PORTFOLIO PENGUIN

UK | USA | Canada | Ireland | Australia

India | New Zealand | South Africa

Portfolio Penguin is part of the Penguin Random House group of companies whose addresses can be found at global.penguinrandomhouse.com

First published in the United States of America by Portfolio/Penguin, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC 2015

First published in Great Britain by Portfolio Penguin 2015

This paperback edition with a new preface by Ian Bremmer published 2016

Copyright © Ian Bremmer, 2015, 2016

The moral right of the author has been asserted

Cover design: Pete Garceau

Cover image: Zentilia / Thinkstock

ISBN: 978-0-241-97144-4

TO WILLIS

Contents

PREFACE

Introduction

CHAPTER 1

Today’s World and Tomorrow’s

CHAPTER 2

Incoherent America

CHAPTER 3

Independent America

CHAPTER 4

Moneyball America

CHAPTER 5

Indispensable America

CHAPTER 6

Question Mark America

Conclusion

NOTES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FOLLOW PENGUIN

Preface

The world is fast becoming a much more dangerous place, and the question of how America should respond is hotly debated both at home and abroad. In the months since this book appeared in hardcover, the list of game-changing international news stories has only grown longer. China spooked the entire global economy in August 2015, and again in January 2016, when its benchmark Shanghai stock exchange seemed to be in free fall. A corruption investigation in Brazil panicked half its elected officials and upended the government. The wave of Middle Eastern refugees headed north and west toward Europe rose to new heights. ISIS raged on. Suicide bombings shifted the course of politics in Turkey. Russia joined the roster of combatants in Syria, its first military campaign outside former Soviet territory since the Cold War’s end, and then a Russian passenger plane exploded over Egypt. Days later, Paris suffered its deadliest terrorist attack in decades. As of this writing, Britain stands on the verge of a vote that will determine its future as a member of the European Union.

None of these developments threatened the United States directly. The U.S. economy continues its postcrisis recovery. Unemployment has fallen. The long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly over (at least as far as the United States is concerned). The United States is now the world’s number one producer of oil and natural gas. The impact of illegal immigration into the United States is nothing like the costs and risks facing Europe as governments and citizens struggle to cope with a million more Muslim migrants and the pressure they exert on local politics and Europe’s open borders. The Western Hemisphere remains the world’s most peaceful and stable region.

But though Americans can afford to watch the troubles of others from afar, at least for now, many of these conflicts expose the increasingly obvious limits of U.S. international influence. Washington seems unable to help manage the world’s emergencies. What should the next U.S. president do about that? Should he/she develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that democracy and freedom shape the emerging world order? Or is it the next president’s responsibility to take on new international risks and responsibilities only where and when it’s clear that Washington can strengthen U.S. security and prosperity? Or maybe it’s time to accept, at least temporarily, that U.S. interests are best served by redirecting resources now devoted to a superhero foreign policy toward America’s future by investing at home. All of these choices have strengths and weaknesses, but it’s crucial for Americans to choose a single coherent approach if we are to make best use of our limited resources. Events of the past six months have only made that choice a more urgent one.

Barack Obama has achieved some noteworthy things. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, the nuclear deal with Iran, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Cuba could all produce positive lasting results. But accomplishments alone don’t suggest a broader foreign policy strategy under construction or that Americans now better understand which responsibilities their country can and cannot afford to accept. Obama was elected in part to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without starting any new ones. The public has generally supported his cautious approach to military commitments. But the next president will have a much wider range of questions to answer.

Choosing the next president has been a particularly contentious process. The 2016 election has indeed become a referendum on America’s approach to the rest of the world. It has raised fundamental questions about burden-sharing with our allies, about when, where, and why we send troops overseas, about what it means to be the world’s most influential democracy and its largest free market economy.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, fist-shaking populists with little experience of, or interest in, foreign policy, made most of the headlines in 2016, often with verbal assaults on (what they say are) free-riding allies. Both men gripe that Washington pays too big a percentage of NATO’s bills. They agree that recent trade deals have cheated the American worker, though they explain the problem differently. Trump says that weak-kneed U.S. negotiators have made bad deals in recent years that allowed China, Mexico, Japan, and other countries to steal U.S. jobs and growth. Sanders counters that U.S. dealmakers are far from incompetent. Instead, they’re elites making deals with other elites to benefit elites. Both men’s views are grounded in resentment and suspicion.

But it’s Trump who has fundamentally changed the debate. He has no foreign policy experience, but he does have a coherent worldview, and conservative voters responded to it. It’s an approach I labeled “America First” during an interview in early 2016, without meaning it as a compliment, and I was more than a little surprised when Trump liked that formulation enough to adopt it for his campaign.¹ (Irony alert: I sent copies of the hardback version of this book to every campaign except his. Serves me right for being so wrong about his chances of winning the Republican nomination.)

Trump has offered a hyper-nationalist approach to foreign policy. Bomb ISIS into oblivion. Take the oil. Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Ban Muslims from the country. Stop acting like chumps. Threaten China, Mexico, and Japan with a trade war unless they give us more of what we want. Abandon alliances when allies don’t pay their fair share. No one can say this isn’t a strong view of America’s role in the world. It’s the clearest possible repudiation of the idea that Americans have a special responsibility to promote, protect, and defend democracy and freedom beyond U.S. borders. It’s grounded in the conviction that Washington can and should refuse to enter into agreements of any kind with any government that refuses to negotiate on the president’s terms.

That message resonates with Americans who have become increasingly skeptical that the world wants U.S. leadership—and, more important, that Washington’s international leadership benefits Americans. Many older voters worry that America has become a fundamentally different country than the one they were taught to be proud of, and younger voters didn’t grow up with Cold War–era assumptions about the need for America to lead. Political polarization between conservatives and progressives of all ages has intensified. Protests have grown angrier and uglier. All these factors make it more difficult for any president, elected by half the country, to build consensus for any coherent, long-term view of America’s role in tomorrow’s world. But without that consensus, we could see the disintegration of everything Americans have helped build since the end of World War II.

Outside of Trump and Sanders, most of the 2016 presidential candidates limited their foreign policy pronouncements to predictably broad generalizations. Republicans were eager to talk foreign policy as a means of attacking Hillary Clinton’s record as Obama’s secretary of state. But when asked whether and how they might use U.S. power in the Middle East or in response to China’s rise or Russian aggression, most of them fell back on empty boasts and boilerplate blah blah blah about America’s timeless greatness. They refused to acknowledge limits, risks, costs, or the sometime virtues of cooperation and compromise. Their speeches were the rhetorical equivalent of American flag lapel pins. Talk loudly and wave a huge stick. Rip up the Iran deal. Put Putin in his place. Let the Chinese know who’s boss. The massacre in San Bernadino, California, that closed 2015 reminded us that future terrorist attacks are less likely to unite the country, as after 9/11, but to divide the nation along partisan lines. Populist grandstanding increases the risk of reckless responses to challenges that demand careful thought.

Grandstanding wins applause. It sometimes wins votes. But it can never become the basis for a coherent foreign policy. There are also some Republicans who prefer a more hands-off approach on these issues, but staying out of the way while your enemies fight one another doesn’t offer long-term solutions to chronic foreign-policy problems. The debate can’t simply be whether America should lead or stand on the sidelines. The larger questions of how, why, and toward what end must be answered.

Hillary Clinton tried hard to avoid the subject of foreign policy during debates with Bernie Sanders because, beyond highlighting his inexperience, she saw no clear electoral advantage in talking about it. In particular, she remained extraordinarily evasive about her views on trade. While Trump and Sanders made it very clear where they stand, Clinton tried to have it both ways. As Obama’s secretary of state, she praised the enormous Trans-Pacific Partnership as the “gold standard” in international trade. Then, while running for president, her bid to triangulate Bernie Sanders out of the race led her to argue that details of the deal prevented her from supporting it.

There are good reasons for candidates to avoid policy specifics that can be distorted in ways that cost them votes, and a future president does the country no favors by telling others exactly how he or she would try to solve this intractable problem or respond to that hypothetical crisis. But presidential candidates too often refuse to explain their most basic assumptions about how best to make America safer and more prosperous. There are exceptions. During a Republican debate in November 2015, Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio dove into an interesting argument. Here’s an edited version of their exchange:

There are a lot of phony debates out there about foreign policy, which usually involve someone railing against an opinion that no one actually holds. But there are plenty of real debates too, and this is a good example. Is a superpower foreign policy bankrupting America, wasting taxpayer dollars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, money that’s better spent at home or left in the taxpayer’s pocket? Or is it foolish to believe that America can be secure and prosperous if the world’s fires are allowed to burn out of control? This is an argument with forceful points on both sides.

There are many more questions that deserve serious debate. How should the United States respond to the next stage of China’s rise at a time when it’s using its more than $3 trillion dollars in financial reserves to extend its economic influence? How important for the United States is the trans-Atlantic relationship? Is an ambitious new trade deal with Europe a good idea? Should the United States accept more of the world’s refugees? As the Middle East becomes more dangerously unstable, should Washington become more directly involved? If so, how and to what end? Can Washington really destroy ISIS? Can it afford not to? Is there anything the United States can and should do to improve relations with Russia or contain Vladimir Putin’s revanchist ambitions? How valuable are traditional partnerships with old friends like Britain, Japan, and Israel? What approach should Washington take toward Iran? And Saudi Arabia? Is it wise to become more actively involved in political disputes in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa? Should the next president follow up on Obama’s opening to Cuba? None of these questions can be answered in isolation. Each response will depend on the answer to a larger question: What role should America play in this new world?

These are among the many important questions I’ll ask you to consider in the pages that follow as you decide for yourself how America should use its superpower. The 2016 presidential campaign hasn’t addressed any of these questions in a serious way. That’s a missed opportunity—for Americans and for everyone else. The world is changing much more quickly than U.S. presidential candidates would lead voters to believe, and the next international crisis, whatever it is and wherever it hits, is likely to be more complicated and involve more dangerous choices than Americans expect.

Ian Bremmer      

New York City      

May 9, 2016      

Introduction

We are our choices.

—Jean-Paul Sartre

America will remain the world’s only superpower for the foreseeable future. But what sort of superpower should it be? What role should America play in the world? What role do you want America to play?

Some say the time has come for the United States to mind its own business, let other countries solve their own problems, and focus instead on rebuilding America’s strength from within. Others insist that Washington can and should pursue an ambitious foreign policy, but one designed solely to make America more secure and more prosperous, not to foist our political and economic values on others. Still others say the world needs leadership and that only America can provide it. They argue that Americans and everyone else will be better off if democracy, freedom of speech, access to information, and the rights of the individual are universally respected.

What do you think? To help you decide, have a go at the following ten questions. Choose the single answer that best represents your opinion.

1. Freedom is:
   1. The right of every human being.
   2. Fragile. Americans must protect it right here at home.
   3. In the eye of the beholder.
2. America is:
   1. Exceptional because of what it represents.
   2. Exceptional because of all it has done for the world.
   3. Not an exceptional nation. America is the most powerful, but that doesn’t mean it’s always right.
3. Which of these statements best expresses your opinion?
   1. America will be better off if we mind our own business and let other countries get along the best they can.
   2. America must lead.
   3. The primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy should be to make America safer and more prosperous.
4. China is:
   1. America’s greatest challenge and greatest opportunity.
   2. The place where too many American jobs have gone.
   3. The world’s largest dictatorship.
5. America’s biggest problem in the Middle East is that:
   1. Washington supports the region’s dictators rather than its people.
   2. Washington ignores small problems until they turn into big ones.
   3. Washington believes it can manage an unmanageable region.
6. U.S. spy capabilities:
   1. Will always be a double-edged sword.
   2. Threaten our privacy.
   3. Are vital for protecting America.
7. The primary responsibility of the president of the United States is:
   1. To advance U.S. interests at home and abroad.
   2. To promote, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
   3. To lead.
8. Which of the following best expresses your view?
   1. A great leader can change the world.
   2. A great leader must lead by example.
   3. In the real world, any leader must often choose the least bad of many bad options.
9. Which is the most at risk?
   1. America’s economy.
   2. America’s international reputation.
   3. The respect of our leaders for America’s founding principles.
10. I hope that by the year 2050:
    1. America will share the burdens of leadership with reliable, like-minded allies.
    2. Americans will have created a more perfect union at home.
    3. American leadership will have helped as many people as possible around the world topple the tyrants who deny them the freedom they deserve.

We’ll come back to these questions in the conclusion, and I promise to tell you exactly what I believe and why I believe it—and I’ll refer back to this quiz at the end of chapters 3, 4, and 5. But this book is about what you think. Whether you’re an American or the proud citizen of another country, I want to know what role you believe the world’s only superpower should play in our world. If you finish the book with a strong opinion, especially if it’s a bit different than the one you have at this moment, and even if it’s the opposite of mine, this book will have served its purpose.

I’m proud to be a political scientist, one who takes seriously his responsibility to offer unbiased analysis. I’m also intensely proud to be an American. You should know that right at the top. Among my ancestors are men and women from Armenia, Italy, Syria, Germany, and the Native American tribes that made their way across Central Asia, the Bering Strait, and the great North American plains. I grew up in the projects of Chelsea, Massachusetts, where I felt completely at home on my mainly Puerto Rican Little League baseball team, in my heavily Italian high school, and among the mainly Anglo middle-class kids I knew in my Junior Achievement group. Beyond the melting pot, my patriotism is an inevitable product of my childhood. My father died when I was four. My mother raised me and my brother with little help, little money, and unshakable confidence that a good education and a lot of hard work would give me the chance to invent my own future.

Because I love my country, I feel a responsibility to honor its virtues and accomplishments and to think and write about its shortcomings. I also care very much about America’s place in the world—what it is, what it could be, and what it should be. I want my country to find the courage to help others solve problems and the wisdom to avoid creating new ones. I also love a debate. Not the ones where politicians preen and bob and weave while pundits tally up their applause lines and verbal stumbles. I love debates in which brave and sincere men and women take up serious subjects in hopes of opening new doors onto undiscovered country. That’s the kind of debate America needs right now.

Parts of this book are centered on international turmoil and our world in transition—European fears, Russian ambitions, Middle East dangers, and Chinese riddles. But as you’ll see, it’s not about big global trends that Americans can’t control: the rise and fall of nations, emerging-world economics, or a disintegrating global order. Nor is it about blame for past mistakes. It’s about America’s role in tomorrow’s world and the choices we must begin to make as the next round of presidential candidates—Republicans, Democrats, and maybe a wild card or two—ask us for money, support, and our votes.

In chapter 1, I’ll write about today’s world, America’s limits, and its opportunity to transcend them. In chapter 2, I’ll briefly detail the incoherence of America’s post–Cold War foreign policy. In the next three chapters, I’ll outline three distinctly different choices for our future, three conflicting arguments on what role America should play in this world in transition. Not all the opinions expressed in these chapters reflect my personal views. How could they? They represent directly competing visions of America’s future. But I’ve done my best in each chapter to put forth the strongest arguments I can, and I ask you to decide which one you think is the most persuasive.

Chapter 3, “Independent America,” will try to persuade you that it’s time for America to declare independence from the need to solve other people’s problems and to finally realize our country’s enormous untapped potential by focusing our attentions at home. Chapter 4, “Moneyball America,” will argue that important parts of chapter 3 are dangerous nonsense, that there are a few things in this world that must be done, and that it’s in America’s interest for Americans to do them. Chapter 5, “Indispensable America,” will insist that these other two visions of our country’s future are unworthy of a great nation, that America can never establish lasting security and prosperity in the interconnected modern world until we have helped others win their freedom, and that we must keep our eyes on this prize even if it takes a hundred years to achieve. In chapter 6, I’ll detail why all three of these choices have strengths and flaws, but I’ll also argue that refusing to choose is the worst choice of all.

When I began writing this book, I didn’t know which of these three choices I would favor. It’s easy to be swayed by pundits and politicians with a story to sell or an ax to grind. My attempt to make the most honest and forceful case I could make for each of these three arguments helped me understand what I believe and why I believe it. I hope it will do the same for you. But I’ll wait until the conclusion to tell you what I really think. And I’ll remind you again that I don’t ask you to agree with me.

I ask only that you choose.