'Trump does not embrace a conventional foreign policy of liberal primacy. But “illiberal primacy” better describes his foreign policy vision and record than “isolationism” does.'

Har du ikke abonnement på RÆSON, burde du virkelig tegne et (250/året for 4 magasiner + daglige onlineartikler)! Men ellers kan du læse den engelske version her hos Carnegie Endowment: carnegieendowment.org/2024/04/01/uni…

Jeg havde den store fornøjelse at tale med den amerikanske historiker Stephen Wertheim om, hvorfor USA besluttede sig for at opnå globalt herredømme – men også hvorfor vi muligvis er ved vejs ende. Trump eller ej: Nu skal Washington prioritere.

raeson.dk/2024/stephen-w…

[5/9] Another challenge is geopolitics. Amazingly, more Southeast Asian respondents said they were concerned about the Israel-Hamas conflict than aggressive behavior in the South China Sea.

This is especially true in Indonesia and Malaysia, where attitudes have shifted sharply.

1: Sorry, but Emanuel is really very naive about the region he is currently working in if he actually believes this is the end of the story. For one, the region is fragmented in many ways. It is not in Cold War-like bipolarity. carnegieendowment.org/2020/09/09/asi…

🇺🇸🇻🇪TODAY at 2PM (Washington D.C Time). Don't miss this event Carnegie Endowment on U.S-Venezuela relations with WOLA President Carolina Jimenez Sandoval. Register online or watch it on You Tube: 👇👇youtube.com/user/carnegiee…

Opposition to U.S. policy within the U.S. government has become 'deeper, wider and more despairing' than at any previous point in the Israel-Gaza war. bbc.com/news/world-us-…

How, then, should the United States engage with them? We argue that Washington should downplay great power competition, focus on mutual benefits, and invest in emerging powers' sovereignty.

Chris Chivvis and I have a new report that examines ten of the world's most important emerging powers — Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and Türkiye.
carnegieendowment.org/2024/04/09/eme…

'But isolationism was a phantom enemy. The moniker was hurled at those who sought simply to restrict U.S. security commitments but wished to participate internationally in every other way.'
- Stephen Wertheim, Tomorrow, the World, p. 13

The strong language by the White House today was an admission, albeit not one openly admitted by the administration, that Biden’s “bear hug” strategy with Netanyahu has been a dud for the whole world to see. The outstanding question: will the policy catch up with the rhetoric?

So Biden’s Israel policy is now to the right of Chris Coons and Richard Hass?

With respect, this round of US-China completion thus far is vastly less fierce than the Cold War in Asia (wars in Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan, insurgencies and coups, staggering refugee flows and death tolls, etc). Important challenge, but let’s keep perspective.

These were targeted hits on clearly marked humanitarian vehicles whose movement had been cleared with the IDF.

Clearly forbidden under international law. A total violation of IDF's legal obligation to distinguish non-mil objects and protect aid workers.
x.com/reider/status/…

On the one hand, the United States is actively helping Israel to kill massive numbers of Palestinian civilians along with aid workers, as part of a military operation that damages U.S. interests and whose aims can't be achieved. On the other hand, ?

'Jeg mener ikke, at isolationisme er en reel politisk kraft i USA i dag. Man har en tendens til at kalde enhver, der modsætter sig en enkelt krig eller alliance, for “isolationist”'

Stephen Wertheim i RÆSONs nye trykte nummer (for abonnenter): raeson.dk/2024/stephen-w… #dkpol

I’ve agreed to let @WarontheRocks synthesize my voice as it transitions to AI on the Rocks. You'll soon hear my voice on AI generated podcasts everywhere. Also looking forward to AI based editing, and AI peer review, which will keep WOTR highly competitive as a platform.