ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

How has the rise of the alliance between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea shaped global power dynamics? What are the implications of this alliance for the impact of diplomacy?

The relationships we are seeing develop between these four countries seem, at this point, less a true alliance than patterns of bilateral cooperation prompted more by shared antipathy to the United States than broadly shared interests. The United States must monitor these relationships closely, most immediately because of the support North Korea and Iran are providing Russia for its war in Ukraine and whatever Russia may be offering in return.

How do your courses address the importance and impact of the expanding BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) alliance?

The courses I teach generally do not focus on the BRICS as a group, though each of the members is clearly a country of great interest to the United States and thus each is analyzed in the context of US foreign policy. Because these are large countries whose domestic environmental policies have important implications for global challenges like climate change, they are also a direct focus in my course in international environmental policy.

Recent commentary suggests that the Trump administration’s overtures to Russia are, in part, meant to drive a wedge in the China-Russia relationship—a reverse of what Richard Nixon did during the Cold War.

How would that benefit the US, and what are the chances it can succeed?

I honestly view this argument as reflecting less a carefully calculated policy than an attempt by administration supporters to justify the recent US tilt toward Russia. It would be difficult for either Russia or China to assume that the United States would sustain these pro-Russian ties beyond 2028. Thus the “Russia card” would seem one that could be played for only a short time and for relatively limited purposes. Perhaps more important, it is also not clear that China, as it rises to a position of global leadership, will be comfortable maintaining strong ties to Russia for reasons that have may have little to do with the United States.

Much of US foreign policy has, as its foundation, the outcome of World War II and the norms established then. How can students today fully absorb the importance of and the reasons for these norms eighty years later? Do they have that foundation in history?

I recognize the challenge, but it was evident even when I first started teaching back in 1977. I agree that it is tremendously important for students to understand the historical context in which contemporary foreign policy is set.

In my US foreign policy course, we begin with a series of historical quotations going back to John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” speech to get a feel for the way US leaders over time have articulated their views of the United States place in the world and the best way to protect US interests. As the course unfolds, I use detailed case studies to take them back to key situations where the US has faced important foreign policy challenges, from the Cuban missile crisis, Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, and IranContra to the invasion of Iraq and the Obama-era debate over the use of military force against Syria. Each case is used to analyze problems of decision-making that have contemporary value, but each also contributes to develop a deeper, if admittedly somewhat fragmented, sense of the history of US foreign policy.

Some have argued that the US squandered the possibility of maintaining good relations with Russia by a rapid expansion of NATO and by not fully understanding nationalism in Russia and appreciating its sacrifices during World War II. Is this a fair criticism?

This is certainly part of President Putin’s defense of his actions in Ukraine and one some members of the Trump administration seem to use to suggest that the Russian actions in Ukraine might somehow be justified. There was a serious debate in the early 1990s within and outside the US government about the wisdom of NATO expansion, and there were those in both the Defense and State Departments who worried that this would have the effect on Russian perceptions of the “expanding West” that would make Russia defensive.

The decision to expand NATO was also made at a time of particular Russian weakness and when many were too confident that an inevitable democratization of Russia would make traditional Russian sensitivities like these less significant. At the time, I felt expansion was the right decision, although it might have been done more gradually through the Partnership for Peace process and sold to Russia more effectively. Regardless, fear of future NATO expansion cannot justify the brutal war Russia is waging against Ukraine.

Is it a good idea or counterproductive to push for a further expansion of NATO?

At this point, the future of NATO is sufficiently in doubt that any talk of expansion seems very premature. I assume the candidate in question would be Ukraine, but recent developments make this highly unlikely as long as the United States remains a NATO member. Should a true European defense alliance emerge to either complement or replace NATO, I assume there would have to be international agreement defining Ukraine’s borders, at least provisionally.

Previous iterations of your classes probably focused on the ways humans attain, maintain, and expand power and influence through military, cultural, and economic means. Given the growing focus on climate change as a critical foreign policy issue and concerns about international displacement as a result of climate disasters, where does this topic fit in the undergraduate curriculum?

There are many dimensions to the problem that can be explored in a number of curricular areas, certainly within the government department and beyond. It has been a focus in my course in international environmental policy, as we address how states are responding on both the national and international level to the serious effects of climate change.

How does a liberal arts education help with the knowledge and personal characteristics necessary to be a leader in international relations?

The breadth of knowledge and exposure to multiple ways of understanding the world offered by a liberal arts education provides a great foundation for work in international relations.

How do you motivate students to pursue a career in the foreign service or international relations?

Most of the students with whom I have worked have never needed additional motivation to move on in the field. They are excited by the intrinsically interesting and important nature of the work itself and the range of opportunities careers in international relations can provide. Typically, the biggest challenge is to help them identify entry-level opportunities to get started. Here is where the great network of ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ grads, so many of whom I have known and taught, is an invaluable resource.

This story first appeared in the Winter 2025 issue of ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Magazine. Manage your subscription and see other stories from the magazine on the ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Magazine website.