Politics
New Leader of Chicago Council on Global Affairs Discusses America’s Foreign Policy Challenges
For more than 100 years, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has sought to play a positive role in helping to shape American foreign policy and its engagement with the world.
But with war raging in Europe and the Middle East — and President Donald Trump’s tariff policies upending long-standing trade relationships — the challenges are immense.
So what role can the organization play in a world that, to many people, feels increasingly unstable?
Below is a Q&A with Leslie Vinjamuri, the new president and CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Prior to taking up her new role on July 1, she was with the Royal Institute of International Affairs — known as Chatham House — in London where she served as the director of the U.S. and the Americas program.
(The interview has been edited for length and clarity.)
WTTW News: Why did you want to take on this role?
Leslie Vinjamuri: Look, for those of us who do what I do, we like challenge. … It’s why we’re in the business. The council has an extraordinary reputation. It has a global reach. It has a global reputation. It is one of America’s most influential historical and significant organizations in the foreign affairs space. So it’s a no-brainer to want to come and lead it at this specific moment in time.
There is such a strong sense that if you’re going to understand the United States, if you’re going to influence the direction of travel, you’ve got to move beyond Washington, where politics are so divided, so partisan, so polarized, and quite frankly dysfunctional, and that’s not just a Trump thing, it’s been going on for a while.
We have a mission, which is raising the caliber and the quality of the public debate on the most pressing issues in global affairs, getting that engagement and then making sure that Washington and that the rest of the world have a much deeper understanding of the United States — of its constraints, of its opportunities — and how to engage.
It’s vital, I think, that Americans understand what Europeans are doing to support, for example, the Transatlantic Partnership, and Ukraine. We always hear America’s doing it all, everybody else is free-riding. It’s not true. But Europeans need to tell their story better. Telling it to Washington isn’t enough, doesn’t cut it. They’ve got to come here, speak to a wider audience.
What do you think has been the impact of Trump being reelected? Are Europeans having to fundamentally reassess their relationship with the United States?
Vinjamuri: Well, we know that people are much more concerned about America. If you look at the polling, we’ve got close to 50% of Europeans who see America as an enemy or as a threat. But at the same time, … if you’re Europe right now, these are economies that have a challenge on the home front with concern over immigration. They have low growth, the productivity rates are low. They need trade and investment with the United States, and they have a war. So, yes, they’re not happy and the Trump style of engagement is disruptive, it’s unpredictable, it’s destabilizing. But as we saw, you know, when (European leaders) traveled to Washington, there is a deep desire to do everything they can to make this partnership work. So it’s a tough balancing act, right? Preparing for a world in which America might not be your friend, might not be your ally, might not come to the table, and also trying to keep America in. So you’re trying to become independent and you’re trying to become connected. It’s a very, very difficult balancing act.
We’ve had the red carpet literally being rolled out for Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and on Monday we had the meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders. What is your assessment as to where things stand in terms of America’s support for Ukraine and the Europeans as they try to resist Russian aggression?
Vinjamuri: I think that President Trump is realizing how high the stakes are and that the U.S. needs to stay more engaged to try and deliver some sort of peace. The problem is that’s incredibly complicated to do. Just on the question of sequencing, do you get a ceasefire first and then negotiate? Or do you negotiate first and then hope that you get peace? And then this basic question about security assurances. Trump has been in a very difficult position on this from a European point of view. … He’s appeared to be more aligned with the Russian position than with the Ukrainian position, but he’s moved. … He is not a stable player. His position on this changes. That’s a tough thing to deal with. It’s good from a European point of view because, you know, he seems to be more in the game than he used to be, but it’s very tough because President Trump is not sending a very clear message to Russia that it must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or there will be a price to pay. He’s really, if anything, he’s more likely to send a tough signal to Ukraine and to Zelenskyy than he is to Vladimir Putin.
There has been talk of the U.S. and Europe extending security guarantees to underpin any peace deal. What would it take for Ukraine to be able to trust such guarantees?
Vinjamuri: I think it’s going to be very difficult. … The question about security assurances does come down to: Are Europeans really going put troops in Ukraine? Is America really going to put troops in Ukraine? Is there going to be some notion of a trip wire that if Russia encroaches beyond a certain point that the U.S. will come to its defense? I think for the Trump administration, Ukraine’s participation in NATO is really off the table. … So the security assurances conversation is really tough because it’s exactly what the Russian leader doesn’t want to see. He doesn’t want any troops in Ukraine. He doesn’t want Ukraine to have an independent military. He doesn’t really want Ukraine to be independent, let alone sovereign.
If the U.S. walked away from Ukraine, would that be game over or would Europe be able to move fast enough to essentially replace the U.S. role?
Vinjamuri: I think it would be very difficult to move fast enough. Ukraine needs the support of the United States, both material defense support, but it also needs the United States to signal clearly and in a credible way to Russia that there are red lines, and if they’re crossed, there will be a price to pay, and that has not been signaled. Europe is moving at pace. Germany’s position has changed dramatically on this. There is an effort to spend a lot more on defense and to choose investments that will be positioning Europe very well for the kind of war that’s being fought in Ukraine. So the direction of travel is good, but these are long-term commitments and investments. These things don’t happen overnight. The U.S. role couldn’t be more critical.
Moving to the war in Gaza. The latest news seems to be that Hamas is indicating that it would accept the terms of a ceasefire being proposed by Qatar and Egypt, which would involve a hostage and prisoner exchange of some kind. How positive a development do you think that is, and do you think Netanyahu’s government will respond positively?
Vinjamuri: I think that Netanyahu’s been very unpredictable. The only thing that we’ve seen from Netanyahu is just clear determination to keep this war going because his political future depends on it and because he does not feel that Israel can be secure so long as Hamas has any kind of capability or presence in Gaza. He hasn’t really credibly signaled that he would be committed to a deal, but he’s paying the price on the streets of Israel. There are hundreds of thousands of people protesting. They want those hostages back. They want this war to end.
The conundrum for Gaza is what the next stage is going to look like and how do we get there? There’s proposals on the table, but at the moment, Netanyahu does not actually seem to be playing ball.
We’ve seen Britain, France, Australia all saying that they’re basically on a path to recognizing a Palestinian state, but the facts on the ground are going in completely the opposite direction. So is the idea of a two-state solution essentially dead, and if so, what does that mean for the region? How do we get to peace without a two-state solution?
Vinjamuri: There are many people who feel like it’s dead. There is no solution that can really be taken off the table, especially a two-state solution. When people say it’s dead, I think there’s basically one thing or two things standing in the way. One is that the Palestinians don’t currently have a capability to run a functioning state. And also, clearly, there’s a problem, which is that Netanyahu doesn’t want a two-state solution. That’s pretty fundamental. But America has a dog in this fight, too, right? America has obviously played an enabling role, so that’s another situation where we’re not really seeing the United States exercise its leverage over the politics of war and peace.
Can I ask you about the dangers for Israel because obviously they’re militarily in the ascendant, but at the same time the Netanyahu government has squandered the global goodwill that was going in their direction after the initial Hamas attacks. What is the danger for Israel if it becomes a pariah state?
Vinjamuri: It’s a very difficult situation for Israel. They, and I think you have to separate the Israeli leader Netanyahu from the people, they’re not the same. They’re not the same in any country, even in democracies. It’s very difficult for the people because if you become a pariah state, you know, that affects your trade, your investment, your soft power, your economy, your ability to get people to come to your country and work, that’s been very important for Israel. So all of these things, you know, Israel pays a significant price. It’s in a very difficult spot. It needs security, has a right to have security, so do the Palestinians. It hasn’t achieved a sense of security and it’s not clear how the strategy is going to get it more security. And the condemnation by so many people around the world puts it in an even worse position because it depends on the United States in particular, but also others for the material support to provide its own security. So this is not a good trajectory for Israel, but it’s also a terrible trajectory for the Palestinians. There’s really nobody who’s winning.
