Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions.
Richard N. Haass
Good people cannot fully compensate for bad process, but they can mitigate some of its worst tendencies.
Success in foreign policy, as in carpentry, requires the right tools for the job.
If Trump, for whatever reason, continues to coddle Russia, then Congress, the media, foundations, and academics should publicly detail the corruption that characterizes Putin's rule.
Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the most important national interests, a lack of promising alternatives to the use of force, and a certain and considerable price to be paid if the status quo is allowed to stand. Examples include World War II and the Korean War.
I believe in diplomacy; I don't believe in talking to... that talking to Iran somehow constitutes a concession or a favour.
Europeans must shed their illusions about what they can accomplish in the world on their own. Loose talk about resurrecting a multi-polar world is just that - loose talk.
Dissent is difficult. It can constitute a real dilemma for the person who disagrees.
It is difficult to think of a foreign policy issue that preoccupies and polarizes world opinion as much as the Palestinian question.
Speaking truth to power is actually a form of loyalty.
Unrestrained zeal to make the world better could make it worse. Promoting democracy must be undertaken with humility, care, and wisdom.
Diplomacy can and will matter; little is inevitable in international relations.
Indeed, in foreign policymaking, inconsistency is often a virtue. I speak not of principles but of policy.
To be sure, many of the Sykes-Picot borders reflected deals cut in Europe rather than local demographic or historical realities. But that hardly makes the Middle East unique: Most borders around the world owe their legacy less to thoughtful design or popular choice than to some mixture of violence, ambition, geography, and chance.
A China that trades extensively with the U.S. and its Asian neighbors will think twice before it pursues any policy that would place those relationships at risk. Likewise, trade between India and Pakistan could contribute to the normalization of ties between these long-estranged neighbors.
We all have some basic obligation to one another.
I am confident in saying that Oberlin did more for me than vice versa. I took a fantastic class in religion, which led me to archaeology, which got me to the Middle East, which led me to international relations, which launched me on my career.
The political world is defined by relationships rather than transactions, and by numerous actors at home and abroad with independent power. Navigating such a world is difficult and precarious.
Black markets exist any time there is a profit to be made.
Not every threat to America's national interests can be addressed with military power.
For too long, America tolerated a 'democratic exception' in the Muslim Middle East. As long as governments were friendly and backed regional stability, there was no need for outsiders to encourage representative government.
If old American alliance commitments don't count for as much, countries will, in some cases, then say, 'Well, we've got to militarize in certain ways and act more independently.'
In a world in which the United States does less, whatever set of calculations, other countries will tend to calculate - to move in one of two ways. Either they will assuage or, to use a more loaded term, appease the strongest power in the neighborhood with all the consequences of that, or they will determine to take matters into their own hands.
Living with a nuclear North Korea could give its leaders the confidence to act more aggressively versus South Korea. It could also, over time, drive both South Korea and Japan, as well as countries farther afield such as Vietnam, to reconsider their non-nuclear postures. The stability of a critical region of the world would suddenly be in doubt.
What countries must do to join the World Trade Organization is precisely what they must do to become productive and democratic: accept the rule of law, reduce corruption, and become open, accountable, and transparent.
American influence in the world depends on the ability to act with real capacity and set an example that others will want to follow. This all takes resources.
Democracy requires an informed citizenry able to question its government.
Terrorists and terrorism cannot be eliminated any more than we can rid the world of disease. There will always be those who will resort to force against innocent men, women, and children in pursuit of political goals.
September 11, 2001, was a terrible tragedy by any measure, but it was not a historical turning point. It did not herald a new era of international relations in which terrorists with a global agenda prevailed or in which such spectacular terrorist attacks became commonplace.
It is in the interest of Americans to find out what those wanting to be president think about a wide range of challenges and what they might do about them. We should want to get their take on the wisdom of past decisions, what they agree and disagree with, and why.
The Internet, one of the great inventions of the modern Western world, has shown itself to be a weapon that can be used to incite and train those who wish to cause harm to that world.
Trade is the all-but-forgotten weapon in the battle against poverty, but it can provide more help to the poor than aid can.
There is a clear norm against the spread of nuclear weapons, but there is no consensus or treaty on what, if anything, is to be done once a country develops or acquires nuclear weapons.
Homegrown terrorists are a real problem for even the most modern, democratic societies.
Modern terrorism is too destructive to be tolerated, much less supported.
America's armed forces are an essential background to much of what the U.S. accomplishes internationally.
Terrorism needs to be de-legitimized in the way that slavery has been. Doing so will make governments and individuals think twice before becoming a party to terrorism; it should also make it less difficult to garner support for international action against those who nevertheless carry it out.
Terrorism is a decentralized phenomenon - in its funding, planning, and execution.
Middle East history is replete with examples of missed and lost chances to make peace.
The U.S. does not want to live under the shadow of a North Korea that possesses long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to American cities. At the same time, the U.S. has no appetite for a war that would prove costly by every measure.
The Trump administration has been characterized by adhocracy during its initial months. The initiative limiting immigration is a case in point. The new policy was not vetted fully within the administration - indeed, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates first read the decision after the text of the new executive order was published online.
An open, market-oriented, and peaceful Iraq could also advance reform and growth across the entire region.
Generically, wars in necessity are wars where, I think, the vital interest of the nation are at stake, in which there are no viable alternatives to the use of force.
No one pursuing reasonable goals and who is prepared to compromise can argue that terrorism is his or his group's only option.
The horror and tragedy that was 9/11 did many things; one of them was to galvanize this country and much of the world against terrorists and those who support them.
Terrorists continue to be outliers with limited appeal at best.
Americans were happy to buy vast quantities of relatively inexpensive Chinese manufactured goods, demand for which provided jobs for the tens of millions of Chinese who moved from poor agricultural areas to new or rapidly expanding cities.
The abolition of the presidential term limit and President Xi Jinping's concentration of power have come as an unwelcome surprise to many.
Trump's foreign policy is not so much immoral as it is amoral.
It is important to signal that opposition to the use of any weapon of mass destruction is both deep and broad.
