Panelists at work

The Current U.S political climate is unusual, to say the least. Our country’s reactionary shift towards populism under Donald Trump calls into question national and international norms as they’ve been understood for the past several decades. Staff writer Sophie Murphy attended a panel hosted by The Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace (of the Columbia SIPA) of International Relations Scholars to discuss whether ‘The Liberal World Order’ is worth defending. Participating were Drs. Stuart Gottlieb, Robert Jervis, Rebecca Friedman Lissner, Jack Snyder, and Steven Wertheim. Moderating was Richard Betts, Director of the Saltzman Institute.

Perhaps fitting for the event I was about to attend, I bopped to Hamilton’s “What Comes Next?” on my way to the International Affairs building. The format of the event provided about a 5-10 minute speaking time for each panelist, with the remainder of the time dedicated to a Q&A session. To answer the question “Is the Liberal World Order Worth Defending?” we should define what exactly the Liberal World Order is. It refers to the international climate from post World War Two until the present. Key tenets include free trade and multilateral institutions such as the U.N that foster globalization and collective security. The West, particularly the United States, has been understood to be a powerful leader in this system, both economically and militarily. Each panelist was tasked with answering the question at hand.

Steven Wertheim, a visiting scholar at the Saltzman Institute, began by unequivocally saying the Liberal Order is not worth defending. However, as he continued his argument, his view became less drastic and more nuanced. Wertheim disputed the claim that Trump is destroying international liberalism as we know it. Says Wertheim, It is true that Trump’s and his supporters’ philosophies of unilateralism and protectionism have challenged the Liberal Order. However, American nativism long predates the 2016 election. Wertheim asserts that American problems with foreign policy that have existed since WWII are just being pushed to the forefront of the American consciousness by the Trump administration, and that it’s time to go in a new direction.

Rebecca Friedman Lissner, Assistant Professor of Security Studies at the U.S Naval War College, was the first of the panelists to support a “renovation” rather than abandonment of the Liberal World Order. She discussed the hegemony of the United States in the post-WWII world and how we have at times abused that power. The historically interventionist policies of the United States did a lot of good, along with plenty of bad. By and large, the dominance of democracy has offered stability to the world, but Lissner reminds us that this stability cannot last forever. U.S dominance is eroding with new powers catching up, particularly China. She insists that the Liberal World Order cannot continue as it is, rather it must update and adapt to the current international climate.

Stuart Gottlieb, Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, and Robert Jervis, Professor of International Politics, also conceded imperfections of The Liberal World Order, while still supporting its existence. Gottlieb draws a distinction between foreign policy following WWII and foreign policy in the 90s after the Cold War. He asserted that institutions such as the U.N, NATO, and W.T.O worked as they were supposed to for four decades. However, the George H.W Bush administration then went on to proliferate and overuse organizations such as NATO as a world police force in the 90s. Actions like this made people both in the U.S and abroad wary of U.S led multilateral institutions. Jervis agreed with the previous panelists, while further discussing Trump’s role in the problem. Jervis stated that Trump by no means started the debate over the Liberal Order’s role in today’s international climate, but he has certainly added fuel to the fire, which will not just go out when he leaves office.

Jack Snyder, Professor of International Relations, was perhaps the most absolute in his viewpoint. He agreed that the Liberal World Order needs to be updated in order to function adequately in today’s society, and reiterated the benefits of globalization and democratic collaboration between countries. He, along with others on the panel, emphasized how foreign policy starts at home. If Americans feel polarized and plagued by inequality, (as they currently do) international affairs take a back seat. He supports domestic regulation reforms for both the economy and the media that will catalyze an attitude shift on the benefits of a liberal order.

The question and answer session led to more dialogue between the panelists than with the audience. Those who asked questions were more critical of the United States’ foreign policy track record than the panelists had been. Some felt U.S hegemony in the name of promoting democracy and stability had done far more harm than good, implying that the U.S might not deserve the power that it has. Rather than address these comments, the panelists doubled down on their previous points without really answering any questions posed.

This was a fascinating panel, and definitely not for those who aren’t interested in international politics/relations. Both the panelists and the audience members were extremely well informed on the question at hand. As one of the least educated people in the room on the topic, I learned a considerable amount of new information. The main conclusion I drew was that the world is in the midst of great change, both politically and socially. The west is experiencing a political climate more protectionist and reactionary than it has in decades, something that would be unwise to ignore or minimize. While very knowledgeable, the panelists offered little in the way of solutions or steps forward in this perilous climate. Understandably, there is no quick fix for an issue so multifaceted, but perhaps part of the problem is that intellectual elites are too busy debating the source of an issue than a solution for it.