C O R P O R A T I O N BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER A RAND Project to Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World MICHAEL J. MAZARR, ASTRID STUTH CEVALLOS, ANDREW RADIN, AND MIRANDA PRIEBE Building a Sustainable International Order Summary of the First Workshop in the International Order Project Series ince 1945, the United States has pursued its former practitioners to discuss the nature of the global interests through creating and main- existing international order and its likely evolu- taining international economic institutions, tion over the next 15 to 20 years; the workshop bilateral and regional security organizations, was held on January 14, 2016, at the RAND and liberal political norms; these ordering Washington Office in Arlington, Virginia. Smechanisms are often collectively referred to as the Project staff devel oped four broad themes for international order. In recent years, rising powers have the meeting and constructed a question for each begun to challenge aspects of this order. This report is designed to elicit subject-matter expertise. The a part of Building a Sustainable International Order, a four themes and their corresponding questions RAND Corporation project to explore U.S. strategy in (in italics) were as follows: a changing world; sponsored by the U.S. Department of • What do we mean, in practical and policy- Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, this effort seeks to relevant terms, by international order? understand the existing international order, assess cur- What kind or form of order is most import- rent challenges to the order, and recommend future U.S. ant to U.S. interests going forward? policies with respect to the order. For more information • What parts of the order have been on the project, please visit www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/ most important to achieving U.S. goals international-order. and interests? RAND hosted the first of three workshops bringing Where should we invest our energy toge ther scholars, policy analysts, and current and and resources to preserve the order? • What criteria should be used to assess the effec- since 1945 and the role of this order in advancing tiveness of U.S. policies toward the order? U.S. interests. What questions provide the sorts of Most workshop participants agreed that identifying insight to make necessary decisions? the core elements of the international order and • How do we see the role of international order in thinking about how each element works were essen- U.S. grand strategy going forward? tial first steps toward understanding the current What is the range of U.S. policy options order. Most responded positively to the background available toward the international order? report, which outlined the following elements: To lay the groundwork for these discussions, project • United Nations staff prepared a background report on the existing • European Union international order, examining literature reviews • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bearing on these four themes.1 • U.S. system of bilateral alliances The participants at the session included leading experts from three broad categories: scholars • global economic institutions, such as the of international relations who have studied the International Monetary Fund, World problem of order and associated issues, such as Bank, and World Trade Organization international institutions; national security experts • regional trade agreements from Washington-area research institutes, includ- • global political bodies, such as ing the RAND Corporation; and current U.S. the Group of Twenty (G-20) government officials participating in their personal capacity (that is, offering personal, not government, • arms control treaties opinions). Taken together, the participants have • norms of sovereignty, democracy, extensive experience with the challenge of interna- and human rights. tional order from both a theoretical and practical The discussion also suggested a few less- standpoint. All discussions were not-for-attri- institutionalized elements worth considering. For bution; neither this summary nor future project example, shared liberal political values among lead- publications will associate any views with particu- ing democracies may be an important element of lar individuals.2 the order. In addition, U.S. economic and military This conference summary outlines the discussion power may be a critical force sustaining the order. from the event and identifies a future research agenda on the international order and U.S. foreign Goals and Purposes policy. During the workshop, discussions repeatedly turned to the question of the order’s purpose. There Defining the International was a distinction between widely shared, global goals of the order and goals of the order from the Order perspective of U.S. policy objectives, although these Elements categories clearly overlap. Participants identified three potential goals for the international order: The background report we wrote for the confer- ence defined international order as “the body of 1. Prevent great-power war by creating pre- rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations dictable patterns in state behavior. among the key players in the international environ- 2. Promote economic prosperity in an 3 ment.” The report also emphasized that this study open and stable economic system. focuses on understanding the specific “liberal inter- 3. Promote human rights and democracy. national order” that the United States has shaped 2 The first two goals appear to be widely shared by many countries, and the third is sought mainly by the United States and its allies. To what extent are Linkages Between Elements the linkages between Although participants agreed that examining how each element operates might help researchers gain different issue areas analytical traction on “the order,” they disagreed about whether it is possible to fully understand the present and import- international order’s effects by studying its elements in isolation. Indeed, some argued that linkages between issues or regions are the essence of the cur- ant? The answer to rent overarching international order, and it is these linkages that make the order more than the sum of this question has its parts. To support this idea, some participants observed that the United States has often achieved significant policy greater cooperation by linking apparently unrelated issues. Others argued that linkages were less impor- implications. tant and that policies in one issue area or region can be more easily separated from other issue areas or regions. fell into at least four different—but not mutually This debate suggested an area for further research: exclusive—categories: To what extent are the linkages between different issue areas present and important? The answer to 1. A persistent but more-shared international this question has significant policy implications. If order. Participants who took this view argued there are substantial connections between disparate that the core institutions of the current inter- issue areas, then developments in one element of national order can continue, but only with the order are likely to have spillover effects on other diminished U.S. leadership. According to elements of the order. If there are not significant this view, potential opponents of the current linkages between issue areas, however, then policy order, such as China, have benefited greatly on a particular issue or toward a particular element from these institutions and have an incen- of the order could be considered more inde- tive to maintain them. Advocates of this pendently, without worrying about credibility costs view recommended that the United States or broader effects. Importantly, some participants give rising powers greater influence within noted that there may not be a single answer to this existing institutions and bind itself to the question. Elements of order may be linked to differ- rules of the current order, and thereby avoid ent degrees depending on the issue, the timing, the encouraging rising powers to undermine the actors, and other variables. current order or develop an alternative order. 2. Continued unipolarity. According to this view, The Future of the Order the United States can and will continue to lead the international order over the next 15 Visions of the Future: Preferences and to 20 years. Participants who held this view Expectations for the Order observed that the combined power of the Workshop participants offered various ideas about United States and its allies remains substan- the desirable and likely evolution of the inter- tial. Furthermore, countries generally have national order. In general, participants’ views recognized their dependence on public goods 3 that the United States provides. Advocates of particular problems rather than by analyz- this perspective therefore claim that countries ing the nature of the international order. The will consent to continued U.S. leadership and United States should identify its priorities in recommend that the United States should discrete issue areas and determine the best way not give rising states more influence or make to promote U.S. interests using existing insti- compromises on liberal values; in fact, if it tutions, ad hoc agreements, and other tools. did, the whole order might begin to unravel. The Possible Economic Foundation of 3. Great-power competition. This view questions the Current International Order the utility of the concept of a rules-based order and emphasizes that great-power competi-