Davos made clear that many “allies” would rather denounce the United States and chase access to Chinese markets than bear the burdens required to sustain the Western alliance and democratic system.
As discussed by Robert Kagan in his recent Atlantic essay, the American architected global system was constructed after WWII to prevent future global conflicts and to prevent the continuation of the warfare that was a regular feature of global relations leading up to WWII.
“America’s unique circumstances—¬largely in¬vulnerable to foreign invasion, because of its strength and its distance from the other great powers, and thus able to deploy force thousands of miles from home without leaving itself at risk. America’s allies made two remarkable wagers: that the United States could be trusted to defend them whenever needed, and that it would not exploit its disproportionate might to enrich or strengthen itself at their expense.
The American order established harmony among the great powers within it, and left those outside it, Russia and China, relatively isolated and insecure—unhappy with the global arrangement but limited in their ability to change it.
So much of America’s influence in the world has derived from treating others as part of a community of democratic nations or of strategic partners.
Yan, the Chinese thinker, observed that one of the elements holding the American order together was America’s reputation for morality and respect for inter¬national norms.”
BTW, thank you for noting this important piece of history:
“Consider the Holy League (1571–1573), an alliance of Christian Mediterranean states, including Spain, Venice, the Papal States, Genoa, and others, united against the Ottoman Empire.”
Alliances are difficult to maintain, but for the challenge we face today, an alliance that could last just two or three years would be enough. But it has to be focused.
One of your best commentaries yet, Robert, and when discussing one of the worst kinds of behavior by America’s “allies.” Thank you.
People should remember that you call two nations home: Canada, where you were from, and the U.S., where you resided and worked for many years. This has provided personal insight into the prospects and problems both societies face, with your criticism of your place of birth is especially important.
As you note, Canadian Prime Minister Carney argued recently:
“You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”
If one did not know it, they’d think Carney was referring to the PRC because that is exactly what the CCP did for decades via forced joint ventures that were established to steal the technologies it could get openly by foreign firms which were all too eager to cash in on the “Rise of China.”
I’ve read many of your commentaries and works, and perhaps the only area where you and I appear - key word: “appear” - to differ is on the importance of South Korea versus Taiwan as the ROC in terms of research and ability to assist the U.S. in its goal to embrace (finally) industrial policy and rebuild our advanced manufacturing and scientific base.
Why Taiwan? When the ROC was thrown out of the UN in 1971 and then, by 1978, saw America sever its official relations with the island in favor of the PRC, I believe Taiwan’s policymakers and population came to a painful realization: the world may completely isolate Taiwan some day and shut it out of the world system, simply to please or eventually after being ordered by the CCP to do so.
To ensure its survival, the ROC saw its only defense was its economy and pursuit of an OEM/ODM model that would ensure its unofficial foreign relations would be maintained by the TSMCs of Taiwan continuing to serve their foreign customers, with Taiwan firms maintaining such relationships rather than trying to cut their foreign clients out of the supply chain. Remove the foreign clients and Taiwan’s security would be much more precarious. It was not to create unhealthy dependencies as the CCP and PRC did, but to ensure mutually beneficial, long-term relationship, with Taiwan via industrial policy helping its partners also move up the value chain.
Taiwan smartly understood its small size and lack of diplomatic as well as military power. The PRC, conversely, has sought to use its size as well as its diplomatic and increasingly military power to provide it an outsized role globally.
That is why I have argued Taiwan’s negotiations with the U.S. on reciprocal tariffs were unlike any other nation on earth: while other nations were negotiating for trade advantages and lower tariffs, Taiwan was fighting for its survival. Fortunately, the Trump administration has shown it understood this - I always argued it did - and as shown by the low 15% rate agreed upon with Taiwan. The deal finalized last week show the administration values Taiwan as a key economic partner for both America’s and Taiwan’s future.
I will continue reading your previous works here as promised, and thank you again for the hard work you have done all these years at the ITIF.
The article's conclusion is terrifying. The cultural crisis is far more powerful than the economic one, but the former follows from the latter.
Europe is under the rule of liberal post-industrial financiers, for whom industrial production is a relic of the past. Therefore, they consider themselves the smartest, entrusting China and other developing countries with the mission of supplying Europe with industrial products. Thus, when US Commerce Secretary Mr. Lutnick declared in Davos that globalization was a mistake and American tariffs were its correction, liberal Europe dismissed him as a crazy cynic and booed him.
Among the Western elite, there are many sincere supporters of this post-industrial illusion, apparently significantly more than those who support a new industrialization. Within their own logic, they consider President Trump's new global program madness or betrayal and see themselves as noble defenders of liberal values. Alas, they fail to understand that the civilizational salvation of the West lies within the mainstream of industrial values. Even China's incredible leap to global dominance, driven by industrialization, fails to convince liberal globalists of the simple idea that global cultural influence and liberal values spring from a developed industrial base, not from its shattered remains.
Serge, great comment. I blame Daniel Bell for starting this (Post-Industrial Society book) but you are right. The elite class looks down on production and thinks societies can be rich and strong without it
I would have thought the head of the ITIF would at least be concerned about how the Administration's policies have handed China global leadership in the green energy transition and all the associated technologies. And the cuts to NSF, NIH, NASA, NOAA, etc are a gift to China's leadership in science and innovation broadly.
While the U.S. has maintained consistent trade deficits since 1976, it has leveraged its position to attract capital, an average of $680 billion annually in foreign capital since 1980, totaling over $29 trillion by 2022. This has allowed us to finance our growth with its GDP expanding from $228 billion in 1945 to $31 trillion by 2025. I think it is a mistake for our "allies" to choose trade with China over the US but the chaotic use of tariffs for political hegemony is not helping our case.
Any idea how much German, Japanese, and South Korean auto manufacturers have invested in U.S. plants and U.S. workers since the 1980s? What about the pharma & biotech investments, along with institutional quality real estate? Just asking...
I think our European allies are just responding in kind to Trump's unhinged posturing. His speech at Davos was truly insulting to our allies and disgraceful. I believe the Europeans would rather strengthen the NATO alliance and trade with the U.S., but how do you expect them to respond to Trump's insane comments about Canada (100% tariff?) and Greenland. They don't believe he's ready to negotiate in good faith. The allies may just be posturing on relations with China and waiting for Trump to come to his senses and pull another TACO.
Jeff, I hope you are right. But they could have done that by exerting the kind of leadership the US used to provide to defend liberal democracy. Instead they say Trump is the bigger threat than the CCP
Rob, many years ago I worked and lived in NYC and took the subway a lot. It was said back then the best way to ride the NYC subway was to board with your eyes flashing and a nervous twitch, like you are crazier than any other mofo on the train. That's Trump's negotiating style and the European allies have now had five full years to adjust to it. I worked in Manhattan real estate and could tell you stories about Trump that I heard from brokers, investors, and lenders. Just last year I had lunch with a lender who worked for one of the largest banks. He said senior management instructed him never to even return a call from two major developers or their representatives. Guess who was one of them? They could not trust him to be truthful and negotiate in good faith. The Europeans have learned the hard way, but I truly hope they do not ally with China.
Europe has been moving towards China since Obama took office. Our "allies" have not been true allies for a long time. The CCP controlled the UK, Canada, and Australia long before Trump took office.
America's options are A: continue to support countries/institutions controlled by the CCP or burn the whole thing down and start from scratch.
The CCP has master media an election manipulation. Trump is the last line of defense. The Democrats have shown they have no problem handing America over to the CCP. When the Democrats get back in charge, expect digital ID, social credit scores, and crackdowns on free speech immediately. They will gladly work with the CCP to make sure they never lose power again.
As an American, I fully expect X to be underground by 2030, and the US to be flooded with CCP spy balloons on wheels, all while paying a heavy wealth tax.
As discussed by Robert Kagan in his recent Atlantic essay, the American architected global system was constructed after WWII to prevent future global conflicts and to prevent the continuation of the warfare that was a regular feature of global relations leading up to WWII.
“America’s unique circumstances—¬largely in¬vulnerable to foreign invasion, because of its strength and its distance from the other great powers, and thus able to deploy force thousands of miles from home without leaving itself at risk. America’s allies made two remarkable wagers: that the United States could be trusted to defend them whenever needed, and that it would not exploit its disproportionate might to enrich or strengthen itself at their expense.
The American order established harmony among the great powers within it, and left those outside it, Russia and China, relatively isolated and insecure—unhappy with the global arrangement but limited in their ability to change it.
So much of America’s influence in the world has derived from treating others as part of a community of democratic nations or of strategic partners.
Yan, the Chinese thinker, observed that one of the elements holding the American order together was America’s reputation for morality and respect for inter¬national norms.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/03/trump-national-security-greenland-spheres-of-interest/685673/?gift=YRI4EEH83_xCFEy-xnh1S_Y9jP3iEbnNvvTA3K-C-_8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
BTW, thank you for noting this important piece of history:
“Consider the Holy League (1571–1573), an alliance of Christian Mediterranean states, including Spain, Venice, the Papal States, Genoa, and others, united against the Ottoman Empire.”
Alliances are difficult to maintain, but for the challenge we face today, an alliance that could last just two or three years would be enough. But it has to be focused.
One of your best commentaries yet, Robert, and when discussing one of the worst kinds of behavior by America’s “allies.” Thank you.
People should remember that you call two nations home: Canada, where you were from, and the U.S., where you resided and worked for many years. This has provided personal insight into the prospects and problems both societies face, with your criticism of your place of birth is especially important.
As you note, Canadian Prime Minister Carney argued recently:
“You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”
If one did not know it, they’d think Carney was referring to the PRC because that is exactly what the CCP did for decades via forced joint ventures that were established to steal the technologies it could get openly by foreign firms which were all too eager to cash in on the “Rise of China.”
I’ve read many of your commentaries and works, and perhaps the only area where you and I appear - key word: “appear” - to differ is on the importance of South Korea versus Taiwan as the ROC in terms of research and ability to assist the U.S. in its goal to embrace (finally) industrial policy and rebuild our advanced manufacturing and scientific base.
Why Taiwan? When the ROC was thrown out of the UN in 1971 and then, by 1978, saw America sever its official relations with the island in favor of the PRC, I believe Taiwan’s policymakers and population came to a painful realization: the world may completely isolate Taiwan some day and shut it out of the world system, simply to please or eventually after being ordered by the CCP to do so.
To ensure its survival, the ROC saw its only defense was its economy and pursuit of an OEM/ODM model that would ensure its unofficial foreign relations would be maintained by the TSMCs of Taiwan continuing to serve their foreign customers, with Taiwan firms maintaining such relationships rather than trying to cut their foreign clients out of the supply chain. Remove the foreign clients and Taiwan’s security would be much more precarious. It was not to create unhealthy dependencies as the CCP and PRC did, but to ensure mutually beneficial, long-term relationship, with Taiwan via industrial policy helping its partners also move up the value chain.
Taiwan smartly understood its small size and lack of diplomatic as well as military power. The PRC, conversely, has sought to use its size as well as its diplomatic and increasingly military power to provide it an outsized role globally.
That is why I have argued Taiwan’s negotiations with the U.S. on reciprocal tariffs were unlike any other nation on earth: while other nations were negotiating for trade advantages and lower tariffs, Taiwan was fighting for its survival. Fortunately, the Trump administration has shown it understood this - I always argued it did - and as shown by the low 15% rate agreed upon with Taiwan. The deal finalized last week show the administration values Taiwan as a key economic partner for both America’s and Taiwan’s future.
I will continue reading your previous works here as promised, and thank you again for the hard work you have done all these years at the ITIF.
The article's conclusion is terrifying. The cultural crisis is far more powerful than the economic one, but the former follows from the latter.
Europe is under the rule of liberal post-industrial financiers, for whom industrial production is a relic of the past. Therefore, they consider themselves the smartest, entrusting China and other developing countries with the mission of supplying Europe with industrial products. Thus, when US Commerce Secretary Mr. Lutnick declared in Davos that globalization was a mistake and American tariffs were its correction, liberal Europe dismissed him as a crazy cynic and booed him.
Among the Western elite, there are many sincere supporters of this post-industrial illusion, apparently significantly more than those who support a new industrialization. Within their own logic, they consider President Trump's new global program madness or betrayal and see themselves as noble defenders of liberal values. Alas, they fail to understand that the civilizational salvation of the West lies within the mainstream of industrial values. Even China's incredible leap to global dominance, driven by industrialization, fails to convince liberal globalists of the simple idea that global cultural influence and liberal values spring from a developed industrial base, not from its shattered remains.
Serge, great comment. I blame Daniel Bell for starting this (Post-Industrial Society book) but you are right. The elite class looks down on production and thinks societies can be rich and strong without it
I would have thought the head of the ITIF would at least be concerned about how the Administration's policies have handed China global leadership in the green energy transition and all the associated technologies. And the cuts to NSF, NIH, NASA, NOAA, etc are a gift to China's leadership in science and innovation broadly.
We are and have. Look at our web site ITIF.org under the tab issues/science
While the U.S. has maintained consistent trade deficits since 1976, it has leveraged its position to attract capital, an average of $680 billion annually in foreign capital since 1980, totaling over $29 trillion by 2022. This has allowed us to finance our growth with its GDP expanding from $228 billion in 1945 to $31 trillion by 2025. I think it is a mistake for our "allies" to choose trade with China over the US but the chaotic use of tariffs for political hegemony is not helping our case.
Thanks Vinit. But almost all of that attracted capital is to buy US firms, not invest in new facilities or equipment
Any idea how much German, Japanese, and South Korean auto manufacturers have invested in U.S. plants and U.S. workers since the 1980s? What about the pharma & biotech investments, along with institutional quality real estate? Just asking...
I think our European allies are just responding in kind to Trump's unhinged posturing. His speech at Davos was truly insulting to our allies and disgraceful. I believe the Europeans would rather strengthen the NATO alliance and trade with the U.S., but how do you expect them to respond to Trump's insane comments about Canada (100% tariff?) and Greenland. They don't believe he's ready to negotiate in good faith. The allies may just be posturing on relations with China and waiting for Trump to come to his senses and pull another TACO.
Jeff, I hope you are right. But they could have done that by exerting the kind of leadership the US used to provide to defend liberal democracy. Instead they say Trump is the bigger threat than the CCP
Rob, many years ago I worked and lived in NYC and took the subway a lot. It was said back then the best way to ride the NYC subway was to board with your eyes flashing and a nervous twitch, like you are crazier than any other mofo on the train. That's Trump's negotiating style and the European allies have now had five full years to adjust to it. I worked in Manhattan real estate and could tell you stories about Trump that I heard from brokers, investors, and lenders. Just last year I had lunch with a lender who worked for one of the largest banks. He said senior management instructed him never to even return a call from two major developers or their representatives. Guess who was one of them? They could not trust him to be truthful and negotiate in good faith. The Europeans have learned the hard way, but I truly hope they do not ally with China.
Europe has been moving towards China since Obama took office. Our "allies" have not been true allies for a long time. The CCP controlled the UK, Canada, and Australia long before Trump took office.
America's options are A: continue to support countries/institutions controlled by the CCP or burn the whole thing down and start from scratch.
The CCP has master media an election manipulation. Trump is the last line of defense. The Democrats have shown they have no problem handing America over to the CCP. When the Democrats get back in charge, expect digital ID, social credit scores, and crackdowns on free speech immediately. They will gladly work with the CCP to make sure they never lose power again.
As an American, I fully expect X to be underground by 2030, and the US to be flooded with CCP spy balloons on wheels, all while paying a heavy wealth tax.