George Soros | Charlie Rose | 2004

TL;DR

American power becomes dangerous when military superiority and preemptive action are combined into a doctrine of imposing national will. George Soros argues that the United States should preserve its strength while reinforcing international law, building legitimate coalitions, and protecting people from abusive governments through collective action rather than unilateral intervention.

Transcript

george soros is here he has a reputation as one of the world's great investors he is a billionaire who made a billion betting against the british pound he has a long-standing interest in public policy he has written eight books in a speech this week to the carnegie endowment international peace he said i have made rejection of the bush doctrine the... Read More

Key Insights

• A political bubble is a real advantage amplified by a false interpretation. Soros argues that American military dominance is genuine, but the belief that dominance justifies imposing American will carries that reality beyond sustainable limits.
• The dot-com bubble was rooted in the Internet's genuine innovative potential. Expectations of immediate profits accelerated investment and industry development, so market optimism temporarily changed the underlying reality before prices became disconnected from earnings and the bubble collapsed.
• The Bush doctrine has two pillars: maintaining unquestioned military superiority globally and within every region, and claiming a right to preemptive action. Soros accepts that each may sometimes be necessary but argues that combining them creates a dangerous basis for imposing national will.
• International relations become more governed by power when the strongest country behaves as though power is the governing principle. Soros describes this as a self-reinforcing and self-fulfilling process that weakens law and pushes other countries to react to American actions.
• American security requires both military strength and stronger international law. Soros argues that existing law cannot provide complete protection, but its limitations should lead the United States to improve treaties, rules, standards, debate, and cooperation rather than undermine them.
• Sovereignty should belong to people rather than governments that abuse them. Soros treats traditional state sovereignty as an anachronistic barrier when rulers harm their populations, creating a need for legitimate external intervention by the international community.
• The United Nations is the preferred forum for authorizing intervention whenever agreement is possible. Soros acknowledges that veto powers can block action, so he supports alternative legitimacy through broad coalitions of democracies, open societies, regional actors, and developing democracies.
• Legitimacy depends on collective and diverse support, not merely participation by another Western institution. Soros says NATO had sufficient regional legitimacy in Kosovo, while action concerning Iraq would require broader backing, including European, Latin American, Arab, neighboring, and other democratic countries.

Questions & Answers

Q: What does George Soros mean by a bubble of American supremacy?

A bubble of American supremacy begins with the reality that the United States is the world's most powerful nation and can set an agenda to which others must react. The misconception is that this dominance should be used to impose American will. Soros argues that the belief initially reinforces itself, then moves too far from reality and becomes dangerous and unsustainable.

Q: How does Soros compare American foreign policy to the dot-com bubble?

Soros says both bubbles begin with a genuine foundation and then develop through exaggeration. The Internet had major potential, but investors treated it as an immediate source of enormous profits. Their optimism accelerated the industry's development before prices became disconnected from earnings. Likewise, American power is real, but interpreting it as permission to impose national will can produce self-reinforcing conduct that eventually becomes unsustainable.

Q: What are the two pillars of the Bush doctrine described by Soros?

The first pillar is that the United States must preserve unquestioned military superiority, both globally and within every region. The second is that it may take preemptive action. Soros agrees that military superiority serves the national interest and that preemption may be necessary under some circumstances, but he argues that combining these principles encourages unilateral and arbitrary uses of power.

Q: Why does Soros oppose unilateral American intervention?

Soros argues that no country can successfully act as either the world's policeman or its godfather. Unilateral intervention treats international relations as contests of power and encourages that assumption to become reality. He favors working with other countries through treaties, rules, standards, dialogue, and legitimate institutions, while retaining military strength for circumstances in which international law alone cannot ensure security.

Q: How should abusive governments be addressed according to Soros?

Abusive governments should be addressed by recognizing that sovereignty belongs to people, not automatically to rulers who mistreat them. This principle can justify international intervention to protect populations. Soros says such action still requires a legitimate forum or coalition, because the need to confront tyranny, failed states, and bad government does not by itself justify unilateral action by one powerful country.

Q: When should the United States seek authorization from the United Nations?

The United States should go to the United Nations whenever possible, because it offers a forum capable of legitimizing collective action. Soros recognizes that Security Council vetoes and insufficient votes can prevent authorization. When that occurs, he argues that action may still gain legitimacy from a broad and representative coalition, rather than depending solely on an American decision or a narrow alliance.

Q: Why did Soros view Kosovo and Iraq differently?

Soros says he strongly supported action in Kosovo even though the United Nations could not authorize it, because NATO possessed relevant legitimacy as a European alliance dealing with a European crisis. Iraq required a broader basis. European and American agreement alone would not necessarily be sufficient, but support from developing democracies, Arab countries, Iraq's neighbors, and Latin American countries could create wider legitimacy.

Q: What alternative to unilateral action does Soros propose?

Soros proposes a coalition of democracies or open societies founded on the shared interest of democracies in fostering democracy elsewhere. He refers to an existing Warsaw declaration as a possible basis. Such a coalition could provide legitimacy when the United Nations is blocked and could also influence how the United Nations operates because its participating countries could form a majority.

Summary

In this video, George Soros discusses his book "The Bubble of American Supremacy" and his arguments against the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, and the pursuit of American supremacy. Soros compares the pursuit of American supremacy to a stock market bubble, where there is a misconception and misinterpretation that eventually becomes unsustainable and leads to a collapse. He believes that the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy and the doctrine of preemptive action is dangerous and undermines international law. Soros also discusses the need for legitimate international intervention in countries with oppressive or dictatorial governments and the role of the United Nations in promoting democracy and protecting human rights. He concludes by arguing that the upcoming elections will be a referendum on the Bush doctrine, and encourages people to reject it in order to restore America's standing as a peace-loving nation.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the "bubble of American supremacy" and why does Soros believe it is comparable to a stock market bubble?

Soros sees a parallel between a stock market bubble and the pursuit of American supremacy. He believes that just like a stock market bubble, the pursuit of American supremacy is based on a solid foundation but is misinterpreted and carried too far. The false idea of American supremacy is reinforced by reality, gathering momentum until it becomes too far removed from reality and eventually collapses.

Q: Can you explain Soros' comparison of the dot-com bubble to the pursuit of American supremacy?

Soros uses the dot-com bubble as an example to illustrate how a misconception and misinterpretation can influence the development of an industry. The dot-com bubble was based on the innovation and potential of the internet, which was misinterpreted as a source of enormous profits and a new kind of wealth. This misinterpretation influenced the development and use of the internet, reinforcing the false idea and creating a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism between reality and the stock market perception of reality. Eventually, the bubble became unsustainable and collapsed.

Q: How does Soros apply the concept of a bubble to American foreign policy and supremacy?

Soros argues that the reality is that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth and has a dominant position in the world. However, the misconception is that this dominance should be used to impose the United States' will on the world, which is expressed in the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine consists of maintaining unquestioned military superiority and the right to preemptive action. Soros believes that this mindset of imposing power and will on the world creates a dangerous discontinuity in America's role and undermines international law.

Q: Does Soros agree with the United States' need to maintain military superiority?

Soros agrees that the United States should have military superiority in most parts of the world for national security reasons. He also acknowledges that there may be circumstances where preemptive action is necessary. However, he cautions against combining military dominance and the use of power to impose America's will on the world, as it can lead to dangerous consequences.

Q: Why does Soros believe that the United States' approach to foreign policy and the pursuit of American supremacy has made America less safe?

Soros argues that the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation has weakened the United States militarily, leading to less threat projection and the inability to effectively deal with other threats. He believes that the United States is seen as an occupier rather than a liberator, which has eroded goodwill among the Iraqi people and increased anti-Americanism around the world. He warns that the pursuit of American supremacy has created widespread distrust and resentment, making America less safe in the long run.

Q: How does Soros propose dealing with dictatorial governments or oppressive regimes in countries like Iraq?

Soros believes that external intervention may be necessary in countries with abusive rulers and governments, as these rulers often abuse their power and oppress their own people. However, he argues that the intervention must have the legitimacy of the international community. While the United Nations is an ideal platform for legitimizing intervention, it may not always be possible due to veto power. In such cases, a coalition of democracies or open societies could also provide legitimacy, as long as it includes countries from different regions and has the support of neighboring countries.

Q: What is Soros' argument regarding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the potential for creating democracy in Iraq?

Soros believes that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the desire to create democracy in Iraq were legitimate goals; however, the execution and aftermath of the invasion has undermined these goals. He argues that the Iraqis did not see the United States as liberators but as occupiers, which weakened America's position and undermined any potential goodwill. Soros believes that true democracy can only be established when the people of a country take ownership of the process and that the transition in Iraq would require a political solution and the legitimacy that the United Nations could provide.

Q: How does Soros view the upcoming elections in the United States?

Soros sees the upcoming elections as a referendum on the Bush doctrine. He believes that if President Bush is re-elected, it will be an endorsement of the Bush doctrine and its consequences, including widespread distrust and resentment towards America. However, if the Bush doctrine is rejected, Soros believes that it can be seen as a temporary aberration and that America can restore its rightful place in the world as a powerful but peace-loving nation.

Takeaways

In "The Bubble of American Supremacy," George Soros argues against the Bush doctrine and the pursuit of American supremacy as practiced by the Bush administration. He compares the pursuit of American supremacy to a stock market bubble, where a solid foundation is misinterpreted and carried too far, eventually leading to a collapse. Soros believes that the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy, including the war in Iraq and the doctrine of preemptive action, has made America less safe and has created widespread distrust and resentment. He advocates for a legitimate international intervention in countries with oppressive regimes and emphasizes the importance of the United Nations and international law. Soros highlights the need for the upcoming elections to reject the Bush doctrine and restore America's standing as a peace-loving nation.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Soros compares American supremacy under the Bush administration to a market bubble. Real military dominance supports a mistaken belief that the United States should impose its will globally. That belief can alter international behavior, reinforce power politics, become detached from sustainable reality, and ultimately damage the legal order needed for security.

• The Bush doctrine combines maintaining unquestioned military superiority with a claimed right to preemptive action. Soros accepts that military strength and occasional preemption may each be necessary, but considers their combination dangerous. He argues that unilateral power encourages a world governed by force instead of law, treaties, standards, and cooperative institutions.

• Soros proposes treating sovereignty as belonging to people rather than rulers, creating grounds for intervention when governments abuse their populations. The United Nations should provide legitimacy whenever possible, but broad coalitions of democracies or open societies could act when vetoes prevent agreement, provided they include diverse countries with relevant regional support.