John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs | All-In Summit 2024

Experts like Mearsheimer and Sachs provide insights into the concept of the "deep state," illustrating its powerful role in shaping the trajectory of US foreign policy over the years.

The "deep state" refers to the powerful administrative state and entrenched bureaucracies in the government that often pursue a consistent foreign policy across different administrations, regardless of which political party is in power.

Since the late 19th century, the complexity of economies has necessitated a robust administrative state in the Western world, and the need for such a state has only grown over time, especially after World War II. The United States’ involvement in global affairs has required a powerful administrative state to manage foreign policy initiatives. High, middle, and low-level bureaucrats established in departments like the Pentagon and the State Department, have, over time, developed their own vested interests in maintaining specific foreign policies.

The "deep state" has developed significant influence and inertia over decades, shaping US foreign policy to maximize American global power and hegemony, often through interventions and attempts at remaking other countries in the US image.

The entrenched foreign policy machinery aims to maintain and sometimes enhance American global dominance across successive administrations. This administrative machinery resists attempts by presidents, such as Donald Trump, to significantly alter the established direction of US foreign policy. Bureaucrats and officials find ways to undermine or constrain presidents who depart from conventional policy strategies.

Sachs uses an interview with Putin where U.S. presidents, upon entering office, become aligned with long-standing foreign policy objectives guided by bureaucrats, dubbed "men in dark suits." Sachs asserts that U.S. foreign policy has remained largely consistent over time, true from President George H.W. Bush to Trump. He references John Bolton's memoir, which describes efforts to bypass Trump when he disagreed with established policies.

Jeffrey Sachs argues that US foreign policy is driven by a q ...

The dynamic between the USA and China creates diverging perspectives. Some experts argue for containment, perceiving China as a threat, while others believe in harmonious coexistence punctuated by diplomacy and strategic management.

Containment vs. Engagement

The Argument for Containment

John Mearsheimer favors a policy of containing China. He argues that China’s increasing economic and military capabilities will drive it to seek regional hegemony in Asia, displacing the U.S. and threatening American security and interests. Mearsheimer sees the U.S. as the only current regional hegemon, dominating the Western Hemisphere, and highlights the historical pattern of the U.S. not tolerating peer competitors and striving to remain the sole global power, having worked historically to counter emerging hegemons like Imperial Germany, Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union. Mearsheimer underlines the instincts of survival and security in an international system he views as anarchic, where being the most powerful ensures the best chances of survival, therefore, promoting an intense security competition in high technology, economics, and military to prevent China from becoming a peer competitor.

The Argument for Diplomatic Engagement

In contrast, Jeffrey Sachs views China not as an inherent threat to U.S. security but as a valuable economic market, noting positive elements such as culture and cuisine. He also mentions the benefits of economic interdependence, citing the example of the Californian economy prospering from the rise of China. Sachs rejects the perceived necessity of conflict with China, arguing for mutual recognition and non-threatening security, where the U.S. and China respect each other's spheres of influence without escalation to nuclear war. He also suggests that American policy should appreciate China’s perspective, such as its naval development, which may be a response to the U.S. naval presence near strategic choke points affecting China’s access to resources. Sachs further criticizes the vision of some in Washington who see India as a ...

The war in Ukraine is increasingly seen as a complex and dangerous geopolitical issue, with varying perspectives on the roles and actions of the United States and Russia in the conflict.

The war in Ukraine is seen by some as a proxy conflict

Some see the war in Ukraine as a proxy battle between the US and Russia.

Proponents of the US involvement in Ukraine argue that standing up to Russian aggression

Proponents of U.S. involvement in Ukraine argue that supporting Ukraine is crucial for upholding the international order. They believe that standing up to Russian aggression and preventing the redrawing of borders by force is essential. They view actions taken against Russia, including economic sanctions and military support to Ukraine, as necessary to deter further acts of aggression by authoritarian regimes around the world.

Critics contend that the US has needlessly provoked Russia

On the other hand, critics like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs contend that the U.S. has needlessly provoked Russia. Mearsheimer criticizes U.S. policy for alienating Russia and inadvertently strengthening the bond between Russia and China. He views the United States' entanglement in Ukraine as a distraction from what he considers the primary threat: China. Sachs echoes this sentiment, expressing concern for the unnecessary escalation resulting in the direct engagement of the U.S. with a nuclear-armed Russia.

Sachs takes a historical perspective, mentioning advice he gave in the past to Russian leaders seeking peace and cooperation. He points out that Russia never wanted the US military on its borders, highlighting NATO's expansion as a major provocation that led to the current conflict. Sachs warns that U.S. Secretary of State B ...

As global issues and conflicts persist, there's a rigorous debate on whether the United States should act unilaterally in its own interests or adhere to international laws and collaborate through global institutions for resolution.

Multilateralism versus Unilateralism

Jeffrey Sachs, working with the United Nations, highlights a discussion central to global diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts.

Advocates of Unilateral, Power-Based Approach

Some believe that the U.S. must prioritize its own interests and not be restricted by international laws or organizations which may not have the same priorities as America. This viewpoint advocates for a power-based approach, asserting that America must maneuver for its own narrow self-interest, even if that means acting unilaterally and potentially disregarding international norms and institutions.

Proponents of a Multilateral Approach

Conversely, proponents of multilateralism argue that upholding international laws and working through established institutions, like the United Nations, not only fosters a more peaceful and legitimate conflict resolution but also bolsters global stability and encourages cooperation. They assert that following international norms can lead to sustainable peace, with the strength of global institutions providing a foundation for these efforts.

Jeffrey Sachs points to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine as an example where international law, as consensus within UN suggests, could play a pivotal role. The UN upholds a two-state sol ...

The current global scene is seeing intensified great power rivalry and security competitions, particularly among the US, China, and Russia, which could inadvertently escalate into direct military conflict if not managed carefully.

Dangers of great power rivalry

Experts, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, warn about the risks of escalation due to the anarchic nature of the international system, where the major powers’ desires to preserve their security and influence create incentives for behaviors that increase the risks of miscalculation and unintended consequences.

Inherent risks in international policy

Mearsheimer discusses US foreign policy, including its historical alignments with dictatorial regimes based on national interests, and suggests that great power competitions can lead to pragmatic alliances. These situations hint at the potential for escalation between major powers, as a result of aggressive foreign policy and balance of power considerations.

Sachs highlights the dangers of the current American foreign policy approach, which seeks to exert power globally and could potentially lead to nuclear war due to its aggressive meddling. Sachs underscores the high stakes involved, with particular reference to tensions in Ukraine and potential conflicts with China, warning that there are no second chances in the nuclear age.

Specific flashpoints and alliances

Mearsheimer explores the potential of military conflicts involving countries with interlinked alliances, such as a possible conflict between Israel and Iran which could draw in the US due to its interconnectedness with regional conflicts. Mearsheimer indicates that a conflict between Israel and Iran could escalate due to regional alliances with Russia and China.

Furthermore, Mearsheimer speaks on the inherent risks in a world without a higher governing authority. He points out that states naturally aim to maximize their power for survival, which ...