49

go not completely but that's of course

10:52

why we have a state

10:54

right you gotta have a police force

10:57

you've got to have a system of Courts

10:59

right so that's that's what liberalism

11:03

is all about right liberalism focuses on

11:06

the individual right pervades the norm

11:09

of Tolerance and accepts the fact that

11:11

you need a night Watchman State now

11:13

let's talk about nationalism

11:15

different animal

11:18

nationalism is based on the assumption

11:21

that human beings are social animals

11:24

we are born and we are heavily

11:27

socialized into tribes

11:30

we are not born in the state of nature

11:33

we are not individuals born and left

11:37

alone in the woods we are born into

11:40

groups we are very tribal

11:44

so you see in terms of starting

11:46

assumptions or Bedrock assumptions what

11:48

underpins nationalism what underpins

11:50

liberalism very very different

11:52

and individualism takes a back seat to

11:56

group loyalty

11:58

right

11:59

somebody around the world kills an

12:01

American

12:03

Isis kills an American it's

12:05

fundamentally different

12:07

than killing a Saudi or killing a Brit

12:09

because you're killing one of us

12:13

this is the tribe right you're an

12:15

American

12:16

Americans look out for other Americans

12:18

we're social animals from the get-go

12:22

and aside from the family the most

12:25

important group remember I said that

12:27

you're born into and heavily socialized

12:30

into particular groups putting aside the

12:32

family the most important group in

12:35

today's world

12:37

is the nation

12:39

I'll say more about that in a second

12:42

what's nationalism here's my simple

12:44

definition

12:45

it's a set of political beliefs

12:47

which holds

12:49

that a nation a nation a body of

12:53

individuals with characteristics that

12:57

purportedly distinguish them from other

13:00

groups should have their own state

13:04

think of the word nation state nation

13:07

state nation state embodies what

13:09

nationalism is all about it says the

13:12

world is divided up into these tribes

13:13

called Nations and each one of them

13:15

wants its own state

13:17

if you think about the world today just

13:19

look at a map of the world today it is

13:22

completely covered with nation states

13:26

nothing but nation states if you went

13:28

back to 1450 and you looked at a map of

13:30

Europe there isn't even a single state

13:32

on that map over time the growth of the

13:36

state and then the growth of the

13:37

nation-state

13:39

you move to a world that is filled with

13:42

nothing but nation states

13:43

look at the Palestinians and the

13:46

Israelis the Jews

13:48

who believed in Zionism

13:51

what is Zionism all about it's all about

13:53

having your own Jewish State Theodore

13:57

herzl who's the follower of Zionism his

13:59

most famous book is called the Jewish

14:01

State Jewish nation state what do the

14:05

Palestinians want two-state solution

14:07

Palestinians want their own State

14:10

Palestinians are Nation they want their

14:12

own state

14:13

the planet is filled with Nations many

14:16

of which have their own state

14:19

almost all of which want their own State

14:23

nation state right that's what

14:25

nationalism is all about

14:28

taking a step further

14:30

Nations Place enormous importance on

14:34

sovereignty

14:36

or self-determination

14:38

which is why they want their own State

14:40

the Palestinians don't want the Israelis

14:42

deciding

14:45

what their politics should look like

14:46

Palestinians want their own State Jews

14:49

want their own State Germans want their

14:51

own state

14:52

Americans want their own state

14:55

because they believe in sovereignty you

14:57

saw this with Donald Trump remember

14:59

Donald Trump ran in the campaign on a

15:03

platform that he referred to as America

15:05

first

15:07

just think about that America First

15:09

America

15:10

particular Nation

15:12

take care of us first and he has made it

15:14

very clear that he does not want anybody

15:16

interfering in our sovereignty and he

15:18

was saying yesterday he doesn't think we

15:20

should be interfering in the sovereignty

15:21

of other countries

15:23

right that's recognition of the power of

15:25

nationalism

15:27

so Nations

15:30

want their own State and then once you

15:32

get nation states they Place enormous

15:34

importance on sovereignty or

15:36

self-determination who are these

15:38

Russians to be interfering in our

15:39

elections the United States is a

15:41

sovereign country no country like Russia

15:44

or any other country for that matter has

15:46

the right to interfere in our elections

15:49

the basic argument here that's what

15:50

nationalism is really all about

15:54

okay so you get a feel for the

15:56

difference between liberalism and

15:57

nationalism liberalism focuses on the

16:00

individual

16:01

and therefore because it emphasizes

16:03

individual rights which everybody has

16:06

has a universalistic dimension

16:09

nationalism is particularistic at the

16:12

core

16:13

right fundamentally different

16:17

okay so what's liberal hegemony I've

16:19

given you the definition

16:21

of liberalism and the definition of

16:24

nationalism that I've worked out let me

16:26

talk a little bit about liberal hegemony

16:29

it's basically an attempt to remake the

16:31

world in America's image

16:34

it has three components

16:37

first is

16:38

spreading liberal democracy all over the

16:42

globe and the reason that I put three

16:44

stars

16:45

up there is it is the most important of

16:48

the three

16:50

this is the idea that we want to turn

16:53

every country into a liberal democracy

16:56

we want every country on the planet to

16:58

have the same political system that we

16:59

do here in the United States

17:02

second goal is we want to integrate more

17:05

and more countries into the open

17:07

International economy

17:10

this is where we have an emphasis on

17:11

free trade lots of economic intercourse

17:14

right free Capital flows and so forth

17:18

and so on you know the whole story

17:20

and then third is we want to integrate

17:22

more and more countries into

17:24

International institutions like the

17:26

World Trade Organization the IMF NATO

17:29

think NATO expansion the TPP

17:32

trans-pacific partnership which the

17:34

Obama Administration was building in

17:37

which president Trump

17:40

cashiered okay the liberal

17:44

story places a great emphasis on

17:46

institutions it places a great emphasis

17:50

on an open International economy and

17:54

most importantly on spreading democracy

17:55

just to give you a feel for this Donald

17:57

Trump ran against liberal hegemony

18:02

right and liberal hegemony to be clear

18:04

was supported by both Republicans and

18:06

Democrats as I like to say the

18:08

Republicans especially but the Democrats

18:10

also like to make the argument that

18:11

there's a big difference between the two

18:13

parties on foreign policy this is not a

18:15

serious argument this is Tweedledee and

18:17

Tweedledum hardly any difference between

18:19

the Republicans and the Democrats

18:21

there's a real difference between Donald

18:23

Trump and both of them remember Donald

18:25

Trump ran the table in the Republican

18:28

primaries by criticizing the Republicans

18:31

performance on the foreign policy front

18:33

for decades and criticizing the

18:35

Democrats in the general election Donald

18:38

Trump said I'm not interested in

18:39

spreading liberal democracy across the

18:42

globe and in fact he was quite

18:43

comfortable

18:44

making nice with dictators second he was

18:49

not interested in supporting an open

18:51

International economy in fact he is

18:54

showing today that he is willing to put

18:57

tariffs on China Canada and our European

19:00

allies and as far as International

19:02

institutions are concerned he said NATO

19:04

is obsolete he was

19:08

contemptuous of the World Trade

19:10

Organization contemptuous of the

19:13

European Union does not like the IMF

19:15

does not like the World Bank does not

19:17

like NAFTA cashiered the TPP that's

19:21

that's Donald Trump he ran against this

19:23

but Obama George W bush Bill Clinton

19:26

George H.W bush they embraced this after

19:29

the Cold War ended

19:31

and by the way it was the failure of

19:34

this policy it's the failure of American

19:36

policy that helped put Donald Trump in

19:38

the White House

19:39

for those of you who say to yourself how

19:41

could this man have ever been elected

19:43

president of the United States I'm

19:45

telling you an important part of the

19:46

story

19:47

right it's the failure of the foreign

19:49

policy Elites in this country

19:51

to produce over the past

19:54

30 years

19:56

okay

19:57

what are the benefits of liberal

19:58

hegemony this is very important

20:01

in other words why did we go down this

20:03

road in part is due to the fact that

20:06

foreign policy Elites in the United

20:08

States had a story to tell about how

20:09

this was going to lead to all sorts of

20:11

wonderful consequences first of all if

20:14

you turn every country on the planet

20:16

into a liberal democracy you basically

20:19

eliminate significant human rights

20:20

violations we don't need r2p or any more

20:23

of these policies that are designed to

20:25

run around the world protecting human

20:27

rights because human rights are no

20:29

longer threatened because the world is

20:31

comprised of nothing but liberal

20:32

democracies second and maybe even more

20:35

importantly

20:36

liberals tend to believe and again I'm

20:38

using liberals to include Democrats and

20:40

Republicans they believe in what's

20:41

called Democratic peace theory that is

20:43

that liberal democracies don't fight

20:44

each other so if you can create a world

20:46

of nothing but liberal democracies

20:49

they don't fight each other peace breaks

20:51

out

20:52

and problems like proliferation and

20:54

terrorism are taken off the table and

20:56

it's just the world peace love and dope

20:58

can't get much better than that right

21:00

and then finally it makes the world safe

21:02

for Liberal democracy as you all know

21:04

inside every liberal democracy there are

21:06

going to be elements who don't like

21:08

liberal democracy

21:09

when I was a kid this was the Communist

21:11

Party in the United States well if

21:13

there's no Soviet Union out there that's

21:15

a communist state that can interact with

21:17

those Communists in the United States

21:19

that you don't have to worry about those

21:21

Communists in the United States getting

21:22

support from abroad so what we do is we

21:25

make the whole planet

21:27

nothing but liberal democracies and that

21:29

really ameliorates the problems that any

21:31

of these liberal democracies have on the

21:33

home front because there's no foreign

21:35

power that can assist them this is a

21:36

Woodrow wilson-like argument made by the

21:38

likes of George Bush right so these are

21:41

the three great benefits of liberal

21:44

hegemony and this is what propelled

21:47

people to pursue this policy of remaking

21:50

the world in America's image which

21:53

mainly means spreading liberal democracy

21:56

now why did the U.S pursue liberal

21:58

hegemony

22:00

first of all as I said to you folks

22:02

before the United States is a profoundly

22:04

liberal country

22:05

it makes the United States a wonderful

22:07

place

22:08

you should understand here

22:10

that I am not arguing that liberalism is

22:14

a Bad Thing period end of story I

22:16

actually think that liberal democracy is

22:18

the best political system you can

22:20

possibly have and I thank my lucky stars

22:23

that I was born in the United States of

22:25

America a liberal democracy and raised

22:27

in a liberal democracy I would want it

22:29

no other way

22:31

my argument is that liberal democracy is

22:34

the best of all possible political

22:36

systems that you can have but as a

22:38

foreign policy

22:40

liberalism is bankrupt right so you

22:43

understand the argument I'm making here

22:45

but this is a fundamentally liberal

22:46

country and realists like me John

22:49

Schuster Jason Castillo they can tell

22:51

you this realists like me and them have

22:54

a tough time in America because liberals

22:57

don't like realists right that's why so

22:59

many people don't like me right because

23:01

I'm a realist on foreign policy grounds

23:04

right right so this is a profoundly

23:06

liberal country and just to go back to

23:09

that slide

23:10

when you start trying to sell these

23:13

kinds of arguments in the early 1990s

23:15

it's very easy to do

23:17

America is just gravitate to these

23:19

arguments because it is a liberal

23:22

country

23:23

second

23:24

American nationalism supplied an

23:28

unhealthy dose of hubris to the equation

23:32

this is a very important part of the

23:34

story

23:35

John told you that nationalism is the

23:38

most powerful political ideology on the

23:40

planet

23:41

what I'm telling you also I didn't say

23:43

this before I'm going to tell you now

23:44

the United States is a very

23:46

nationalistic country if you go to the

23:49

library here University of Chicago

23:51

Harvard you name it right there are

23:53

whole wings of the library that are

23:55

filled with books about American

23:56

liberalism

23:57

there is probably one shelf worth of

24:00

books on American nationalism because we

24:02

never talk about ourselves as a

24:04

nationalistic country we are very

24:06

nationalistic let me just say a few

24:08

words about this Madeleine Albright

24:10

canonical liberal right loves liberal

24:14

hegemony is famous for saying this

24:17

America is the indispensable Nation

24:22

we stand taller and we see further

24:26

this is pure unadulterated nationalism

24:29

America is America as opposed to the

24:33

other

24:34

right that America is the indispensable

24:38

there's the word Nation Nation as a

24:40

nationalism we we are the indispensable

24:44

Nation we stand taller and we see

24:48

further

24:49

we are superior you all know we're the

24:52

city on the hill right we have the right

24:55

we have the responsibility and we have

24:59

the capability to transform countries

25:01

all around the world into liberal

25:04

democracies

25:06

nationalism

25:07

so what I'm saying to you here

25:10

oh let me just give you another example

25:12

American exceptionalism you surely all

25:14

believe in American exceptionalism and

25:16

if any of you plan to run for political

25:18

office in the United States you better

25:20

say you believe in American

25:22

exceptionalism Andrew Cuomo just got

25:24

himself in trouble for denying that and

25:27

Barack Obama flirted with that argument

25:29

and he quickly backed off

25:32

well if you believe in American

25:33

exceptionalism you believe in American

25:35

nationalism because exceptionalism is

25:37

what nationalism is all about

25:41

so what you have here is a country

25:44

that is

25:46

fueled by both nationalism and

25:49

liberalism

25:51

right

25:52

so it is hardly surprising that this

25:56

country is going to go on a rampage and

25:59

try to remake the world

26:01

and then finally and this is a very

26:03

important part of my argument I believe

26:06

you can only pursue liberal hegemony in

26:09

unipolarity

26:11

the reason is if you're in bipolarity or

26:14

multi-polarity

26:15

you have other you have other great

26:18

powers to deal with and you have to act

26:21

according to the dictates of realism

26:24

right bipolarity means two great Powers

26:27

multi-polarity three or more unipolarity

26:29

there's only one great power well if

26:32

there's only one great power

26:33

you don't have to worry about great

26:35

parapolitics this is where the United

26:36

States was at the end of the Cold War we

26:39

were Godzilla

26:40

we were incredibly powerful relative to

26:42

everybody else in the system

26:45

tremendous amounts of power Charles

26:47

Krauthammer called this the unipolar

26:48

moment

26:49

so here we are we're incredibly powerful

26:51

and we think that liberal democracy is

26:54

the wave of the future we think we have

26:56

the wind in our back and we think the

26:58

idea of spreading liberal democracy

27:00

given how powerful we are it's going to

27:02

be easy and we don't have to worry about

27:04

balance of power politics 1991 the

27:06

Soviet Union disappears

27:09

it was a weak lean even before it

27:11

disappeared China hasn't risen yet

27:12

there's nobody else out there we have to

27:14

worry about the balance of power so we

27:16

are free to pursue liberal hegemony if

27:18

you're in a bipolar system or a

27:20

multi-polar system I'm getting way ahead

27:21

of myself now think rise of China think

27:24

resurrection of Russian power

27:26

not much room for Liberal hegemony

27:28

you're talking about balance of power

27:30

politics pivot to Asia dot dot dot you

27:33

know the story but here if you have

27:35

unipolarity and the sole pole that's

27:38

Uncle sugar the soul pole is profoundly

27:41

liberal right and profoundly

27:44

nationalistic you're Off to the Races

27:47

and that's what happened in starting in

27:50

the early 1990s

27:54

yeah liberal hegemities track record

27:56

just want to talk a little bit about

27:57

this these are the failures of American

28:00

foreign policy

28:02

talk about the Bush Doctrine and the

28:04

greater Middle East Afghanistan

28:06

you think we're going to turn

28:07

Afghanistan into a liberal democracy

28:09

just a question when we turn it back

28:11

over to the Taliban uh longest war in

28:14

American history

28:15

Iraq total disaster led to the creation

28:19

of Isis hundreds of thousands of people

28:22

died

28:23

uh

28:25

Iran now has significant influence in

28:28

Iraq

28:29

Syria we played a key role in unsettling

28:32

the regime in Syria that's worked out

28:35

really well

28:36

Libya we played a key role in toppling

28:40

Colonel Gaddafi power that's really

28:43

worked out very well we're deeply

28:45

involved in the war in Yemen now which

28:47

is a human rights catastrophe the

28:50

Americans ought to be embarrassed

28:52

for their disgraceful Behavior

28:54

supporting this war supporting the

28:56

Saudis

28:57

you look at our track record in the

28:59

greater Middle East failure after

29:01

failure and Donald Trump to his credit

29:03

pointed this out in the campaign and the

29:05

American people fully understand this

29:07

the Elites in this country don't because

29:09

they're deeply invested in these wars

29:12

but

29:14

disable track record uh the Ukraine

29:17

crisis and U.S Russia relations of

29:20

course

29:21

inside the elite we blame the Russians

29:23

the Americans never blame themselves for

29:25

anything but actually what happened here

29:28

is that the United States decided when

29:31

the Cold War ended that we would take

29:33

NATO and we would take the EU and we

29:37

would March them Eastward right up to

29:39

the border of Russia

29:41

and what we would do is we would help

29:44

solidify

29:46

the democracies that had emerged in

29:49

Eastern Europe after the Cold War we

29:52

would get the countries in Eastern

29:54

Europe embedded in international

29:56

institutions like NATO and the EU we

30:00

would get them hooked on capitalism and

30:03

we would make sure they were liberal

30:05

democracies by the way those countries

30:07

that weren't liberal democracies we

30:09

would foment revolutions remember the

30:12

orange revolution in Ukraine the rose

30:16

Revolution

30:18

in Georgia right it's a whole part of a

30:22

piece it's all part of this story

30:24

right realist like me George Cannon we

30:27

all said are you crazy you think you

30:29

could take a military Alliance that was

30:31

a mortal enemy of the Soviet Union

30:33

during the Cold War and March it right

30:35

up to the Russian's border and they're

30:37

just going to sit there and take it and

30:38

of course the Russians screamed buddy

30:40

murder about NATO expansion from 1995

30:43

forward

30:44

we didn't listen

30:46

right but it eventually blew up in our

30:49

face Georgia 2008 Ukraine 2014. we are

30:54

principally responsible for creating the

30:57

crisis that led to Russia recapturing

31:01

Crimea or capturing Crimea depending on

31:04

your view and for the war in Ukraine

31:06

today the Russians have basically said

31:07

you're not going to make Ukraine a

31:09

western bulwark on our border not going

31:12

to happen we'll wreck it before we let

31:14

that happen and they said the same thing

31:16

about Georgia from an American point of

31:19

view this makes Emily good sense you've

31:20

all heard of the Monroe Doctrine right

31:22

you know what the Monroe Doctrine says

31:23

no distant great power from Europe or

31:25

East Asia is allowed to come in to the

31:28

Western Hemisphere with military force

31:30

and form an alliance with any country in

31:32

this region

31:34

that's that's the Monroe Doctrine

31:37

I'm old enough to remember the Cuban

31:38

Missile Crisis we went ballistic when we

31:41

found out the Soviets had put missiles

31:43

in Cuba and then later they were talking

31:45

about building a naval base at Cien

31:47

fuegos who do these people think they

31:49

are don't they understand that this is

31:50

the Western Hemisphere they are not

31:53

allowed

31:54

to move military forces into this region

31:56

we still have sanctions on Cuba

32:00

God knows how many years since 1959 this

32:03

has been going on because the Cubans had

32:05

the audacity to form a military alliance

32:08

with a distant great power well as my

32:09

mother taught me when I was a little boy

32:11

what's good for the goose is good for

32:12

the gander if we can have a Monroe

32:14

Doctrine are you shocked that they had a

32:16

Monroe Doctrine or they have a Monroe

32:18

Doctrine you're shocked that the

32:19

Russians don't like the idea of us

32:21

marching NATO right up to their border

32:23

you shouldn't be

32:26

you shouldn't be great Powers I can tell

32:28

you from studying a lot of military

32:29

history are remarkably sensitive about

32:31

their borders and the idea that an enemy

32:34

is going to creep right up to their

32:35

borders and they're just going to stand

32:36

there and say oh that's okay

32:39

we live in a world of peace love and

32:40

dope that's not the way International

32:42

politics works that's realism 101

32:47

slamming liberal

32:49

hegemony it's also all about nationalism

32:52

right because the United States is

32:55

interested in interfering in the

32:56

politics of both Russia and China and

32:59

this brings us to engagement with China

33:01

our goal from the beginning has been to

33:04

turn China into a liberal democracy that

33:06

involves interfering with their politics

33:08

do you think they were happy about that

33:10

no they weren't

33:11

let's go back to the goose and the

33:13

gander you've been watching all these

33:16

Americans screaming bloody murder about

33:17

the fact the Russians are interfering in

33:19

our election well don't you think the

33:21

Chinese and the Russians are going to

33:22

scream bloody murder when we try and

33:24

interfere in their politics they are

33:26

surprise of surprises

33:30

but of course liberals and here I'm

33:32

again I'm talking about Republicans and

33:34

Democrats the U.S is a benign hegemon

33:36

we're benign hegemon we only have good

33:38

intentions and we just want to make the

33:40

world look like us and of course once

33:42

that happens we all live happily ever

33:44

after didn't work out that way just look

33:46

at that giant disaster Zone called the

33:49

Middle East look at the hundreds and

33:52

hundreds of thousands of people who've

33:53

died we have a lot of blood on our hands

33:57

U.S Russian relations we bear principle

34:00

responses the principal responsibility

34:02

for the deterioration of those relations

34:04

and with regard to engagement it's been

34:06

a failure

34:08

principal Architects like Kurt Campbell

34:10

now admit that's true we failed right

34:13

the policy has been an abject failure

34:17

so the question is why did it fail

34:20

I'm not going to go into this any detail

34:22

but

34:24

power of nationalism

34:26

right

34:27

I was one of the leading opponents there

34:30

weren't many uh

34:32

in the sort of foreign policy

34:34

establishment

34:35

I was one of the leading opponents of

34:38

the Iraq War I think it was because I

34:40

was in the American Military from 1965

34:42

to 1975 which was coterminous with the

34:45

Vietnam War and when I heard that these

34:47

people were thinking about invading Iraq

34:50

he said if they lost their mind right

34:52

there's no question the United States

34:54

military is an incredibly formidable

34:56

fighting force and we can topple regimes

34:58

almost anywhere in the world maybe China

35:01

and Russia left out we can go into Iran

35:03

go in Iraq go into Syrian topple regimes

35:06

but the problem is what do you do once

35:07

you own the place right what do you do

35:10

you agree that as a liberator the first

35:13

day week maybe even the first month

35:16

right all sorts of people were glad we

35:18

got rid of Saddam Hussein but then we

35:19

got to stay to do social engineering and

35:23

this is a prescription for big trouble

35:24

remember what I told you about

35:25

sovereignty remember what I told you

35:26

about self-determination you think the

35:28

Iraqis wanted us telling them what color

35:29

toilet paper they could use I don't

35:31

think they liked it at all and we had

35:34

resistance serious resistance

35:38

you want to wreck Russia tell them to

35:40

invade Ukraine that'll be pretty

35:42

let them go with the Latvia Lithuanian

35:44

Estonia let him re-establish the Soviet

35:46

Empire in Eastern Europe you think

35:47

that'll make them more powerful they'll

35:49

be up to their eyeballs and alligators

35:53

I remember in 1979 the Soviets invaded

35:56

Afghanistan virtually everybody in the

35:59

National Community security Community

36:01

was aghast oh my God the Soviets are on

36:03

the March this is the end of the world I

36:05

said you've got it all wrong they just

36:07

jumped into a giant tar pit

36:09

when you're involved in an arms race

36:11

with a country like the Soviet Union

36:12

what you want them to do is go in

36:14

Afghanistan just like you want us to go

36:16

into Vietnam you want to do that one

36:18

again

36:19

almost tore this country apart

36:22

almost wrecked our military

36:26

whoo

36:28

I told the Chinese when I first started

36:30

going there in the early 2000s but you

36:32

ought to tell the Americans you're

36:33

counting on them to win the war on

36:35

terror tell them they got to stay in

36:37

Afghanistan and Iraq until they win the

36:39

war they'll be there forever grinding up

36:42

their military wrecking their economy

36:44

you know what the lesson here is stay

36:46

out of those places unless you

36:48

absolutely have to go in but we had

36:50

exactly the opposite world view because

36:52

we had a foreign policy that's based on

36:55

liberalism

36:56

right we thought we had a right

36:57

responsibility and the capability to do

36:59

all the social engineering power of

37:01

nationalism you never want to

37:03

underestimate it and you want to

37:04

understand that as Americans you are

37:06

very nationalistic and you ain't special

37:09

everybody else on the planet is very

37:12

nationalistic and nationalism is all

37:14

about self-determination and sovereignty

37:16

and if you don't like people interfering

37:17

in your politics don't be surprised if

37:19

they don't like you interfering in their

37:23

politics

37:24

talk about the power of realism

37:26

again when you're dealing with China and

37:29

you're dealing with Russia you're

37:31

dealing with very powerful countries and

37:32

you start moving military alliances you

37:34

start moving military forces up to their

37:37

borders you get in their face you're

37:39

asking for serious trouble right just

37:42

talk to the Chinese sometime about how

37:44

they think about those American Naval

37:45

and Air Forces right off their Coast it

37:48

really bothers them they don't like it

37:51

at all I don't blame them

37:54

right as an American I'm glad we're

37:55

there I want to contain the Chinese well

37:58

you're very clear about that I'm a

38:00

realist

38:01

realist I I don't

38:03

want to cut the Chinese any slack

38:05

but I understand why they get upset

38:08

but again liberal hegemony doesn't by

38:11

that line of argument

38:13

now I want to talk about overselling

38:14

individual rights in a liberal

38:16

liberalism just very quickly on

38:18

overselling individual rights

38:21

the fact is that we make a really big

38:23

deal about the importance of Rights here

38:26

in the United States

38:28

but if you look around the world

38:30

most people don't really think that

38:33

individual rights matter that much and a

38:36

thoroughly liberal country like the

38:38

United States you can sell that kind of

38:40

argument up to a point

38:42

it's very hard to do abroad especially

38:45

in countries where people price security

38:48

if you go to Russia Today

38:50

and you talk to people about liberal

38:53

democracy and rights they will tell you

38:55

almost all of them we tried that in the

38:58

1990s and Russia was turned into the

39:01

wild west we're much happier with Putin

39:05

and the political system that we have

39:06

soft authoritarianism is much more

39:09

suited for us and we don't care that

39:12

much about rights we have some rights we

39:14

understand their limits but we don't

39:16

want your political system we've been

39:17

there we tried that it didn't work

39:20

so what I'm saying to you is in a lot of

39:23

countries

39:24

when you invade them and you think you

39:26

can do social engineering all for the

39:29

purpose of turning them into liberal

39:30

democracies what you discover in almost

39:33

all those cases is that being turned

39:35

into a liberal democracy where

39:37

individual rights are prized is not that

39:41

important it's not to say it's

39:43

unimportant but people are just not

39:46

craving for individual rights and in

39:48

many cases they're just craving for

39:50

stability if you're an Iraqi and it's

39:53

2003 and Uncle sugar pays you a visit he

39:56

topples the regime right and then chaos

39:59

breaks out over the next couple years

40:02

you're not going to be worried too much

40:03

about creating a liberal democracy

40:05

you're not going to be worried too much

40:06

about individual rights you're just

40:09

going to be worried about what you can

40:10

do to stabilize the country so that you

40:12

and your family don't get killed right

40:14

so you just want to understand that

40:17

we tend to oversell individual rights

40:20

and when you marry that with the power

40:22

of nationalism and the power of realism

40:23

you get into real trouble my final Point

40:25

has to do with the Liberal Liberal

40:27

illiberal liberalism

40:31

remember when I told you about

40:32

liberalism to begin with

40:34

I told you that liberalism was

40:37

predicated on the assumption that you

40:40

could not reach Universal agreement on

40:44

first principles remember I told you

40:47

that

40:47

and therefore you develop sort of a Live

40:50

and Let Live

40:52

political order that's what liberalism

40:54

is

40:55

it's a modus the vendai form of politics

40:59

you'll let people decide for themselves

41:00

if he wants to be a Protestant I want to

41:02

be a Catholic he wants to be a Jew I

41:05

want to be a Muslim you let people do

41:07

what they want

41:08

okay

41:10

because you can't reach Universal

41:12

agreement

41:13

if you you think about it liberal

41:15

hegemony

41:16

is based on intolerance it says

41:20

everybody has to be a liberal democracy

41:24

my view is if you have soft

41:26

authoritarianism in Russia so what

41:30

that's their choice

41:33

why can't they have a soft authoritarian

41:35

system why do we have to say everybody

41:38

has to look like us

41:40

isn't this antithetical to the basic

41:42

liberal Enterprise

41:44

I think the answer is yes

41:47

case for restraint very quickly

41:51

uh

41:52

if I'm running foreign policy

41:56

and you can rest assured that will never

41:58

happen but if I was running American

42:01

foreign policy from the early 90s

42:04

forward I would have pursued a policy of

42:06

restraint

42:07

uh I would have abandoned liberal

42:09

hegemony

42:10

uh

42:12

uh which mainly means abandoning the

42:15

policy of spreading democracy around the

42:17

world

42:18

okay I think that that was the key

42:21

mistake that we made

42:23

right we we thought that liberal

42:25

democracy was going to take root

42:27

everywhere

42:28

for those of you you young people who

42:30

haven't read Frank fukiama or Francis

42:32

fukuyama's famous article the end of

42:34

History you really should read it the

42:36

two most important articles that were

42:38

written when the Cold War ended were

42:39

Francis fukuyama is the end of history

42:41

and Charles krauthammers the unipolar

42:44

moment and basically what Frank fukuyama

42:47

said is that we spent the first half of

42:49

the 20th century defeating fascism we

42:52

spent the second half defeating

42:53

communism and now the

42:56

we had won those two battles all that

42:59

was really left standing was liberal

43:01

democracy and the world was slowly but

43:03

steadily going to evolve into a system

43:06

of liberal democracies and Frank says at

43:08

the very end of the piece that the

43:09

biggest problem that we're going to face

43:11

in the future is probably boredom

43:14

boredom why boredom because once you

43:16

have a world that's populated by all

43:17

liberal democracies you get peace

43:21

uh and Krauthammer wrote this piece

43:24

called the unit polar moment that he

43:26

said this is a unique moment in world

43:29

history in the United States is by far

43:31

the most powerful State on the planet we

43:33

have this tremendous military and we

43:35

ought to use it to reshape the world in

43:37

our own interest you marry krauthammers

43:40

argument with fukiyama's argument

43:42

fukuyama says we've got the wind at the

43:44

our back

43:46

Kraut Hammer says we have this big stick

43:48

that we can use to facilitate the

43:50

process and you're Off to the Races

43:52

right and this of course is exactly what

43:55

happens but I would have abandoned that

43:57

and I would have concentrated instead on

44:00

maintaining a favorable Global balance

44:02

of power

44:03

which mainly means containing the rise

44:06

of China right as you would expect from

44:09

a realist like me what I really care

44:11

about is not what kind of political

44:12

system a state has I just care how much

44:14

power it has and my principal goal as an

44:18

American is to make sure we are the most

44:20

powerful State on the planet

44:22

and as many of you know in my lexicon

44:24

that means to make sure we are hegemon

44:26

in the region in the Western Hemisphere

44:28

we want to be a regional hegemon on the

44:30

Western Hemisphere and make sure that

44:32

there is no hegemon in Europe or in East

44:35

Asia or in the Gulf

44:37

right so I believe in Primacy that's my

44:40

definition of Primacy to be the most

44:42

powerful state in the system but I'm not

44:44

interested to go back to my first point

44:46

in spreading liberal democracy again I

44:48

think liberal democracy is a wonderful

44:50

thing if every state in the world was a

44:52

liberal democracy I think that would be

44:54

good for the people who live in those

44:55

countries but my view is because I

44:57

believe in sovereignty it's up to them

44:59

to decide what they want

45:01

uh

45:03

final point I want to make to you here

45:06

on this slide is liberalism abroad leads

45:09

to illiberalism at home

45:12

this is what the founding fathers

45:14

understood if you're in a permanent

45:16

state of War

45:17

right it's going to have consequences

45:19

for liberalism at home because you're

45:21

going to create a National Security

45:23

State and you're going to have a state

45:24

that spies on people and does all sorts

45:26

of other things

45:28

so I think from a point of view of civil

45:30

liberties this foreign policy is

45:33

bankrupt final final point

45:35

the end of liberal hegemony remember

45:38

what John said to you very early in the

45:40

talk

45:41

I said that you could only have liberal

45:44

hegemony in unipolarity because in

45:47

unipolarity the soul pole which is the

45:50

United States does not have to worry

45:52

about great power politics because by

45:55

definition you can't have great power

45:57

politics when there's only one great

45:58

power

46:00

well we are now transitioning out of

46:03

unipolarity into multiple Clarity this

46:06

is a very clearly reflected in a

46:09

document on the country's National

46:11

Security strategy that the White House

46:13

issued in December of 2017 and then the

46:16

Pentagon in January of 2018

46:20

issued a similar document on our

46:23

national security strategy in both these

46:25

documents make it clear that

46:26

multi-polarity is here that unipolarity

46:30

is over with and great power politics is

46:32

what we're going to be mainly concerned

46:33

with in the future and that has to do

46:36

with one the rise of China which I think

46:39

for all of you young people in the

46:40

audience will be the most important

46:42

issue of your lifetime and then the

46:45

second issue is the resurrection of

46:47

Russian power after Putin came to office

46:50

in 2000 Russia is a declining great

46:54

power you don't want to overestimate

46:57

Russian power right China is the real

47:00

threat to the United States here but

47:03

nevertheless the Russians are back and

47:05

the Russians have thousands of nuclear

47:07

weapons and they can cause us a lot of

47:08

trouble and we are at loggerheads with

47:11

them over the Ukraine crisis so we want

47:13

to pay them serious attention but what

47:16

I'm saying to you here

47:17

is that I think with the coming

47:22

of multi-polarity liberal hegemony will

47:26

go away

47:27

now if I'm wrong and we remain in a

47:31

unipolar world because the Chinese rise

47:34

doesn't continue and Russia begins to

47:37

fall apart again and we are once again

47:40

the unipole then we're back to arguing

47:43

against

47:44

liberal hegemony and making the case for

47:47

restraint but I don't think that people

47:49

like me are going to have to make the

47:52

case for restraint in the future in

47:54

large part because of the rise of China

47:57

I would say this is my concluding point

48:00

that I have very mixed emotions about

48:02

that on one hand I welcome the rise of

48:05

China and the resurrection of Russian

48:07

power because it means that liberal

48:10

hegemony is going away

48:12

but on the other hand what it means is

48:14

that the United States is now facing a

48:17

potential peer competitor and I think

48:20

all things considered I'd rather have

48:23

liberal hegemony as a problem to deal

48:26

with rather than have China and Russia

48:29

as twin problems to deal with thank you

48:33

thank you