Hoover Institution (Stanford, CA) – In a two-part conversation series, Hoover scholars examined the illiberal forces that are currently undermining public confidence in democratic institutions worldwide. They also provided policy recommendations for deterring aggression by autocrats ruling the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The series, held on May 13 and May 20, was copresented by the Hoover Institution and Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Newly appointed Hoover senior fellow Anna Grzymala-Busse was the moderator of both sessions. She is also the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Professor in Stanford’s Department of Political Science, senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI), and director of FSI’s Europe Center.
Session I: Authoritarian Adversaries of Liberal Democracy
Hoover senior fellow Elizabeth Economy began the first session with a presentation about challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China to the liberal democratic order. She described how, beginning with the normalization of Sino-American relations in 1979, the prevailing US policy has been one of “constructive engagement.” The premise was that as China became integrated in the global economy and its middle class expanded, the country would not only accelerate on the path toward political liberalization but also become what former deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick called a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system, from which it was deriving enormous economic benefits.
“This assumption has been upended. There is little evidence that China is reforming politically and economically at home,” Economy said. “Rather than becoming a standard bearer of the rules-based order, it has challenged many of its precepts.”
Economy explained that not only has China exploited the openness of the democratic free-market system through nefarious activities such as intellectual property theft, but it has also provided noncompetitive subsidies to Chinese companies, erected trade barriers, and coerced technology transfers from American firms conducting business in the mainland.
She underlined several instances of aggression by China against the freedom of its own citizens, highlighting the relative impunity with which Beijing has committed atrocities against Uighur Muslims in its Northwest Xinjiang province, dismantled Hong Kong’s political autonomy, and detained foreign nationals. Economy also addressed Chinese Communist Party influence targeting of American companies, governments, colleges and universities, and international organizations, with the goal of forcing these institutions to reshape their norms and practices in support of Beijing’s policy preferences.
Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow Michael McFaul explained that while Russia doesn’t measure up to China in terms of global economic and political clout, it remains a strong conventional power relative to European forces and possesses sophisticated cyber capabilities. Furthermore, Russia leads the world with an inventory of more than six thousand nuclear war heads.
McFaul maintained that Putin is more ideological than some may realize, and is intent on deepening autocracy at home and pushing back against the liberal international order, which he sees as a threat to Russia’s sovereignty and ultimately his grip on power.
“If you look and read what [Putin] says, you see the crystallization of a set of ideas,” McFaul said. “Sovereignty is at the top of this list, but it is also weaved in with conservative values, nationalism, and economic populism.”
McFaul described how Russia has been successful militarily in its campaigns in the Ukraine and Syria. Most noteworthy, however, is Putin’s ability to foment national populist movements in Europe via investments in Russian state broadcasts in multiple languages, the spread of disinformation on social media, and his personal support for like-minded European political leaders.
Similarly, in his talk, Research Fellow Abbas Milani described how Iran, though a smaller actor than Russia and China, has been particularly effective in projecting its spiritual influence in a number of Muslim communities worldwide. He underscored that Muslims represent a quarter of the total global population and now inhabit the West in greater proportions than at any other time in history.
Abbas asserted that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s strategy is to indict liberal democracy and the nation-state system as an extension of Western imperialism and to incite a culture war against those societies that Iran’s supreme leader accuses of harboring hatred for Islam and oppressing its faithful. He explained that Khamenei doesn’t envision Iran as a member of a system of nation-states but as part of a spiritual community, or “Ummah.”
“That network, in my view, complements the Russian and the Chinese challenge to liberal democracy as a failing state, and the false premise that authoritarianism not only makes the trains run on time and kills all the flies but can do better for your life,” Milani maintained.
Milani argued that it is only natural for Iran to draw closer to China and Russia. The three countries have recently conducted joint military exercises in the Persian Gulf. In addition, Tehran has also sought long-term trade and investment deals with both Beijing and Moscow.
The first session concluded with an overview of domestic threats to American democracy presented by Kate Starbird, associate professor in the University of Washington’s Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering. Starbird argued that the January 6 Capitol Hill riots resulted from a cultivated campaign of disinformation initiated by Donald Trump and his allies alleging fraud in the November 2020 presidential election.
She contends that Trump first sowed distrust about the mail-in voting process in a June 22, 2020, tweet, alleging that ballots would be printed in foreign countries and that the election results would ultimately be rigged in favor of Joe Biden. With this frame established, his supporters made specific claims of fraud during the election and in the days following, which were then amplified by major pro-Trump social-media influencers.
“Participatory disinformation and participatory propaganda more generally make for a powerful dynamic,” Starbird explained. “People and entities at the top gain power, reputation, and money by participating in this disinformation phenomenon. And the tight feedback loops between elites and their audiences seem to make the system more responsive but may also be leading it to spin out of control.”
Session II: Responses to Challenges
The second session, about responding to challenges against liberal democracy, began with Research Fellow Rose Gottemoeller, who spoke about her experiences as deputy secretary general of NATO and chief American negotiator of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Treaty with Russia.
Gottemoeller said that she supports building deterrence capabilities and imposing economic sanctions against Russia for its aggression against the United States and its allies, including, most recently, Moscow’s cyber espionage campaign against the US government’s information systems, its interference in the American election process, and its military buildup along its border with Ukraine. However, she holds that punitive measures must be accompanied with hard-headed and practical diplomacy to advance any positive change in Russia’s behavior.
“Without having to revert to the use of force, you can change the status quo with Russia,” Gottemoeller argued, echoing advice she heard from a former NATO colleague.
Fouad and Michele Ajami Senior Fellow H. R. McMaster argued that the strength of our nation’s civic institutions is the bedrock of our defense against the ability of adversaries to erode public confidence in American democracy.
McMaster lamented that media companies profit from serving and promoting content that further drive Americans to polar extremes, and insisted that journalists should strive to communicate accurate reporting that provides appeal across the political spectrum. He professed similar sentiments about political leaders whom he perceives as being entrenched in partisan wrangling for cheap political points rather than holding firm to the nation’s founding principles.
He concluded that the remedy for healthy civic engagement is the expansion of quality education opportunities. Moreover, better-informed citizens can more easily detect disinformation deployed by adversaries, especially on issues that tend to widen social divisions such as gun control, immigration, and tactics used by law enforcement.
Hoover Fellow Jacquelyn Schneider focused her remarks on conflict in the cyber domain, stressing that at the heart of America’s future cyber strategy should be to help build norms about the rules of engagement. For example, she said, United States should declare off limits, for itself and adversaries, cyberattacks that inflict violence on civilian populations or disrupt the command and control of nuclear weapons.
She added that policy makers need to establish a delicate balance in securing the integrity of democratic institutions. On the one hand is the need to ensure that accurate information can be clearly discernable from falsehoods promulgated in cyberspace, while on the other is the urgency of safeguarding Americans’ inherent speech freedoms.
“As with all things cyber, the answer is not in the technology but instead in humans and building resiliency and trust in the data that undergirds our democracy, our society, and our economy,” Schneider said.
Schneider also emphasized that the US government should expand its partnerships with the private sector and increase its investment in cyber innovation. Such efforts would strengthen the resilience of America’s critical infrastructure against cyberattacks, and ultimately reduce the probability that these exploits are likely to succeed in the future.
In the final presentation, Morris Arnold and Nona Jean Cox Senior Fellow Amy Zegart emphasized that establishing America’s leadership in innovation is critical not only to national security interests, but also to assuring that the worldwide application of new technologies aligns with democratic values.
She also advocated for much-needed reforms in the intelligence community to address the current era of competition with state actors such as China and Russia. For Zegart, this means leveraging artificial-intelligence technology to help analysts process large amounts of data about potential risks, as well as supporting people outside of government—such as voters and business leaders—who have a stake in defending their democratic institutions, economies, and civic infrastructure against malicious attacks.
Zegart concluded that though the window is closing, the United States still has the capacity to regain and sustain a technological advantage over its adversaries.
“I think there's a sense that the authoritarians have an enduring advantage,” Zegart said. “I don't think that's true. If I have to think about one overarching magic superpower the United States has, it’s our capacity to innovate in tech.”
Watch Panel I: Adversaries
Watch Panel II: Responses
