January 10, 2019 | By Brian Hanson, Ivo H. Daalder, Harold Hongju Koh

Deep Dish: US Presidential Power and Its Limits

 

A president's ability to enact their vision is not absolute. It is constrained by international laws and by the willingness of allies and partners to go along with what the White House wants. On this week's Deep Dish, Harold Hongju Koh, former Legal Adviser at the US State Department, joins Council President Ivo Daalder and Brian Hanson to discuss Koh's new book The Trump Administration and International Law.

 

Subscribe

Transcript

Brian Hanson: This is Deep Dish on Global Affairs, going beyond the headlines on critical global issues. I'm Brian Hanson and today we're talking about presidential power and its limits. Donald Trump entered the White House promising to repudiate a whole series of cooperative approaches to foreign policy. And yet, for presidents to enact their vision, they are also constrained by laws, by the willingness of allies and partners to go along. For this conversation, I'm joined by Harold Koh, professor of international law at Yale Law School. He also previously served as a legal adviser at the US State Department and as Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor. He has a new book out on this very subject titled "The Trump Administration and International Law." Welcome, Harold. It's good to have you on.

Harold Koh: Great to be here.

Brian Hanson: With us as well is Ivo Daalder who is the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and also previously served as the US ambassador to NATO. He is co-author of a new book called "The Empty Throne: America's Abdication of Global Leadership." Welcome, Ivo.

Ivo Daalder: Great to be here.

Brian Hanson: So in many ways you both take on in different ways the same challenge. President Trump, as I set up top, has come in with a very different agenda for US foreign policy, essentially repudiating that global order set in place by the United States after World War II that included a whole bunch of cooperative relationships. With alliances on trade around human rights issues and international institutions undergirding those relationships. Harold, I want to start with you because you make what for many people is a striking argument in the sense that you say, despite president Trump's attempt to create fundamental changes that he's really failed in many ways to achieve these goals, and for you international laws are a big reason why. What do you mean? How can international law, transnational legal processes, as you call it, be constraining a president?

Harold Koh: I was asked to state the thesis of the book in three worth or less than and it's, he's not winning. The reason is because our domestic law and our international law are deeply intertwined and they form a kind of default pattern of behavior, and it's not that easy for someone to disrupt that pattern of behavior even if they're extraordinarily disciplined, even if they have everybody with them and even if they have nobody challenging them. So it's kind of like a guardrail that keeps us moving in particular directions. What's really been going on I think is that Trump has these impulsive and sporadic efforts to disrupt these arrangements. But both on the outside and the inside, people keep pushing back. In fact, many of the things which have made a splash haven't made any long-term impact.

Brian Hanson: So, I want to pick up on one of those, which is the Iran nuclear deal which he very famously has pulled out of. Said the US is done, it's not achieving the goals that we have for it. Many people say it's been successful. He's talked about even dogging the Europeans with secondary sanctions and keeping their businesses from interacting with Iran. Why do you call this not a success?

Harold Koh: Well, there's a general pattern that I identify which is what I call, resigning without leaving. He makes a statement that he's leaving. In fact, we're still in the Iran deal and so is everybody else. Now, none of the legal arrangements that made up the deal were done with the thought that the United States would break the deal. At the same time, we have the North Korean discussions going on which have turned into a full-fledged negotiation. Almost the best thing he can hope for is to get a Korea deal that looks something like the Iran nuclear deal, and at a critical moment which would be whether the North Koreans actually sign something more detailed. A critical question will be, why should we sign a deal with you when you just walked away from the deal that looks like the one that you just barred to have. So I think it's possible that Trump's actions will ... The hardline actions in the United States will inflame the hardliners in Tehran and lead them to let the whole deal collapse or for it to die of a thousand cuts. I think that Congress will, particularly after the next election, have to wonder as to what would be in place if this deal is actually cashiered. That's a general question. Trump is very good at saying I'm leaving but replace it with what? That's a big question. Replace it with nuclear war in the Middle East? I don't think that's what people want.

Brian Hanson: Ivo, in your book you and Jim Lindsay talk about the importance of US leadership for keeping things together. Harold just made an argument that it's really hard for things to fall apart. As you look at the nuclear deal with Iran, let's keep focused here because it's nice and concrete, kind of what do you see happening there? How much has Trump disrupted this? Are you sanguine, quite frankly, about its future?

Ivo Daalder: Let me take the large point and then come to your on point which is, is Trump winning? I mean, he clearly is running around saying, I am winning everywhere, every promise that he had during the campaign he's fulfilling and he's saying there are wins and I agree with Harold. If there're wins, they're really short-term wins and there're long-term costs and losses. So take the Iran deal. I agree that what is happening today with regard to the specifics of the Iran deal, everybody's complying. Certainly, the Iranians are still complying with the fundamental terms of the Iran deal and that was why we had a deal in the first place, to halt their nuclear program and in fact pull it back from the brink with the removal of the enriched uranium and the bans on the kinds of activities that would get us closer to the bomb. Where I may have a different sort of perspective is the way we did this has consequences that are likely to be with us for a very long time. There two concrete ones in the Iranian case. One is that whatever you think about the specific nature of the agreement that was agreed with Iran, the fact was we got to that agreement because the United States worked together with other countries to bring extraordinary pressure on Tehran. We led an international coalition that included not just our most important allies but the Russians and the Chinese into a pressure strategy on Iran. As a result, we got a negotiation and we got an agreement. Again, we can debate whether the specific terms of that agreement were the best possible deal we could have gotten given the coalition that we built, but it was the coalition that brought about the deal. Turn that around, which is right now we have a coalition in favor of the deal against the United States. So rather than the United States leading the world to get us to a better deal with Iran, which is the claim for why we're leaving out, we are now alone in pressuring everybody to try to get through a better deal and including our allies. What are our allies doing? Not only are they saying no, nyet, not doing it and getting together with the Chinese and the Russians, they're starting to create alternative financing mechanisms to get around American sanctions. Over time we'll have alternative means for doing business that we no longer can influence, shape or control. So in that sense I think the long-term consequence is that we are less powerful, less able to lead, less able to get what we want because of the steps that we took.

Harold Koh: Let me just jump in and underscore two of those points which I agree with. Number one is that this coalition of people who made, the countries that made the deal are, the problem they now face is the United States. So it was set up to deal with the problems of Iran and now the United States is the object of it. Second, the US has a long history of trying to impose sanctions unilaterally and extraterritorialy on Europe and it never works. In the same way as our unilateral boycott against Cuba didn't work.

Brian Hanson: What's an example of that where we've tried to impose sanctions in Europe and it hasn't worked?

Harold Koh: The famous Soviet pipeline case in 1982. It's an attempt by the United States to block technology from going to the Soviet pipeline. There are people or ways to do exactly what Ivo just described, make deals which circumvent unilateral sanctions. So not only do we annoy people, make ourselves the enemy, but we get skirted anyway so then we look powerless. Having been the leader, we are now the people who both broke the deal and then are trying to unilaterally impose our will in other directions. So it's a lose-lose.

Brian Hanson: Harold, I want to ask you about a really interesting analogy you use in your book, which is the rope-a-dope. And for listeners who may not be old enough to remember what we remember-

Harold Koh: That's a sad statement.

Brian Hanson: This was a strategy Muhammad Ali used against a younger and stronger George Foreman in a famous fight that was effective, he won the fight. So what's the rope-a-dope and how does it relate to the world we're living in today?

Harold Koh: Well, it relates in three ways. The rope-a-dope was that he knew that Foreman would have a lot of initiatives beyond the attack. So he decided that he would let him punch wildly and he would try to minimize the damage, counter punch, taunt him, et cetera, until he got exhausted. Then at the point at which Ali was then stronger than Foreman because Foreman was so exhausted, he came off the ropes and knocked him out. The way it's relevant is number one, round seven, you would say that Foreman was winning. But in round eight, Ali won. But second, the long-term battering that Ali took, he came unglued in the long-term. In the same way, while I think that the resilience of our system has been remarkable in checking Trump, people are getting worn out. It's exhausting and that's why the midterm elections are so important because, can we survive four years? Can we survive eight years? Can the system survive this kind of battering? Third and finally, at a certain point, Foreman had to start thinking about conserving his energy. It turns out that a lot of what Trump has been doing is checking boxes so he can say to his base, I did something in this direction. But it may well be his staying power, he won't stick with some of these things because having made the statement by his initial action, he doesn't really gain by putting a lot more energy into it. He's gotten out of it what he wants and he's notoriously someone with no staying power in terms of ... Or sustained attention span.

Ivo Daalder: I think the North Korea case is a wonderful example of that we just talked about. The administration to its credit, I think, after the warning that President Barack Obama gave president-elect Trump, Korea's really big problem, you got to do something about it. Create an international coalition to maximize pressure on the North Korean, so it was a pretty effective one. Got the Chinese to be part of that coalition, Obama had tried and had succeeded to some extent but Trump really upped the ante on that. Said to Xi Jinping and this famous meeting in Mar-a-Lago. He said I won't put any trade tariffs on you if you help me on North Korea. He had some rhetoric, little Trumpian, Rocketman, my nuclear button is bigger than your nuclear button, you remember that? But as a result and after, by the way, of course the North Koreans tested their missiles and an H-bomb, they came to the table. He sees the opening and did the Trumpian thing, he went for the big win and the big win turned out to be to accept what the North Koreans had put on the table all along. The North Koreans had said in early 2017 and the Russians and the Chinese had agreed to and thought was a good idea was a freeze for a freeze. We will freeze testing our missiles and nukes if you freeze your military exercises with South Korea. They got this big meeting in Singapore and it was all the flourishes and everything else and Trump walked out and said, you know what, they are not testing anymore, the nuclear threats disappeared and therefore I don't want to do exercises with South Korea. He accepted the freeze for a freeze. You don't hear him talking about this anymore. It's a win, he's done it, it's all over, we're on to the next thing. Maybe Pompeo is trying to do some negotiation, maybe there's another meeting that they'll have at some point. But the reality is, the North Koreans have missiles, nuclear weapons, and the threat is as big and strong as it used to be before all of this rigmarole. So yeah, it's a short-term win, looks good, you bring it back to the base. But in the end, who's gonna win the fight.

Harold Koh: I don't think ... I'm a Korean-American, so this is personal for me. I have relatives who live there and my mother was in the north when the country was divided and just barely got across. I went with Madeleine Albright in 2000 for five days and we dealt with Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father. The thing that strikes you is, these guys are very smart. I mean, there's strange and they live in a bubble. So if you look from Kim Jong-un's perspective, he's played this pretty well. First of all, he automates all his rivals including his uncle who he kills in Malaysia with chemical agents. Second, he decides he's going to have a negotiation. So he wants to put some poker chips on the table so he builds nukes. Then the mountain breaks and then he decides he'll deescalate and get more credit. Then he does things like arrest people for no reason and then when Trump shows up, he releases them. Trump should simply ignore it, instead he gives himself credit for this activity. Then most remarkably, when we were doing the negotiations, the rule was you never bring out the President of the United States until the end after all the concessions have been made, and if they do exactly what we want over a whole series of things and give verifiable results, maybe we'll let you have a photo opportunity with the president. Where Trump wildly veered first from threatening fire in fury and then now he's wandering around the UN saying, I love him and looking for him. Maybe the biggest dog that does not bark is, what about cyberattacks? The North Koreans took down the Sony grid and they did the WannaCry virus. If they want to disrupt US civilian life, they'll do it with cyber commands not with one or two long-range missiles but from never mentioned it. He didn't mention human rights, he didn't mention all kinds of issues. So he's been taken to the cleaners and he thinks it's a win.

Brian Hanson: One of the other mechanisms I want to explore, Harold, comes out of your work in this book and other work you've done before where you talk about transnational law as a constraint. One of the core ideas there is that these norms that are imposed in international law become also internalized domestically through our legal system and through that mechanism creates a check on a president's ability to be able to deviate. If that's a fair summary, crude summary.

Harold Koh: Yes. Excellent. Thank you.

Brian Hanson: So what is an example of that that can help our listeners get a sense of this. Because for many Americans, this sounds pretty incredible. That you'd engage in some international legal process and somehow that's constraining back home with our own law. What is an example of where you've seen this mechanism really constrained president Trump or any other president's decision?

Harold Koh: So let me give an example from the US and example from abroad. Brexit. So torture was originally a violation of international law but we've embedded it into US law, so it's a criminal violation of US law. That was reinforced after all the Bush exercises. It's in the torture treaty, it's in torture statutes, it's in the Geneva Conventions, it's been put into various military directives and executive orders. So Trump campaigns on the idea that he says I'm gonna reinstate waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding, but here we are two years in. Now, it turns out that James Mattis was the military, he took an oath to obey the Geneva Conventions, so did Mike Pompeo, so did McMaster, before he left, so did Gina Haspel as a condition of her confirmation, so did Jeff Sessions. They've gone public on the record saying that they will not give an order that orders torture which happens to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. I think an even clearer example of this intertwining is European Union law and British law. In Dover, they have one day of food because the European law and British law are so closely intertwined and then the chains of production and delivery are all organized on this. They're essentially one system. In Ireland, where I was visiting this summer, there's one electric grid between the north and Dublin. It's very difficult to just ... So in other words, these laws are deeply embedded. The mistake is to think of these as deals and you just break them, that's Trump's view. These are relationships and relationships are ... Anyone who's had shattered relationship knows, there are so many connections and there's so much intermingling that it's massively disruptive to disengage. So when Trump treats them as I can ... There's a deal that's been made with NATO and the UN, I could just break it and nobody cares, that's the same mentality that ... You know. So UK is part of the European Union and will just exit. And now they see two years later how complicated that really is.

Brian Hanson: So Ivo in your book with Jim, you talk about Trump's attempts to fundamentally transform the relationships with our allies. Do you see similar dynamics? Not necessarily through legal mechanisms but similar dynamics in terms of the relationships that existed providing a constraint on what can happen?

Ivo Daalder: Well, there are. There're deep-seated ties between nations particularly allies who are closely tied in terms of trade, in terms of defense and security collaboration. Take one example, I don't think that Justin Trudeau and many Canadians think that President Trump has treated Canada with the respect that they think a neighbor might deserve. But the reality is, they did in the end sign a renewal of the NAFTA agreement. We're able to make some concession, even gave some concessions particularly on dairy and other issues. And overall, decide it was better to maintain some kind of economic relationship than to harp on it. But that said, once you start tearing on the fabric of the relationship, it becomes more difficult to get the kind of pre-emptive cooperation that you would have assumed allies give you down the line. It does have a negative impact on the nature of the relationship. Take the UK, if the UK comes to its senses, in my view and I'm sure Harold's view and decides, this is too complicated, we're going to go back in. The relationship ... Or we're not going to leave, put it that way. The relationship between London and Brussels is transformed by the fact that they've gone through this relationship. There's a negative aspect. It's true, I think as Harold rightly says, there are guardrails. But when the car keeps hitting the rails, the car is going to be damaged. That negative part of it is the one that concerns me in the longer term because I think it weakens our capacity to mobilize others for collective action. And boy, we need collective action to deal with the problems we face and I don't see anybody else mobilizing us besides the United States. If the US is not doing that anymore, I think we're all worse off.

Harold Koh: So the car is damaged, the rails are damaged and so are the other cars. Ivo did a brilliant job at NATO. When you see the role of the Ambassador at NATO, it's dealing with this group of close allies on dozens of issues. The relationship is so strong that there is no specific deal cut. A lot of it's just, we'll give a little bit on this one and we'll take a little bit on the next one and it all turns on a trust level. When the trust level is broken by some arbitrary act, I think that's what he's talking about. It's just very hard to get back to ... You have to start again from sort of naked negotiations as opposed to assumed shared interests.

Brian Hanson: I'll pick up on this point because both of you have talked about the damage done. Harold in your book you make the point you just made, which is that there is damage. The rope-a-dope did damage Muhammad Ali. Just like as you've both been pointing out that there is damage done in this approach. Are there any particular areas that you think are particularly vulnerable for it to be more than just damaged but for it to more than just kind of contemporary damage that can be repaired, but to really do fundamental damage? For the rope-a-dope to fail and Ali to lose the fight. For the system, the mechanisms inside the system and the restraint that they provide actually failing. Do you see areas where you're more concerned about that than others?

Harold Koh: Well, Ivo and I worked in a very closely related way. He works on alliance politics and I work on the way in which these alliances and cooperative arrangements are embedded into law. In good times, these things work together. In a good marriage, you don't need the marriage contract because the relationship is working. But when things start to go awry that's that's when you start looking at the prenuptial agreement. The thing that's actually worrying me the most, Brian, is the Supreme Court. As you know, Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly said he believes in the can rule of law and his own jurisprudence for which I think they're now five votes on the court is one that very much favors the unilateralist American direction that doesn't pay attention to international law. Which means that extreme actions that Trump takes in a whole variety of areas that are inconsistent with international law will be blessed by our Supreme Court. That will allow our law to veer in a different direction from the rest of the world on all whole range of issues. Even if all he does in the context of a methodological issue like how a treaty can be interpreted. It's very hard for a nation to lead when it's law is permanently exceptionalist.

Brian Hanson: So one of the cases that has come before the Supreme Court and one of the tests early in the Trump administration was his ban on travel to the United States. Of course, this went through three rounds before there was an agreement that was in essence supported by the Supreme Court. Right now we've got an interesting situation in that we've got the so-called caravan of people walking from Central America to the United States and President Trump has threatened to put troops in the border, keep them from coming in, even refugees who have an international legal claim to be able to make their case for why they should be accepted into the country. How do you see this playing out and is this change in the Supreme Court possibly going to become in the near future consequential?

Harold Koh: Well, the travel ban decision was wrong. Very simply is wrong because it allows group stereotypes in the way that the Japanese internment allowed group stereotypes. In this country, we judge people by the content of their individual character. The system we had was extreme individualized vetting. Trump was calling for extreme vetting. That's the system we actually had. He replaced it with stereotype discrimination for which there was no basis and he should have lost. The Supreme Court majority convinced itself that ... But the technical ruling is that they didn't block it before trial. In other words, it's not always discriminatory, not facially discriminatory. That litigation has now moved to the next stage where you could prove that these waivers are being applied in a discriminatory fashion, you can still get them blocked. Moreover, European courts are now taking up the issue of whether the travel band is consistent with the European Court of Human Rights. This is a legal process playing out. Now, how will this play with regard to the caravan? The more extreme the action that Trump takes at the border, it's going to be challenged up and down. One of the most striking things about the travel ban is it was blocked by almost 50 decisions, and the Supreme Court took three runs out of it before they finally ruled very narrowly in favor. The Supreme Court doesn't hear that many cases. So the strategy of litigating against is to keep the case before judges who already have cases to settle them out, get favorable rule rulings, try not to get them appealed. Litigating favorable circuits. I think they're more inclined to keep it away because of the last two appointments. But I don't concede that ... It changes your strategy if that two years down the road you might lose it, but it doesn't change it completely.

Ivo Daalder: I'll defer to Harold on the legal side of it. But I do think that what we have seen in the last 18 months what we're about to see again with the latest a group of people coming across the border and the actions that the administration have taken will have long-term consequences in two ways. One, I do think it's changing the nature of the debate about immigration in our own country. He has quite deliberately and quite single-handedly moved the debate in a way in which policies that used to be regarded as too extreme even to consider to be now part of the mainstream. If you just look at what happened in the Senate when you had the Group of Eight that created this comprehensive immigration reform policy that had Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham and John McCain as part of that. The idea that anything like this would have any Republican support for a very long time is just out of the window. That's one seems to me big change and you will find that Democrats are now willing to advocate for policies that we've never advocated in order to get some movement. Second is, as an immigrant myself, as somebody who came to this country having born and raised in the in a foreign country. One of the reasons immigrants come to this country is because of the belief in the idea that everybody can become an American. That everybody no matter where they were born, no matter what they look like, no matter what their religion is like can become an American. That is the ideal that many people want to come for and want to be part of. I think that notion has been deeply scarred by the way the administration has dealt with these issues. On refugees, we're now down to, what is it? 25,000 refugees to be taken in per year, we went at 120, which was a shame even then. We should take in and we have in our history taken in many more refugees who have all become extraordinarily productive members of American society. So the whole immigration debate I think has had a major impact on how to the rest of the world sees us, and whether they want to be part of our country, and whether they want to be part of ... Whether they even want to have the kind of good friendly relationship with our country. It's not only here, it's also happening in Europe and it's deeply damaging there too, by the way. In that sense, the damage that can be done, it's about image, it's about trust, it's about confidence, it's about who we are and values that we espouse is real and it's going to take a lot of hard work to get us back in to a situation where people will once again look at the United States as that beacon of ... That city on a hill as Ronald Reagan talked about. Who by the way, if you go back to his final address, his farewell address talked about the importance of having open doors so that anybody who wanted to come to the city on the hill was welcome. That was Ronald Reagan and we've kind of lost that.

Harold Koh: I could just add her early in my time in the Obama administration about 2009, I went to Europe and I was meeting with the legal adviser of a major European foreign ministry. This person said to me, "There are times when we have to say that America is better than we are and one of those moments was when Obama was elected president." They said, here's this immigrant from Africa who didn't come from a wealthy family and he organized a coalition and got elected president because that could never happen in this country, which is much weaker than the United States. Because our country turns on class and on traditional ways in which people are screened out and a guy like this would never have that kind of access. So I was over there recently and he said, okay. I think the feeling that America has such wild extremes between qualities that our friends and colleagues abroad admire and think are just much better than anything, and then to see elements are just much worse. You know, guns and violence and mass incarceration. They almost can't fathom the extremes.

Brian Hanson: So as we close I'd like to ask each of you, given the conversation we've just had about both constraints and the president to be able to move the country in different ways, the pushes to try to fundamentally reshape US commitments and relationships around the world, what would you encourage our listeners to pay most attention to? Is there a set of issues or a set of circumstances that can help them understand where we are as this struggle continues to unfold in this administration?

Harold Koh: Well, the theme of the book is that the law is much bigger than Donald Trump, but a second theme is that we're all part of this process and we own it, he doesn't own it unless we let him. A critical idea is that this is not self-correcting. Everybody has to deeply engage and get involved in a way that is almost unpleasant. Back in the day, I used to spend a week not reading the news that carefully. You can't afford to do that anymore and on every single issue, you have to get involved and fight even if you're exhausted. It's been a time of ... I know it's after the Kavanaugh hearings a lot of my students were saying, what's the point? And the answer is, this is a time that we have to get engaged. Finally, I have a relative who has had a major illness and I'm struck by two things, the resilience of the human body, but it doesn't heal itself. You have to really work to motivate and get the organism fighting back. So we're at both moments. Our system is remarkably resilient and resistant to these disruptions, but we have to motivate every single one of us. We have to do things that we wouldn't want to do because the forces that are trying to get things changed and disrupted are pushing really hard in the other direction.

Ivo Daalder: Let me take a slightly different way although I completely agree with everything that Harold said. Government in the United States takes place at various different levels and governance does, and we've talked about the national and the international. There's a lot happening at the state and local levels. In fact, if you look at the elections that are going on, there's an extraordinary excitement at the state level and in some extent at the local levels. We here at the Council, Brian you're part of that, spent a lot of time thinking about the role of cities. If you think about and you take something we didn't talk about, the Paris climate change agreement. Here was a president United States said, I know what Obama signed up to, I'm out of here. I don't care. What happened is that it wasn't just citizens or scientists as individuals, it was states and cities and businesses who came together and said, wait a minute, he ain't talking for us. We're the ones who actually are producing the carbon emissions that we need to control. Just because the President of the United States is the federal government is no longer gonna help us do that, we as California or the states in the West or the New England states, the cities like Chicago which launched a major compact on climate change and got cities to sign up to meet the pledge and corporations. Lots of great corporations led by Michael Bloomberg and others put together what's called America's Pledge. That no matter what the government said, we're gonna do our part. So the resilience of the body as you put it is beyond what's happening on Capitol Hill and in the White House and even in the Supreme Court. It's on all the lower courts which are crucially important on the legal side, the political system that has states and municipalities and counties and cities doing their part. Citizens who may be failing to get what they want at the federal level can also work at the local level in the state level to try to get what they need. It's true on immigration, by the way, it's true in a whole bunch of issues. So look at what's happening at the local level just as much as what's happening at the national level. The latter maybe on CNN but the other stuff matters.

Brian Hanson: Well, I want to thank both of you for coming and doing the show because clearly we live at a time in which there are a lot of what used to be settled issues that are being highly contested, and both of you have put forward really helpful books to help people think about what's at stake? What are the mechanisms? Getting beyond the headlines to really understand what's happening and what is important. So Harold Koh who recently published the Trump Administration and International Law, thanks so much for being here.

Harold Koh: It's great to be here and thank you Ivo for participating and thanks to you Brian.

Brian Hanson: And Ivo with your new book, The Empty Throne, thank you for being here as well.

Ivo Daalder: It's great to have a discussion with Harold. You're welcome any time in Chicago, particularly, if the Red Sox win.

Harold Koh: Can we do it over Deep Dish?

Brian Hanson: You're coming back. Thank you for tuning in to this episode of Deep Dish. If you like the show, do me a favor and tap the subscribe button on your podcast app. You can find our show under Deep Dish on Global Affairs where ever you listen to podcasts. If you think you know someone who would enjoy today's episode, please take a moment and tap the share button so that you can send it to them. I'd like to invite you to join our Facebook group, Deep Dish on Global Affairs, where you can ask our guests follow-up questions about anything you heard today or submit questions for upcoming guests and episodes. That's Deep Dish on Global Affairs on Facebook. As a reminder, the opinions you heard today belong to the people who express them and not the Chicago Council on global affairs. This episode of Deep Dish was produced by Evan Fazio. Our audio engineer as Andy Czarnecki. I'm Brian Hanson and we'll be back soon with another slice of Deep Dish.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive

| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads - Consecutive Political Earthquakes

Earlier this week, we witnessed the third “Brexit” moment of 2016 with the failure of Matteo Renzi's constitutional reforms in Italy. This Week's Reads focus on the breakdown of the post-World War II liberal order and the emergence of a new global disorder. 



What to Watch in US-China Relations

US-China relations have been remarkably stable for the past four decades, but two recent “firsts” – Trump's Taiwan call and Xi's upcoming visit to Davos – have the potential to shake things up, writes Jon Macha.



One More Question with Laura Alonso

Argentina's Anti-Corruption Officer, Laura Alonso, came to the Council September 22. We asked her what one question she wished she was asked that day. See what she said.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads - Dealing with Russia

Are we headed toward a new détente with Russia? This Week's Reads focus on the challenges posed by Putin’s Russia and show the global political landscape in which these challenges must be dealt.



One More Question with Professors Gordon and Mokyr

Renowned Northwestern Economists Robert Gordon and Joel Mokyr debated the future of the economy at the Council on October 31. We asked them: What is the one question you wish someone would have asked you today?


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – Election Aftermath

This Week’s Reads show how Mr. Trump’s election has already affected the global political landscape, and provide some perspective on what we can expect from American foreign policy in a Trump administration.





| By Brian Hanson, Ivo H. Daalder

Deep Dish: Trump's America — What's Next

Following Donald Trump's surprising win, Council vice president of studies Brian T. Hanson sat down with Council President Ivo Daalder to discuss how US foreign policy and the organizing principles of the world order are likely to change under a Trump presidency.