45 pages • 1 hour read
Richard HaassA World In Disarray
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2017A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaThemes
The Worsening of International Relations Since the Cold War
Haass spends much of A World in Disarray examining the state of international relations since the end of the Cold War. Although Part 1 of the book covers a good deal of history before this time, it mainly serves to provide context and trace how we got where we are today in the realm of foreign relations. The second and third parts of the book—comprising three-quarters of the material—focus on what has happened since 1991 and how the United States should conduct foreign policy going forward.
The crux of the author’s point is the paradox that international relations have worsened in many ways just when it seemed that they should improve with the end of the dangerous rivalry between the United States and Soviet Union. Haass details this argument particularly in Chapters 4 and 5. In part, this worsening reflected the absence of a balance of power, as the United States became the sole superpower. At the same time, however, multiple actors (not just states), ranging from multinational corporations to regional powers to terrorists, now had the ability and the means to influence world events. Moreover, less consensus existed for how to deal with the world’s challenges.
In addition, Haass thinks that the decision to enlarge NATO by including nations that were formerly part of the Eastern bloc was a mistake. It threatened Russia, which responded defensively by being more aggressive. This dynamic fueled continued tension with the United States at a time when relations should have improved. Russia intervened in Georgia in 2008 and in Crimea in 2014, reviving a state of instability and military threat in Europe. That the United States had bypassed the United Nations in its decision to invade Iraq in 2003 may have emboldened Russia to do the same. The result was a breakdown in what defined legitimacy when it came to nations acting against other nations in responding to crises in the world.
The Thucydides Trap and How to Avoid It
This term is used to refer to the tension that arises between a rising power and an established one. (The name comes from the Greek philosopher Thucydides’ description of the Athens-Sparta rivalry.) Throughout history, this has often led to war, such as when Germany unified and grew into a great power at the turn of the 20th century. The threat it posed was met by Great Britain, the world’s strongest country at the time, a reaction that culminated in World War I.
Today many people see the United States and China falling into this pattern. The modern US-China relationship was forged on a common distrust of the Soviet Union. When the Cold War ended, that threat disappeared, and the relationship needed a new foundation, which turned out to be economic. Over time the two countries became ever more intertwined through trade. Chinese exports provided cheap consumer goods to Americans, leading to a trade imbalance made possible by the Chinese government’s holding a large amount of United States debt. Keeping its currency artificially low made China’s exports cheaper, and joint ventures with Western companies led to technology transfer. These and other conditions allowed for very rapid development and economic growth in China so that it now has the world’s second largest economy.
Haass outlines what the United States should do to avoid armed conflict with China. First, it needs to partner with allies in the region to make its military presence known. Doing so can act to limit or deter any aggressive behavior, but it is not enough on its own. The United States should seek to engage China more through frequent consultations and confidence-building measures. It should also limit the use of sanctions and keep negotiations narrowly focused, cooperating in areas where the countries have common ground without tying them to other issues.
The Decline of Legitimacy in World Institutions
Starting with a high point of unity and legitimacy during the United Nations-backed Gulf War in 1991, Haass shows how policy and process changed over time. Nations began to disagree on definitions and principles for acting together in the face of foreign policy challenges, as well as the processes through which they should be enforced. By 2003, the United States created its own coalition for the Iraq War when it lacked support in the United Nations. Roughly a decade later, when Russia invaded Crimea, it consulted no international institution.
There are a number of reasons for this breakdown. Civil wars in the Balkans and Rwanda led the United States and other countries to intervene on humanitarian grounds. This response altered the Westphalian notion that a nation’s domestic affairs were off limits to other states. The new approach was known as “responsibility to protect” (R2P) and became UN policy in 2005. However, a joint NATO-US humanitarian mission in Libya in 2011 morphed into an effort at regime change, drawing strenuous protest from China and Russia, as well as a reluctance to embrace the R2P doctrine. Indeed, R2P is hard to define and harder to enforce; thus it can seem arbitrary and a threat to sovereignty.
Another factor was the approach Western nations, particularly the United States, took toward countries that acquired nuclear weapons. Despite the stance the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty takes of being against all nations acquiring this technology (aside from the original five that had it), in reality, the response to those nations that have joined this elite club has been uneven. Little was done after India, Pakistan, and Israel gained nuclear weapons, and eventually their nuclear capability was just accepted. A much different response, however, has been directed toward Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Haass see such variation as reducing the credibility of the United States and its allies and contributing to the lack of legitimacy in global organizations. As states take their own route, they no longer agree on either the principles for concerted action or the means for applying them and ensuring their integrity.
