ANNOUNCER: SINCE WORLD WAR II, A FORMAL SYSTEM OF ALLIANCES HAS BEEN AT THE CENTER OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, BUT THE WORLD HAS CHANGED SO MUCH IN THESE DECADES, WITH NEW THREATS AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND WITH A DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE IN TERMS OF THE RELATIVE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF OTHER NATIONS IN WORLD AFFAIRS.

LOOKING FORWARD, WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF ALLIANCES IN AMERICA'S VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING] THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY... WILLIAM AND SUSAN DORAN, UGI CORPORATION, NJM INSURANCE, CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION, RAZA BOKHARI, JOHN AND PATRICIA WALSH, THE CHARLES KOCH INSTITUTE.

FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHAT JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

GEORGE WASHINGTON WARNED THE NEW AMERICA AGAINST ENTANGLING ALLIANCES WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.

BUT BY THE TIME OF WOODROW WILSON, AMERICA BEGAN TO SEE ITSELF AS A DIFFERENT KIND OF WORLD POWER FROM ALL THOSE WHICH HAD COME BEFORE, A POWER WITH A UNIQUE RESPONSIBILITY TO CREATE A WORLD ORDER SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY, A SYSTEM OF ALLIANCES BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND BLOCS OF OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, MOST IMPORTANTLY AND ENDURINGLY, THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE NATIONS OF WESTERN EUROPE, NATO.

THE U.S. ALLIANCE RELATIONSHIPS HAVE VARIED.

THEY HAVE WAXED, AND THEY HAVE WANED, AND THEY HAVE UNDERGONE MULTIPLE KINDS OF STRESSES.

THE IDEA OF FORMAL ALLIANCES, INCLUDING MUTUAL COMMITMENTS FOR MILITARY ACTION IN THE EVENT OF AN ATTACK ON ANY MEMBER OF THE ALLIANCE HAS BEEN AT THE FOUNDATION OF THOUGHT IN THE FOREIGN-POLICY ESTABLISHMENT AND AMONG FOREIGN-POLICY SCHOLARS ACROSS THE PARTISAN DIVIDE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR MANY GENERATIONS.

IN RECENT YEARS, OF COURSE, THIS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON ALLIANCES HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY CRITIQUED FROM MANY SOURCES, MOST NOTABLY THE LAST PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WITH ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, WHAT SHOULD BE THE FUTURE OF THE ROLE OF ALLIANCES IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?

HERE WITH US TODAY ARE KORI SCHAKE, DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES AT THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; STEPHEN WALT, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AT HARVARD; AND RAJAN MENON, CHAIRMAN OF THE POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT AT CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK.

THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR JOINING US.

OUR TOPIC TODAY IS THE ROLE OF ALLIANCES IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

THIS IS A...A SHORT-RANGE AND A LONG-RANGE TOPIC IT SEEMS... TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION, IT SEEMS TO ME.

THE ROLE OF ALLIANCES IS SOMETHING THAT HAS...AT LEAST AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE FIELD MARGINALLY-- I WAS AT THE FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, SO THIS IS REALLY CHANGING.

I WOULD LIKE TO START BY ASKING OUR DISTINGUISHED PANEL TO TAKE INVENTORY.

WHAT KINDS OF ALLIANCES OR CONNECTIONS DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE OUT THERE?

WE HAVE MILITARY RELATIONSHIPS WITH COUNTRIES.

WE HAVE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH COUNTRIES.

WE HAVE TRADING RELATIONSHIPS WITH COUNTRIES, AND WE HAVE ALLIANCES.

WHAT, UM... WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLIANCES.

SO, HOW MANY OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WOULD YOU SAY RISE TO THE DIGNITY OF AN ALLIANCE?

STEVE, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A REALLY STRICT DEFINITION AND DESCRIBE AN ALLIANCE AS A SORT OF FORMAL AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL DEFENSE, THEN THE NUMBER IS NOT THAT GREAT, BUT IT'S STILL NOT TRIVIAL.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE N.A.T.O.

MOST OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, 30-SOME MEMBERS.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE OUR BILATERAL RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES LIKE JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, ET CETERA, WHERE THERE REALLY IS A SORT OF CONGRESSIONALLY RATIFIED, FORMAL TREATY COMMITTING US TO MUTUAL DEFENSE IN VARIOUS WAYS, AND SOME OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS, THE DETAILS MAY VARY.

UM, YOU COULD THEN STEP BACK FROM THAT A LITTLE BIT AND TALK ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE CLOSE SECURITY TIES-- ISRAEL, SAUDI ARABIA, EGYPT AS WELL, PERHAPS SOME OF THE COUNTRIES WITHIN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP IS STILL PRETTY EXTENSIVE, THERE IS AN EXPECTATION OF AMERICAN SUPPORT IN A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A FORMAL TREATY.

YOU COULD STEP BACK ONE MORE STEP AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WERE CALLED "COALITIONS OF THE WILLING," SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES.

THAT WAS TRUE WHEN WE INVADED IRAQ IN 2003.

THAT WAS TRUE IN AFGHANISTAN AS WELL.

BUT THERE ISN'T NECESSARILY A FORMAL TREATY RELATIONSHIP, AND YOU'D THINK OF IT AS ALMOST MORE OF A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE TO ACCOMPLISH A PARTICULAR TASK.

THAT'S KIND OF HOW I WOULD BREAK IT DOWN.

AND THEN THERE'S A WHOLE SERIES OF OTHER ARRANGEMENTS OF SECURITY COOPERATION, WHERE WE PROVIDE MILITARY TRAINING, COUNTERTERRORISM ADVICE, SOMETIMES INTELLIGENCE-SHARING OF VARIOUS SORTS, AGAIN WITHOUT A FORMAL COMMITMENT TO SEND AMERICANS NECESSARILY TO DEFEND A PARTICULAR COUNTRY.

WE HAVE THESE RELATIONSHIPS EVERYWHERE SEEMINGLY, BUT THERE ARE PLACES WHERE WE ARE PERHAPS DISSOLVING OUR TIES OR AREAS WHERE THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER REALLY VENTURED.

IF YOU ROLL UP EVERYTHING THAT STEVE SAID AND TAKE VARIOUS DEGREES OF COMMITMENT FROM FORMAL TO INFORMAL, WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF MILITARY COMMITMENTS ACROSS THE WORLD AND A GREAT DEAL OF MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS THE WORLD, AND PROBABLY THE SECURITY INVOLVEMENT WITH COUNTRIES WILL INCREASE, SO THE LATEST ALIGNMENT THAT BEARS WATCHING IS THAT BETWEEN INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES.

MY OWN VIEW IS THAT INDIA'S ROLE AS A COUNTERBALANCE TO CHINA IS VASTLY EXAGGERATED, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, THAT IS MOVING FORWARD.

SO YOU HAVE FORMAL ALLIANCES, AS STEVE SAID, BUT YOU HAVE A GAMUT OF OTHER COMMITMENTS THAT CAN GET YOU INVOLVED IN MILITARY ACTIVITY WITHOUT THERE BEING A FORMAL COMMITMENT TO DEFEND ANOTHER COUNTRY.

RIGHT.

WELL, PRECISELY WHAT IS OUR SECURITY RELATIONSHIP WITH INDIA NOW?

DO WE HAVE ONE?

WELL, THIS IS AN INTERESTING RELATIONSHIP.

SO, DURING THE COLD WAR, I WOULD CHARACTERIZE IT AS CORRECT AT BEST, HOSTILE OCCASIONALLY, AND THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE...

THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE POST-COLD-WAR PERIOD.

I MYSELF HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ABOUT A DOZEN MIL-TO-MIL AND CIV-MIL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SENIOR INDIAN OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS AND THE PENTAGON OR THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

THAT WAS VERY, VERY UNUSUAL BACK IN THE DAY.

I THINK THE IMMEDIATE CATALYST FOR THAT IS THE RISE OF CHINA, WHICH IS OF CONCERN TO BOTH COUNTRIES.

THERE IS TALK ABOUT BOTH BEING A FELLOW DEMOCRACY.

INDIA'S DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS ARE A LITTLE BIT SUSPECT NOW.

BUT MAYBE OURS ARE IN SOME WAY AS WELL.

BUT THERE ARE JOINT MILITARY EXERCISES.

THERE'S INTELLIGENCE SHARING.

THERE IS COOPERATION ON COUNTERTERRORISM.

AND THIS IS AN ALLIANCE THAT-- THIS IS AN ALIGNMENT THAT WILL GROW.

NOW, ON THE INDIAN SIDE, THERE IS A CONGENITAL AVERSION TOWARD FORMAL ALLIANCES, SO EVEN UNDER THE BJP, WHICH IS ARGUABLY THE MOST ANTI-CHINESE PARTY IN INDIA, THE RULING PARTY NOW, I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED TO SEE ANY FORMAL ALLIANCE, BUT A GREAT DEAL CAN BE DONE SHORT OF THAT AND I THINK IS BEING DONE ALREADY.

I REMEMBER, IN THE MANY TRANSCRIPTS OF... OR IN THE SEVERAL TRANSCRIPTS OF MEETINGS BETWEEN CHURCHILL, ROOSEVELT, AND STALIN IN WORLD WAR II, AT ONE POINT, I BELIEVE THAT THEY REMARKED ON THE FACT THAT WE HAD NO FORMAL TREATY.

WE WERE FUNCTIONING AS A COALITION IN WORLD WAR II, AND YET...AND THEY CONSIDERED THAT TO BE A KIND OF AN ADVANTAGE.

IF YOU WERE RANKING ALLIANCES, OR I'D SAY THE WEB OF AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS, WOULD YOU PUT "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST?

WOULD YOU PUT "ALLIANCE" AT THE TOP, FORMAL ALLIANCE RATIFIED BY OUR BODIES?

WOULD YOU PUT, UM, "MILITARY COALITION"?

WHAT...ARE WE CLOSER TO ISRAEL THAN WE WOULD BE WITH A FORMAL ALLIANCE I THINK IS WHAT I'M DRIVING AT.

TO ANSWER THE LEXICON QUESTION FIRST, THE ONLY COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE ARE ALLIED ARE COUNTRIES THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED TO RATIFY A TREATY WITH, UM, AND AS YOU POINT OUT, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ISRAEL.

MY GUESS IS YOU COULD PRETTY EASILY GET A TREATY COMMITMENT THROUGH THE CONGRESS WITH ISRAEL, BUT THE ISRAELIS ACTUALLY DON'T WANT US TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM THINGS THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO DO.

SO, ALLIES FIRST, COALITIONS OF THE WILLING PROBABLY SECOND, AND SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS PROBABLY AFTER THAT, BY WHICH I DON'T MEAN THE ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP, BUT I MEAN COUNTRIES THAT WE, UH, STIPU-- THAT WE DESCRIBE AS MAJOR N.A.T.O.

ALLIES OR AS, RIGHT, THOSE LESSER CATEGORIES, UH... THAT WE CALL SPECIAL PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY AREN'T.

ALLIANCES, AS WE'VE TRADITIONALLY KNOWN THEM, ARE A CO--OR A GROUPING OF NATIONS WHO COME TOGETHER IN MUTUAL BENEFIT.

WITHOUT, UM... WITH NATION-STATES DIMINISHED, HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH, SAY, THE FUTURE OF A N.A.T.O.

ALLIANCE FROM THE FUTURE OF AN E.U.

OR ANOTHER MULTILATERAL OR SORT OF TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZATION-- THE U.N., FOR THAT MATTER?

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD, OUR COALITIONS ARE BEGINNING TO RESEMBLE SORT OF REGIONAL GROUPINGS.

THE U.S.M.C.A.

EVEN RESEMBLES THAT, IN A WAY, WHAT SAMUEL HUNTINGTON FORESAW YEARS AGO, THE COALITION OF CIVILIZATIONS, AND A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, IN FACT, THE DIVIDING LINES BEING, UM, BETWEEN, SAY, N.A.T.O.

AND EASTERN ORTHODOX OR RUSSIA OR A CYNIC WORLD DISTINGUISH N.A.T.O.

FROM... SAY, THE E.U.

OPERATING IN A FOREIGN-POLICY MODE.

SO, TWO DISTINCTIONS.

THE FIRST IS, THE E.U.

HAS SUPERNATIONAL POWERS, WHEREAS N.A.T.O.

IS A COLLECTIVE OF STATES, ANY ONE OF WHOM CAN OBJECT AND STOP SOMETHING FROM HAPPENING.

UM, THE COUNTRIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION HAVE GRANTED SOME OF THEIR SOVEREIGNTY TO THE INSTITUTION, AND THE UNITED STATES-- I CAN'T IMAGINE THE UNITED STATES AGREEING TO THAT KIND OF ARRANGEMENT WITH ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

SO THAT'S ONE DISTINCTION.

I DON'T AGREE THAT STATES ARE DECREASINGLY IMPORTANT, AND I HATE SAM HUNTINGTON'S TERRIBLE "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS."

I MEAN, WHERE DO YOU PUT TURKEY IN THAT DESCRIPTION?

WHERE... DAVID: WELL, I THINK THAT'S MY QUESTION.

YEAH, WITH... WELL, IN FACT, THAT'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION I WOULD HAVE, WOULD BE, LONG-RANGE, WOULD N.A.T.O.

REALIGN ITSELF AROUND SORT OF CHRISTENDOM AND THE UNITED STATES AND THE WEST?

IS THERE STILL-- KORI: NO, BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES WOULDN'T AGREE THAT CHRISTENDOM IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ORGANIZE ANY OF THESE GROUPINGS.

THAT'S NOT EVEN WHO WE ARE, MUCH LESS WHO THE COLLECTIVE IS.

SO, IT'S A TERRIBLE, UM... SUBTLY RACIST FRAMING OF NATIONAL INTEREST THAT HUNTINGTON PUT OUT THERE.

DAVID: WELL, THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS BEEN FRAMED.

I'M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOR OF IT.

BUT, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING-- NO, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT, BUT HUNTINGTON DID, AND IT'S NONSENSE, AND WE SHOULDN'T GIVE IT TRACTION.

DAVID: GIVE IT TRACTION?

STEVE: I HOPE KORI CAN GET OFF THE FENCE ABOUT THAT.

[LAUGHTER] RAJAN: YEAH, TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY THINK.

JUST A QUICK WORD.

YOU KNOW, KORI AND I HAVE DEBATED OVER THE YEARS MANY THINGS, AND I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR HER.

ON THIS, I THINK SHE'S DEAD RIGHT, THAT THIS IS-- KORI: WE FINALLY FOUND A SUBJECT OF PROFOUND AGREEMENT BETWEEN US, MY FRIEND.

RAJAN: I TOLD YOU, KORI, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WAIT.

I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.

I THINK IT WAS AN INTRIGUING QUESTION THAT HE RAISED.

BUT LET'S TAKE ONE EXAMPLE.

IF YOU LOOK AT INDIA, SOUTH KOREA, AND CHINA, ARGUABLY, THEY SHARE MORE CIVILIZATIONALLY AND CULTURALLY THAN THEY DO WITH THE WEST.

BUT, OF COURSE, INDIA AND CHINA NOW ARE DAGGERS DRAWN.

CHINA AND JAPAN HISTORICALLY HAVE HAD ALL MANNER OF PROBLEMS.

AND I COME BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT THAT HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT HUNTINGTON'S PROVOCATIVE ALBEIT SIMPLISTIC THESIS THAT STATES WILL REIGN IN THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WHEN IT COMES TO SECURITY ISSUES, NOT CIVILIZATIONS.

STEVE: BUT I WANT TO WEIGH IN HERE, TOO, UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND, DAVID.

FIRST OF ALL, I THINK I WOULD QUESTION THE PREMISE THAT GLOBALIZATION HAS LED TO THE WEAKENING OF THE NATION-STATE.

I THINK, IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD EVERYWHERE, NATIONALISM IS, IF ANYTHING, RESURGENT.

YOU SEE IT IN CHINA.

YOU SEE IT IN THE BRITISH DECISION WITH BREXIT.

YOU SEE IT IN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN POLAND AND HUNGARY.

YOU SEE IT HERE, I THINK, EVEN IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL.

SO THE NATION-STATE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

WHAT GLOBALIZATION HAS DONE IN A NUMBER OF WAYS IS IT CREATES SOME INTERESTING TENSIONS BETWEEN A COUNTRY'S... NATION-STATE'S ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THEIR SECURITY INTERESTS, AND WHERE YOU SEE IT, I THINK, MOST PROFOUNDLY IS, IN FACT, IN ASIA NOW, WHERE THERE ARE LOTS OF ASIAN COUNTRIES WHO HAVE VERY IMPORTANT ECONOMIC TIES TO CHINA AS THE CHINESE ECONOMY HAS GROWN, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT CHINA'S LONG-TERM INTENTIONS MIGHT BE IN TERMS OF POLITICS, AND SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

THEY MIGHT WANT TO HAVE MORE SECURITY DEALINGS WITH EACH OTHER, EITHER THROUGH A.S.E.A.N., WHAT'S BEEN CALLED THE SO-CALLED QUAD, WHICH COMBINES THE UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA, INDIA, AND JAPAN.

UM, THERE IS...BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE ECONOMIC TIES THAT THEY HAVE WITH CHINA.

THE ONE FINAL THING ABOUT YOUR POINT ON REGIONALISM, I COMPLETELY REJECT THE HUNTINGTON CIVILIZATIONAL ARGUMENT.

I WROTE A LONG REVIEW OF THE BOOK WHEN IT CAME OUT.

BUT IT IS TRUE THAT TRADE DOES TEND TO CONCENTRATE ON A REGIONAL BASIS.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TRADE MORE WITH EACH OTHER THAN THEY DO WITH ANYONE ELSE.

COUNTRIES IN ASIA TRADE MORE WITH EACH OTHER THAN THEY DO WITH ANYONE ELSE.

WE TRADE WITH CANADA AND MEXICO, EVEN THOUGH WE ALSO TRADE WITH OTHERS AROUND THE WORLD.

SO, IN ECONOMIC TERMS, YOU DO SEE THESE REGIONAL CONCENTRATIONS, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY TURN INTO CLOSE POLITICAL TIES UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER REASONS FOR THOSE ASSOCIATIONS.

I THINK THAT... YEAH, ONE THING THAT KORI'S RESPONSE, IT SEEMS TO ME, EVOKES IN ME IS, UM...THE IMPORTANCE, IT SEEMS TO ME, OF PRINCIPLE, AND SORT OF SHARED IDEALS.

IN...IN EVEN A SECURITY GROUPING SUCH A N.A.T.O., IT IS IMPORTANT FOR WESTERN NATIONS TO ACCEPT THE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERSITY, TO NOT BECOME, UH... ISOLATIONIST IN ANY WAY OR CULTURALLY BOUND.

AND SO N.A.T.O., AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, EXTENDS ITSELF... SEARCHING, I THINK, OR STANDING ON A DEEPER IDEA OR A DIFFERENT IDEA AT LEAST.

THAT IS, SAY, POLITICAL DEMOCRACY.

STEVE: I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF FORMING N.A.T.O.

WAS ESSENTIALLY A TRADITIONAL MILITARY ALLIANCE DESIGNED TO ASSEMBLE ENOUGH MILITARY POWER AND MAKE SURE THAT THE AMERICAN CONNECTION TO EUROPE WAS SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE, THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE SOVIET UNION TRYING TO EXPAND WESTWARD.

I THINK THAT WAS ITS FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE.

IT HAD SOME OTHERS.

IT WAS FRAMED VERY MUCH IN TERMS OF POLITICAL VALUES, BUT WE OUGHT TO REMEMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME N.A.T.O.

MEMBERS-- TURKEY AND GREECE, FOR EXAMPLE-- WENT THROUGH PERIODS WHERE THEY WEREN'T DEMOCRATIC.

THERE ARE SOME N.A.T.O.

MEMBERS NOW THAT ARE HEADING IN A NONDEMOCRATIC DIRECTION.

AND THE UNITED STATES HAS HAD CLOSE ALLIANCE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES THAT WEREN'T PARTICULARLY DEMOCRATIC.

SO WE LIKE IT WHEN WE CAN SAY THAT THERE ARE SHARED VALUES, BUT THAT'S NEVER BEEN AN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY CONDITION.

TURNING IT BACK TO THE UNITED STATES, I'VE JUST FINISHED RE-READING HENRY KISSINGER'S "DIPLOMACY," IN WHICH HE LAYS OUT THE COMPETING TRADITIONS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY OVER THE PAST 100 YEARS, AND HE SITUATES THE ORIGINS OF THE GREAT DEBATE OVER AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY WITH WILSON AND TEDDY ROOSEVELT, TEDDY ROOSEVELT BEING THE REALIST, WILSON BEING THE INTERNATIONALIST.

AND HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT WILSON HAS BEEN THE DOMINANT... WAS THE DOMINANT TRADITION OF THE 20th CENTURY.

THAT MEANS THAT PERHAPS T.R.

's NOTION OF COALITIONS HAS YIELDED TO WILSON'S NOTION OF INTERNATIONALISM, AND INTERNATIONALISM HAS LED US DOWN THE ROAD TO THE GREAT ALLIANCES THAT WE ARE A PART OF TODAY, AND THAT BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE FUTURE OF ALLIANCES IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

MY QUESTION FOR EVERYONE WOULD BE, UH, BETWEEN SORT OF A NATIONAL LINE, WHICH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTED, OR INTERNATIONALISM ON THE PATTERN OF WILSON, WHAT IS THE LIKELY DIRECTION OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE 21st CENTURY?

VERY BROAD QUESTION, BUT I'M INTERESTED.

STEVE: I'LL TAKE THE FIRST SWING AT THIS.

I MEAN, I THINK THE UNITED STATES HAS, IN TERMS OF IDEALISM, HAS SOMETIMES TALKED A BIGGER GAME THAN IT ACTUALLY DELIVERED, THAT WHEN PUSH CAME TO SHOVE, THE UNITED STATES ACTED MORE IN THE ROOSEVELTIAN REALIST FASHION.

YOU KNOW, WE FORMED AN ALLIANCE WITH A GREAT MASS MURDERER, JOSEPH STALIN, IN ORDER TO DEFEAT ANOTHER GREAT MASS MURDERER, ADOLF HITLER.

THE COLD WAR, WE FORMED ALLIANCES WITH SOME DEMOCRATIC PARTNERS, BUT WITH NONDEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES AS WELL BECAUSE WE WERE DEALING WITH A MAJOR THREAT IN THE FORM OF THE SOVIET UNION.

PERHAPS THE ONLY TIME WE REALLY INDULGED OUR WILSONIAN IMPULSES WAS THE UNIPOLAR MOMENT WHEN WE DIDN'T FACE ANY REALLY SERIOUS ADVERSARIES AT ALL.

AND AS WE HEAD INTO THE 21st CENTURY, WE'RE SEEING THE RETURN OF GREAT POWER POLITICS AND PRIMARILY THE RISE OF CHINA, TO SOME DEGREE ALSO DEALING WITH A TROUBLESOME, WEAKER MAJOR POWER, RUSSIA, AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA CAUSE THE UNITED STATES TO ACT MORE OR LESS IN A REALIST FASHION AND FORM ALLIANCES AS NEEDED TO DEAL WITH THOSE PARTICULAR DANGERS AND PUSH ITS VARIOUS PARTNERS AROUND THE WORLD TO LINE UP WITH THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THOSE FUNDAMENTAL, YOU KNOW, POWER DIFFERENTIALS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIVALRIES.

KORI?

I THINK AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IS ACTUALLY MUCH MORE OF A BLEND OF THOSE TWO THINGS, UM, AS STEPHEN WAS SUGGESTING, THAT WE'RE IDEALISTIC WHEN WE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT, AND...AND WE HAVE HARD-POWER IMPULSES BECAUSE WE HAVE ACTUAL INTERESTS WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AND ADVANCE IN THE WORLD.

THE DIFFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN- DOMINATED INTERNATIONAL ORDER OVER THOSE THAT CAME BEFORE IT IS JUST HOW MUCH THE AMERICAN ORDER IS ACTUALLY CONSENSUAL, STATES OPTING INTO A KNOWN SET OF RULES BECAUSE IT ENHANCES THEIR SECURITY AND PROSPERITY, UM, THAT THE AMERICAN ORDER AT ITS BEST IS DIFFERENT AND BETTER THAN OTHERS, AT ITS WORST IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHERS, BUT THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS ENFORCE WHAT WE WANT DONE IN THE WORLD MAKES IT MUCH CHEAPER TO SUSTAIN AND MUCH MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE U.S. AND TO OTHER COUNTRIES.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES THAT WANTS THE UNITED STATES TO RETURN TO A PROMINENT AND ALLY-EMBRACING ROLE IN THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER, IT'S ALL THOSE MIDDLE POWERS WHO ALSO BENEFIT FROM THIS BARGAIN.

VERY GOOD.

RAJAN.

I LARGELY AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT KORI AND STEVE HAVE SAID, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE SAID SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

I THINK OUR EXISTING ALLIANCES ARE NOT ABOUT TO ATROPHY, LET ALONE COLLAPSE, BUT I THINK WHAT PARTNERS ARE ASKED TO DO WITHIN THOSE ALLIANCES WILL CHANGE, BECAUSE THERE ARE INCREASING CONSTRAINTS ON THE U.S. DOMESTICALLY AND BECAUSE THEY HAVE MUCH MORE CAPABILITY TO DO MORE IN BEHALF OF THEIR OWN DEFENSE.

TAKE THE HORRIBLE STATE OF THE GERMAN MILITARY, FOR EXAMPLE.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR A COUNTRY THAT IS THAT WEALTHY TO HAVE SO SHODDY A MILITARY WHEN IT'S SHOWN RECENTLY WITH ITS TYPE 212-A SUBMARINE THAT IT HAS THE CAPABILITY TO PRODUCE FIRST-CLASS HARDWARE.

HOW LONG CAN JAPAN CONTINUE TO SPEND 9/10ths OF 1% ON ITS DEFENSE WHEN IT'S THE THIRD-LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD?

SO, THERE IS SOME RECALIBRATION THAT'S REQUIRED.

THAT'S POINT ONE.

POINT TWO, TO MAINTAIN SOME OF OUR COMMITMENTS, BE IT TO TAIWAN, A KIND OF UNSPOKEN COMMITMENT, BE IT TO SOUTH KOREA AND JAPAN, A SPOKEN AND WRITTEN-DOWN COMMITMENT, IT'S GONNA BE A MUCH TOUGHER ROW TO HOE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF CHINESE POWER.

THIRDLY, ALLIANCES WILL EXIST, BUT YOU WILL HAVE NON-ALLIES PLAY A MUCH BIGGER ROLE.

I WOULD ADD TO THE ROSTER INDIA PRINCIPALLY, VIETNAM, AND INDONESIA, WITH THE FOCAL POINT SHIFTING, AS IT HAS LONG BEEN SHIFTING FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS, MORE TO THE ASIAN PACIFIC, AWAY FROM EUROPE, NOT THAT EUROPE WILL CEASE TO MATTER.

I'M STRUCK BY HOW DOMINANT THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN OVER THE PAST 20 OR 30 YEARS MILITARILY WITH SUCH A RELATIVELY SMALL MILITARY FORCE, EXPENSIVE PERHAPS BUT SMALL.

SO I WOULD SAY, UH, WHAT I DERIVE FROM THIS-- AND THANKS TO EVERYONE FOR PARTICIPATING-- THE NATION-STATE IS STILL WITH US.

IN A WORLD WHERE THE UNITED STATES HAS HARD INTERESTS, AS YOU SAY, THE COALITIONS OF THE WILLING FROM CONTINGENCY TO CONTINGENCY WILL PROBABLY BE THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF OUR ANALYSIS AND CONCERN.

BUT THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING, AND I HOPE TO MEET YOU SOMETIME, AND IT'S BEEN FUN TO CONNECT FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY FOR THIS DISCUSSION THIS MORNING.

SO, VERY MUCH HAS CHANGED IN THE WORLD AFFAIRS AND IN THE AMERICAN RELATIVE POSITION WITHIN THE WORLD SINCE THE SEMINAL DAYS AFTER WORLD WAR II, WHEN THE UNITED STATES CONSTRUCTED A GLOBAL SECURITY ORDER BASED IN LARGE PART ON FORMAL ALLIANCES WITH OTHER COUNTRIES, YET THE UNITED STATES DOES REMAIN THE WORLD'S PREEMINENT MILITARY AND ECONOMIC POWER, WHAT MANY STILL CALL THE INDISPENSABLE NATION AMONG ALL THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.

PERHAPS WHAT HAS CHANGED THE MOST IS OUR SENSE OF OURSELVES.

WHERE ONCE WE SAW OURSELVES AS HAVING BOTH THE ABILITY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY, IN JOHN KENNEDY'S WORDS, TO PAY ANY PRICE AND BEAR ANY BURDEN TO ENSURE THE SURVIVAL AND THE SUCCESS OF LIBERTY, WE NOW QUESTION BOTH OUR RESOURCES AND EVEN OUR RIGHT TO BE THE BEATING HEART OF AN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM.

SO, WHO SHOULD BE AN AMERICAN ALLY IN THE WORLD?

WHAT SHOULD THE NATURE OF AN ALLIANCE MEAN?

AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES SHOULD ALLIANCES BE MADE AND MAINTAINED?

AS ALWAYS, WE LEAVE IT TO YOU, OUR VIEWERS, TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

ONCE AGAIN, I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING] ANNOUNCER: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY... WILLIAM AND SUSAN DORAN, UGI CORPORATION, NJM INSURANCE, CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION, RAZA BOKHARI, JOHN AND PATRICIA WALSH, THE CHARLES KOCH INSTITUTE.

[THEME MUSIC PLAYING]