PDF Summary:Things That Matter, by Charles Krauthammer

In Things That Matter, Charles Krauthammer delves into complex ethical debates surrounding stem cell research and human cloning, examining the moral status of embryos and the potential consequences of genetic manipulation. He also explores the implications of America's unparalleled global dominance following the Cold War, analyzing competing schools of thought on the role of U.S. power—from liberal internationalism's aspiration for a cooperative global order, to realism's emphasis on national interest and preemptive action.

Krauthammer further dissects the challenges facing America in the 21st century, including the balancing act between investing in social programs and maintaining robust military capabilities. He also tackles the threat of WMD proliferation, proposing a multifaceted approach involving non-proliferation regimes, international cooperation, and, if necessary, preemptive action by the U.S.

(continued)...

Other Perspectives

• Technological advancements and the digital revolution could level the playing field, allowing smaller or emerging nations to challenge American dominance in various sectors.
• Economic strength is a key component of a nation's global influence; a weakening economy can undermine the financial resources necessary to sustain international commitments.
• The argument underestimates the impact of foreign policy decisions and international relations on domestic prosperity and stability.
• The resources spent on overseas engagement could potentially be redirected to domestic investments, which might yield more sustainable and direct benefits to the American economy.
• American unipolarity may not be sustainable due to the rise of other global powers, such as China, which could lead to a multipolar world order.

American Primacy vs. Multilateral World Order Tensions

Krauthammer examines the tension between American primacy and demands for an order of global cooperation. He criticizes the pursuit of "quasi-multilateralism," where America seeks international approval for its actions primarily for domestic political consumption, not because of any genuine belief in multilateral institutions' effectiveness.

Internationalist Calls For Restraining American Power Through Institutions

Krauthammer critiques liberal internationalists who seek to limit American influence through international institutions, arguing that such attempts are misguided and ultimately undermine the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy. He points to how Clinton's administration was obsessed with treaties as an example of this inclination, arguing that these agreements often served to limit American flexibility without generating any meaningful reciprocal concessions from other nations. He dissects the concept of using ethical persuasion, often invoked by proponents of multilateralism, arguing that rogue states, by definition, are impervious to such appeals.

Other Perspectives

• Multilateralism through international institutions can distribute the burden of global leadership, reducing the costs and risks borne by the United States alone.
• International institutions can provide mechanisms for accountability that help to ensure that U.S. foreign policy actions are consistent with international law and human rights standards.
• Treaties often serve as tools for building trust and cooperation, which can lead to more stable and predictable international relations, potentially benefiting the U.S. in the long term.
• Ethical persuasion can be part of a broader strategy that includes both soft and hard power, and dismissing it outright ignores the potential synergies between different forms of diplomacy and statecraft.

Realist Views on U.S. Dominance for Stability and Security

Krauthammer contrasts the perspective of globalist liberals with a realist viewpoint. He argues that realists, unlike their liberal counterparts, recognize that the "international community" isn't a genuine collective but a collection of diverse actors with often competing interests. He argues that stability in the international system is achieved not through shared values or goodwill but through a distribution of power or, in the current unipolar moment, through American hegemony. Krauthammer argues that, as the most powerful nation with a vested interest in maintaining a stable international order, America must be willing to take independent action when necessary, both for its own security and for the preservation of global order. He emphasizes that the realist perspective, unlike liberal internationalism, acknowledges the enduring reality of power politics on the global stage.

Other Perspectives

• It could be argued that realists do not adequately account for the influence of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, international non-governmental organizations, and transnational advocacy networks, which can play significant roles in shaping international agendas and policies.
• The distribution of power among multiple states (multipolarity) or regions could lead to a balance that prevents any one state from dominating and thus encourages cooperation and stability through checks and balances.
• The concept of American exceptionalism implicit in this view can be perceived as a form of neocolonialism or imperialism, which is often resisted by other nations.
• The assumption that power politics is an enduring reality may not take into account the potential for significant changes in the international system, such as the rise of new powers or the effects of global challenges like climate change, which could alter the nature of international relations.

Tension Between Liberalism in International Relations and a Realistic Foreign Policy

Krauthammer dissects the fundamental tension between international liberalism and realist foreign policy, exploring the core tenets of each school and critiquing their shortcomings. He argues that liberal internationalism, while idealistic in its quest for a rules-based global community, often fails to account for the realities of power politics. Conversely, he argues that realism, while providing a more accurate perspective on the global structure, can be too cynical and lacking in a moral vision for U.S. international relations.

Liberal Internationalists Envision a Rules-Based Global Community

Krauthammer explores the liberal internationalist vision of a rules-based global community, a vision rooted in the belief that the international system can be transformed into a more peaceful and cooperative order through the establishment of international institutions and the enforcement of international law. He points to the writings of thinkers like Cordell Hull, who envisioned a reality where traditional notions like influential spheres and power equilibrium become obsolete, replaced by a system of norms and institutions designed to promote peace and cooperation between countries.

Belief in International Law and Institutions Governing States

Krauthammer dissects the faith in international law and institutions to govern state behavior, a perspective that views war as a preventable outcome of failed diplomacy and miscommunication. He argues that this approach falls short in recognizing the deeply rooted motivations of states, often driven by a pursuit of influence and self-interest that transcends the constraints of global law. Krauthammer highlights examples like the League of Nations' inability to prevent aggression in the 1930s or international treaties' failure to stop renegade countries from producing WMDs.

Context

• The critique may also touch on philosophical debates about the nature of law and governance, questioning whether international law can ever be as binding or enforceable as domestic law.
• Throughout history, many wars have been attributed to diplomatic failures, such as the breakdown of talks or misinterpretations of intentions, which could have been avoided with better communication channels.
• States have diverse cultural and ideological backgrounds, which can lead to different interpretations of international laws and norms, complicating consensus and cooperation.
• The United States, despite being a major world power, never joined the League, which weakened its influence and effectiveness in international diplomacy and conflict resolution.
• Advances in technology can outpace regulatory frameworks, making it easier for states to develop WMD capabilities clandestinely.

Aspiration to Envelop U.S. Power In a Multilateral Framework

Krauthammer critiques the goal of liberals and internationalists to envelop U.S. power within a cooperative international framework, often invoking the necessity of international legitimacy and the perceived dangers of America acting unilaterally. He argues that this approach effectively seeks to constrain the U.S.'s freedom to act and subordinate American interests to what a so-called international community wants, a fiction he argues often masks the interests of rival powers seeking to limit American dominance. He uses examples like the Clinton administration's attempt to negotiate a treaty on land mines, arguing that it would have significantly hampered U.S. military capabilities, particularly in strategically critical areas like the Korean DMZ, without meaningfully addressing the concerns about land mine use.

Other Perspectives

• Liberals and internationalists may argue that their goal is not to constrain U.S. freedom but to enhance global cooperation, which can lead to shared benefits including strengthened alliances, increased stability, and collective security.
• The costs of unilateral action, such as military interventions without international support, can be significantly higher in terms of resources and human lives, which may not be in the best interest of the U.S.
• The process of obtaining international legitimacy can be slow and cumbersome, which may not be compatible with the need for swift action in response to urgent crises.
• History has shown that there are instances where unilateral action by the U.S. has led to positive outcomes, such as the elimination of security threats or humanitarian interventions.
• The concept of an international community is not a monolith and can include allies and partners with shared values and goals, which can complement and reinforce American interests.
• The initiative to negotiate a land mine treaty might have been intended to preempt more restrictive measures that could have been imposed by the international community, thus maintaining a degree of control over the terms and conditions.
• The reduction in land mines could have decreased the risk of civilian casualties and long-term injuries, aligning with humanitarian principles and possibly reducing anti-American sentiment.
• Technological advancements may provide alternative methods for securing territories such as the Korean DMZ that do not rely on land mines, which could mitigate the strategic impact of such a treaty.

Realist Focus on National Interest and Power in International Affairs

Krauthammer outlines the realist perspective, which emphasizes the enduring centrality of national interest and power in world politics. He argues that realists see the global order as inherently anarchic, where states are driven by a self-interested pursuit of power and security in the absence of a overarching global authority. He argues that realists see international law and institutions as ultimately ineffective in restraining the behavior of states, particularly when core national interests are at stake.

Skepticism of Global Norms Constraining States

Krauthammer highlights the realist's skepticism about the idea that global norms can meaningfully constrain the behavior of states, arguing that such norms ultimately reflect what benefits powerful actors and are often selectively enforced. He criticizes the argument of moral persuasion favored by liberal internationalists, pointing to examples like Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions or Iran's pursuit of nuclear armaments despite international condemnation. Krauthammer emphasizes that realists see the concept of a "global society" as fictional, a notion that obscures the enduring reality of power politics among states.

Context

• These are formal decisions or declarations made by the United Nations, intended to address global issues. However, their effectiveness can be limited by the political interests of member states, particularly those with veto power in the Security Council.
• The role of media and public opinion can pressure governments to enforce norms selectively, focusing on high-profile cases while ignoring others that receive less attention.
• Throughout history, powerful states have often bypassed international norms when it suits their interests, such as during the Cold War when superpowers frequently intervened in other countries despite international opposition.
• Realism is a theory that views international relations as a struggle for power among self-interested states. It posits that the international system is anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority to enforce rules or norms.
• The United States and its allies cited Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions as part of the justification for the 2003 invasion, although the existence of WMDs was later disputed.
• In 2018, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA under President Donald Trump, leading to the re-imposition of sanctions and increased tensions over Iran's nuclear activities.

Readiness for Solo or Preemptive U.S. Power Use When Vital Interests Threatened

Krauthammer argues that realism embraces the necessity of unilateral action and preemption when vital U.S. national priorities are threatened, recognizing the limitations of international organizations and the risks of waiting for international consensus. He argues that, given a global landscape where renegade nations seek WMDs and terrorist groups with worldwide reach aim to cause catastrophic damage, a policy of strict adherence to international norms could leave the United States vulnerable to existential threats. He mentions cases such as the 1981 preemptive strike by Israel on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, stating that it was a necessary act of self-defense, even though it was condemned by the "international community" at the time, and ultimately made the world safer.

Other Perspectives

• The concept of "vital national priorities" is subjective and can be used to justify a wide range of aggressive actions that may not be universally accepted as legitimate or necessary.
• The limitations of international organizations may be mitigated through reforms and enhanced cooperation among member states, rather than bypassing these institutions altogether.
• Waiting for consensus can be a strategic move to build alliances and share the burden of action, potentially leading to more effective and sustainable outcomes.
• The existence of WMDs does not necessarily translate to an intent to use them aggressively; some nations may pursue these weapons as a deterrent.
• Adherence to international norms can prevent a cycle of preemptive strikes and retaliations, which could otherwise spiral into widespread instability and insecurity.
• The strike was condemned by the international community, including the United Nations Security Council, which suggests that there was a broad consensus against the legitimacy of the action at the time it occurred.
• The claim that the preemptive strike ultimately made the world safer is subjective and can be debated, as it may have increased regional tensions and spurred other nations to pursue their own WMD programs in the name of self-defense.

U.S. Policy Challenges in the 2000s

Krauthammer outlines the major policy challenges facing the United States in the 21st century, focusing on the tension between domestic spending priorities and the necessity of preserving military strength and power projection capabilities. He also addresses the threat of WMD proliferation, exploring the various policy approaches for confronting this looming danger.

Balancing Social Programs With Military Readiness and Demonstrating Power

Krauthammer argues that America faces a difficult challenge in balancing the demands of its expansive social programs with the necessity of keeping a robust military for global influence. He warns against the allure of the social democracy found in Europe, which, while providing a high level of social services, has resulted in diminished economic dynamism and a near-total reliance on the U.S. for security.

Tradeoffs Between Domestic Priorities and Defense Expenditures

Krauthammer highlights the unavoidable trade-offs between domestic spending priorities and defense allocations, arguing that pursuing a European-style social democratic model could result in a reduction of American military capabilities and global influence. He highlights the "peace dividend" during the 1990s, where reduced defense spending freed up resources for social programs, arguing that a similar dynamic could occur if America adopts a more expansive social safety net. He warns that, unlike Europe, the U.S. cannot afford to retreat from its global security commitments without jeopardizing its own safety and that of its allies.

Context

• Decisions on spending reflect broader strategic priorities, balancing immediate domestic needs with long-term security commitments and geopolitical strategies.
• Shifting funds from defense to social programs could impact industries related to defense, such as manufacturing and technology, potentially affecting jobs and economic growth in those sectors.
• The reallocation of resources during this period had lasting impacts on the structure of government budgets and the prioritization of social welfare programs in the years that followed.
• Government budgets are finite, meaning that increased spending in one area, such as social programs, often necessitates cuts in another, such as defense. This is a fundamental aspect of fiscal policy and budgetary trade-offs.
• The U.S. plays a key role in combating global terrorism and other non-state threats. A retreat could embolden terrorist groups and lead to increased threats both abroad and domestically.
• Past reductions in military spending have sometimes led to increased global tensions or conflicts, as seen in the interwar period between World War I and World War II, when military drawdowns were followed by rising threats.

Effect of Social Democracy on U.S. Economic Dynamism and Global Influence

Krauthammer examines the effects of social democracy on U.S. economic dynamism and global influence, arguing that expanding social programs could potentially lead to a decline in economic growth and a weakening of America's global power. He uses Europe as an example, noting that its generous social welfare systems coincide with high levels of unemployment, slower economic growth, and a reliance on America for military protection. He maintains that the U.S. must prioritize policies that promote economic vitality and innovation, such as reducing dependence on foreign oil and restraining the growth of federal debt, if it wishes to maintain its dominant position in the world.

Practical Tips

• Engage in a personal finance experiment where you simulate living on a fixed welfare income for a month. Track your spending, savings, and lifestyle changes to better understand the incentives and disincentives created by living on a welfare system. This exercise can offer perspective on the choices and trade-offs individuals face when reliant on social welfare.
• Start a savings challenge with friends or family to lower personal debt and encourage fiscal responsibility. Set a collective goal to save a certain amount of money over a specified period, and hold each other accountable through regular check-ins and updates. This can be done by cutting out unnecessary expenses, such as dining out or subscription services, and redirecting those funds into a savings account.

Confronting Wmd Proliferation Threats

Krauthammer emphasizes the gravity of the threat from the dissemination of WMDs, asserting it will be the primary security issue of the 21st century. He proposes a multi-pronged approach to confront this danger, consisting of (1) denying access to WMD technology through international regimes like COCOM, (2) disarming states that acquire WMDs either through strict international control or preemptive military action, and (3) developing advanced missile defense systems to guard against weapons that slip past control or preemption.

Deterring or Preempting "Weapon States" Seeking Nuclear and Biological Capabilities

Krauthammer discusses the strategic problem of “Weapon States,” defined as nations with underdeveloped social structures but advanced military capabilities, especially regarding WMDs. He argues that these countries pose a unique threat to international security, driven by resentment of Western nations and a desire to overturn the current global system. Krauthammer argues that the United States must be prepared to deter or preempt these states, highlighting the inadequacy of appealing to ethics and the necessity of credible military threats to avert the use or proliferation of WMDs. He argues that preemptive action, while morally and strategically complex, can be a necessary tool for preventing catastrophic attacks in an era of terrorism and rogue states.

Practical Tips

• Engage in cultural exchange programs or online forums to foster understanding and reduce prejudices. Participating in these exchanges can help break down stereotypes and build empathy, which is crucial in addressing the root causes of resentment. Look for online language exchange partners from countries with weapon states or join international discussion groups focused on cultural sharing.
• Support organizations that work towards arms control and disarmament through donations or volunteer work. Your contribution can help these organizations in their efforts to lobby for effective policies and educate the public about the importance of deterring weapon states. Look for reputable NGOs that have a track record of influencing policy and promoting international security.
• Engage in online simulations or strategy games that involve conflict resolution and diplomacy to experience firsthand the complexity of international negotiations. Games like these often require players to balance ethical considerations with strategic objectives, providing a practical sense of the trade-offs and decisions faced by leaders of Weapon States.
• Start a book club focused on international security and military history to foster informed discussions about WMDs and credible threats. This can be a virtual group where members read and discuss books that touch on these subjects, which will help you and your peers understand the real-world applications of military strategy and diplomacy.
• You can enhance your personal safety by learning basic emergency response techniques. By taking a certified first aid course, you'll be equipped to handle medical emergencies, which is a form of preemptive action to mitigate the impact of any unforeseen event. For example, knowing CPR or how to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) could be crucial in a crisis situation.

Discussion of Protecting, Diplomacy, and Cooperation to Address Dangers

Krauthammer acknowledges the complex debate surrounding the deployment of military power, diplomacy, and international cooperation in addressing the threat of WMD proliferation. He argues that while diplomacy and cooperation are essential, they often fall short in deterring terrorist groups or hostile nations intent on acquiring WMDs. He emphasizes that a credible military option, including the possibility of preemptive action, is a necessary component of any effective strategy for preventing the use or spread of WMDs. He argues that a policy of strict adherence to international norms and multilateralism could expose America to existential threats, especially in a world where rogue states and terrorists may be willing to use WMDs.

Practical Tips

• Encourage critical thinking about global security by writing opinion pieces for local newspapers or blogs. By presenting your thoughts on the importance of diplomacy and the challenges of preventing WMD proliferation, you can contribute to public discourse and potentially influence others to consider the multifaceted approaches needed to address these issues.
• Volunteer with a local community emergency response team (CERT) to gain practical skills in disaster response and preparedness. CERT programs train volunteers in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, and disaster medical operations. This hands-on experience can provide insights into the complexities of managing emergencies, including those that might arise from the use of WMDs by non-state actors.