Richard N. Haass
I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.Collection: Chance
Speaking truth to power is actually a form of loyalty.Collection: Truth
Success in foreign policy, as in carpentry, requires the right tools for the job.Collection: Success
Diplomacy can and will matter; little is inevitable in international relations.
Difficult choices, unlike red wine, rarely improve with age.
Unrestrained zeal to make the world better could make it worse. Promoting democracy must be undertaken with humility, care, and wisdom.
Any time you use military force, you have got to have a clear purpose that military forces can achieve.
The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants.
Good people cannot fully compensate for bad process, but they can mitigate some of its worst tendencies.
Trump's foreign policy is not so much immoral as it is amoral.
I tend to be one of those who does not equate democratization with the holding of elections. The emphasis ought to be on such things as rule of law, economic reform, and promotion of a free media - in short, essentially independent, free institutions.
Americans were happy to buy vast quantities of relatively inexpensive Chinese manufactured goods, demand for which provided jobs for the tens of millions of Chinese who moved from poor agricultural areas to new or rapidly expanding cities.
The abolition of the presidential term limit and President Xi Jinping's concentration of power have come as an unwelcome surprise to many.
The U.S. does not want to live under the shadow of a North Korea that possesses long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to American cities. At the same time, the U.S. has no appetite for a war that would prove costly by every measure.
It is important to signal that opposition to the use of any weapon of mass destruction is both deep and broad.
The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.
The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the E.U. attested to the loss of elite influence.
Nationalism is a tool increasingly used by leaders to bolster their authority, especially amid difficult economic and political conditions.
Russia may well be willing to stop interfering in Eastern Ukraine in exchange for a degree of sanctions relief if it could be assured that ethnic Russians there would not face reprisals.
If Trump, for whatever reason, continues to coddle Russia, then Congress, the media, foundations, and academics should publicly detail the corruption that characterizes Putin's rule.
It is true that the U.S. could and should have been more generous as Russia made its painful transition to a market economy in the 1990s.
Indeed, the big U.S. error after 9/11 was to treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. With an ally, it is possible to assume a large degree of policy overlap. With Pakistan, no such assumption can be made.
Bad situations can always get worse.
American presidents get to make lots of choices, with one critical exception: what awaits them in the in-box on top of the desk in the Oval Office.
The United States is not just another country. It has more capacity and potential to influence the world than any other country - and no other country has the resources and mindset to lead a world that is not on autopilot.
It is in the interest of Americans to find out what those wanting to be president think about a wide range of challenges and what they might do about them. We should want to get their take on the wisdom of past decisions, what they agree and disagree with, and why.
In a world in which the United States does less, whatever set of calculations, other countries will tend to calculate - to move in one of two ways. Either they will assuage or, to use a more loaded term, appease the strongest power in the neighborhood with all the consequences of that, or they will determine to take matters into their own hands.
If old American alliance commitments don't count for as much, countries will, in some cases, then say, 'Well, we've got to militarize in certain ways and act more independently.'
Paradigm shifts, particularly in diplomacy and security issues, are, by definition, major undertakings.
Americans never would alter the way entitlement programs are funded or education administered without serious study and widespread debate.
Indeed, in foreign policymaking, inconsistency is often a virtue. I speak not of principles but of policy.
America's armed forces are an essential background to much of what the U.S. accomplishes internationally.
Not every threat to America's national interests can be addressed with military power.
An open, market-oriented, and peaceful Iraq could also advance reform and growth across the entire region.
Security is the absolute precondition for sustainable recovery from conflict; without it, people cannot rebuild their country or return to school or work.
It is difficult to think of a foreign policy issue that preoccupies and polarizes world opinion as much as the Palestinian question.
For too long, America tolerated a 'democratic exception' in the Muslim Middle East. As long as governments were friendly and backed regional stability, there was no need for outsiders to encourage representative government.
Democracy requires an informed citizenry able to question its government.
History shows that societies where opportunity is safeguarded tend to be societies that are good international citizens.
No country can succeed if it denies itself the talents of half of its people.
Americans, for their part, must accept that a strong Europe will not be content to simply do America's bidding.
Europeans must shed their illusions about what they can accomplish in the world on their own. Loose talk about resurrecting a multi-polar world is just that - loose talk.
It is neither feasible nor desirable for Europe to establish itself as a geopolitical equal or competitor of the U.S.
We all have some basic obligation to one another.
In a global world, what happens within one country can all too easily affect others.
Middle East history is replete with examples of missed and lost chances to make peace.
Russian membership in the World Trade Organization has the potential to strengthen the rule of law, combat corruption, and give Russia a stake in better relations with the outside world.
Trade is the all-but-forgotten weapon in the battle against poverty, but it can provide more help to the poor than aid can.
What countries must do to join the World Trade Organization is precisely what they must do to become productive and democratic: accept the rule of law, reduce corruption, and become open, accountable, and transparent.
A China that trades extensively with the U.S. and its Asian neighbors will think twice before it pursues any policy that would place those relationships at risk. Likewise, trade between India and Pakistan could contribute to the normalization of ties between these long-estranged neighbors.