Follow us on social

Shutterstock_347418986-scaled

The coronavirus crisis is an opportunity to finally move past the post-WWII era

The COVID-19 outbreak, while frightening, presents an opportunity to reconsider some of our fundamental assumptions about sovereignty, international relations, and global power itself.

Analysis | Washington Politics

The COVID-19 outbreak has already begun to reshape life around the globe. In a diversity of countries, from South Korea to Italy to the People’s Republic of China, governments are scrambling to address and cure a pandemic the likes of which haven’t been seen since the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918-1920.

Here in the United States, President Donald Trump has invoked the Defense Production Act — signed by President Harry S. Truman in September 1950, soon after the outbreak of the Korean War — which allows the government to force U.S. companies to manufacture materials needed to attenuate the outbreak. Meanwhile, Congress looks set to pass a $2 trillion bill that attempts to avoid a corona-inspired depression. These actions suggest that, in the two months since the United States had its first COVID-19 case, we are entering a prolonged period of crisis that has the capacity to reshape contemporary politics.

Throughout modern history, crises have been key to engendering enormous political, economic, and social transformations. Indeed, the major institutions of our modern world were created during and shortly after World War II, a devastating conflict that restructured domestic and geopolitics.

At the level of international relations, these include the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization (the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). At the domestic level, these include the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Department of Defense.

And of course, it was the crisis of World War II that encouraged U.S. policymakers to embrace the strategy of primacy that continues to define U.S. foreign affairs. Put simply, the war convinced generations of American elites, and ordinary Americans, that world peace and prosperity depended on the United States asserting and maintaining global hegemony. In fact, the United States’ world posture — our approximately 800 military bases, our enormous defense budget, and our willingness to deploy Special Forces abroad — emerged directly from lessons learned in the 1940s.

The coronavirus, however, threatens to upend the post-World War II order. For the first time since that war, Americans are rethinking their relationship to both their state and the world itself. The fact that our very way of life is on the verge of collapse due to people missing two or more paychecks has suggested to many ordinary and elite Americans alike that the neoliberal capitalist economy might have such significant problems that extraordinary measures — such as, to take one suggestion floated recently, mailing people checks for thousands of dollars — might be in order.

From the perspective of geopolitics, the pandemic has also underlined that the problems of the twenty-first century will be unlike those of the twentieth. Today, the effects of pandemics — and climate change and inequality — cross borders and require forms of international cooperation not seen in the past. Thus, while the United States might have significant issues with rivals like China and Russia, the COVID-19 outbreak makes clear that, in the final analysis, we are all humans who need to rely on one another if we are to overcome transnational challenges.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II — and, in particular, after the advent and employment of atomic weapons — a number of U.S. elites cogitated upon the possibility of establishing an international organization in which nations surrendered elements of their sovereignty. This, these elites avowed, was the only way to ensure that a nuclear World War III never erupted. Though these dreams were quickly dashed due to the Cold War, they must be seized upon today.

In particular, restrainers need to begin thinking seriously about international organization. In the past, groups like the U.N., IMF, and World Bank rightly have been accused of serving as vehicles for American and Western interests. This was dramatically highlighted in 2003, when the United States and its allies decided not to seek U.N. Security Council support for the invasion of Iraq.

This must change. In an era defined by transnational and global challenges, we must begin thinking about ways to transcend the nationalist ideologies that have divided humanity throughout the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries.

The COVID-19 outbreak, while frightening, presents an opportunity to reconsider some of our fundamental assumptions about sovereignty, international relations, and global power itself. In fact, presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) has already started this process. Throughout his campaign, Sanders has regularly highlighted how U.S. citizens are connected to people around the world. To cite just one of many examples, in July 2019, Sanders told the Council on Foreign Relations that he would not rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because, he affirmed, it wouldn’t bring American jobs back and would force U.S. laborers to compete with foreigners “who are working as modern-day slaves.” Sanders, unlike the majority of presidents and presidential candidates, gestured toward a post-nationalist politics that put human beings, not just Americans, at its center.

Seventy-five years ago, Americans emerged from World War II ready to abandon some of their sovereignty in order to create a more just, peaceful, and prosperous world. The rivalry with the Soviet Union, though, prevented this from happening. But the Cold War is now history. In 2020, the major challenges the United States faces are not national, but are rather inter- and trans-national, in character. It is far more likely that Americans will suffer and die from viral outbreaks, climate disruptions, and inequality, than on battlefields in China or Russia. As such, restrainers must begin developing the international organizations — and international ideas — appropriate to confronting and solving the problems Americans, and humanity in general, face today.


Photo credit: Marco Rubino / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
Kim Jong Un
Top photo credit: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visits the construction site of the Ragwon County Offshore Farm, North Korea July 13, 2025. KCNA via REUTERS

Kim Jong Un is nuking up and playing hard to get

Asia-Pacific

President Donald Trump’s second term has so far been a series of “shock and awe” campaigns both at home and abroad. But so far has left North Korea untouched even as it arms for the future.

The president dramatically broke with precedent during his first term, holding two summits as well as a brief meeting at the Demilitarized Zone with the North’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. Unfortunately, engagement crashed and burned in Hanoi. The DPRK then pulled back, essentially severing contact with both the U.S. and South Korea.

keep readingShow less
Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one
Top photo credit: U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Brad Cooper speaks to guests at the IISS Manama Dialogue in Manama, Bahrain, November 17, 2023. REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed

Why new CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper is as wrong as the old one

Middle East

If accounts of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities this past month are to be believed, the president’s initial impulse to stay out of the Israel-Iran conflict failed to survive the prodding of hawkish advisers, chiefly U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Michael Kurilla.

With Kurilla, an Iran hawk and staunch ally of both the Israeli government and erstwhile national security adviser Mike Waltz, set to leave office this summer, advocates of a more restrained foreign policy may understandably feel like they are out of the woods.

keep readingShow less
Putin Trump
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the President of the Russian Federation) and Donald Trump (US Southern Command photo)

How Trump's 50-day deadline threat against Putin will backfire

Europe

In the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his love for three things: deals, tariffs, and ultimatums.

He got to combine these passions during his Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday. Only moments after the two leaders announced a new plan to get military aid to Ukraine, Trump issued an ominous 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire. “We're going to be doing secondary tariffs if we don't have a deal within 50 days,” Trump told the assembled reporters.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.