The year 2020 has been horrible - but it could have been worse. Approximately one-tenth of 1% of the population of the U.S. has died as a result of the COVID-19 virus - which is a great tragedy - but by historical standards it is barely measurable. During the Black Death in Europe peaking in 1347-51, it is estimated that the number of deaths was between 75 million and 200 million - killing a third to two-thirds of Europe’s population at the time. Smaller but recurring plagues continued to haunt Europe from the 14th through the 17th centuries. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 is estimated to have killed approximately 675,000 Americans - about eight-tenths of 1% of the population at the time - which means that it was about 80 times more lethal than COVID-19. What is truly remarkable is that vaccines have now been developed and are being used in less than one-year, which most experts said was impossible. Medical science advanced at an amazing rate. A couple of years ago, a friend who is both an MD and bio-chemist told me that he thought the biological sciences had finally entered the realm of Moore’s Law. The increases in computer power have enabled physicists to do things that were viewed as near impossible. Elon Musk - a physicist and visionary - has created companies that are routinely doing things that people had said could not be done. You may have noticed there was no mass famine anyplace in the world in 2020, despite the world population being at a record high. Famines used to be common. Almost all famines in recent years have been caused by evil and corrupt governments like the Darfur famine in Sudan, not because of a lack of ability to grow adequate food for the world.

No doubt, Mr. Putin is monitoring closely U.S. relations with China while pursuing programs to ensure that as Russia improves relations with China, U.S.-China relations deteriorate to the point of economic decoupling and the beginning of a new Cold War, this time with China. This would not be too dissimilar to U.S. rapprochement with China in the 1970s, when the Soviet Union was the common enemy. This time, Mr. Putin wants good relations with China, with the United States as the common enemy. Movement in this direction would be unfortunate for China and the U.S., and for the region and the international community. Russia’s aggressive exploitation of U.S. social media platforms, as we saw in 2016, continues to be used by Moscow to foment discord within the United States and, when necessary, to exacerbate international relations, as we’re witnessing with Soviet disinformation alleging that COVID-19 originated in the United States while also claiming that it was a bio-weapon. Mr. Putin may feel justified in exploiting social media for disinformation purposes, conflating it with the Reagan administration’s efforts to get factual news and commentary into the Soviet Union in the 1980s, when the regime was denying its citizens access to news and commentary on local and world events. Recent media reports about the Russian government allegedly paying Taliban forces to kill American and coalition forces in Afghanistan is beyond the pale, even for Mr. Putin. If these reports are true, then the U.S. and the international community should, at a minimum, impose punishing sanctions. This is the time for the United States to provide the international leadership necessary to expose, confront and punish Russia for its criminal behavior.

This common enemy - the Soviet Union - brought the U.S. and China together, after decades of hostility. What ensued, initially with Presidents Carter and Reagan, and Chairman Deng Xiaoping and Premier Zhao Ziyang, was significant economic, scientific, academic and strategic cooperation. Cooperating to push back against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was part of this strategic cooperation. So, given the weaponry and the stinger man-portable surface-to-air missiles that the United States provided to the Mujahideen, Soviet casualties mounted, with an eventual humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989. U.S.-China relations have progressed exponentially over the past 41 years, especially in trade, investment, cultural and scientific exchanges, and strategic cooperation on issues dealing with international terrorism and organized crime, proliferation, narcotics trafficking and piracy on the seas. However, there are important irritants in the bilateral relationship, not uncommon in international relations. Russian relations with China have improved over the last two decades, with China and Russia establishing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2002, a Eurasian political, economic and security alliance. Recently, China and Russia have conducted a number of joint military exercises, and in the U.N. Security Council they have cooperated closely, especially on issues dealing with North Korea. During this same period, however, U.S.-China relations have been challenged by a number of issues requiring greater attention: COVID-19, trade imbalance, intellectual property theft, South China Sea, treatment of Uighurs in Xinjiang and the recent national security law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who received popular support to remain in power until 2036, is on a crusade to ensure that Russia remains a first-tier nation, while actively pursuing a strategy to undermine the global leadership role of the United States. The implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, which Mr. Putin said was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” appears to be the crutch Mr. Putin uses to justify: Intervention in Syria, meddling in the U.S. 2016 presidential election, allegedly paying Taliban forces to target American and coalition forces in Afghanistan, exploiting U.S. social media to disseminate disinformation on COVID-19 and other sensitive domestic issues. Knowing that these actions will generate responses from the U.S. and others, with sanctions and international opprobrium, then why is Mr. Putin pursuing such a confrontational policy? Simply stated: For revenge. Mr. Putin’s strategy appears to focus on improving relations with China while encouraging the deterioration of U.S.-China relations; exploiting social media to disseminate disinformation into the U.S. to undermine good governance, feebly mimicking U.S. programs in the 1980s that used the media to disseminate real world news into the Soviet Union and its impact on Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who instituted Glasnost (openness) and the role, Mr. Putin believes, it played in the Soviet implosion in 1991. The Nixon visit to China and meetings with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai in 1972 and normalization of relations in 1979 focused on an aggressive Soviet Union that was a nuclear threat to China and an enemy of the United States.

Or rejoining the Paris Climate Accord without negotiating an arrangement more in America’s interests and less in China’s? Or re-starting the six-party talks with North Korea and expecting them to accomplish any more than they did last time? Or giving a pass to our European allies when it comes to their defense budgets? And most of all, what sense would it make to return to the JCPOA with Iran, without significant changes? The Obama administration kicked the can down the road, but we are now far nearer to the end of that road. By the end of the next administration Iran, which is already enriching uranium beyond agreed levels, can proceed fully and openly under the JCPOA with its nuclear weapons program. Finally, Mr. Trump has set the bar for American military intervention in a new place. But the American people and their representatives in Congress will hold a far more skeptical view of direct U.S. intervention unless core American interests are very carefully defined. This will complicate the choices available to policy makers. In short, the world has changed too much to simply return to the status quo ante Mr. Trump. Above all else, liberal orthodoxy will have to divest itself of its blind faith that economic development is an unseen motor which automatically brings about good outcomes. As Baudelaire said, belief in progress is a lazy man’s creed. It will be vital to face up to foreign policy challenges directly even if accommodation is the easiest short-term course. If we do not, the trend lines will soon enough cause us to wish we had - as we discovered after the 1920s.

Policy toward China will require specific, tough responses. It will no longer do to allow China to pillage American businesses in trade relationships. It will no longer do to overlook China’s expansive foreign policy on its borders. Time is not on the side of waiting to address China’s policies. We cannot count on China’s economic development to do our work for us. Nor does Russia show signs of liberalizing. Returning to the pre-Trump years will not avail. It is not politically feasible to remove the economic sanctions the Trump administration has put on Russia. And given the breathless and unfounded accusations of collusion with Russia, it is difficult to see how a new Democratic administration can walk all this back. Another attempt at “reset” would be no more successful than the last one. We will remain at odds with Russia. Much the same is true elsewhere. Turkey’s economic success has not resulted in a more liberal government. To the contrary, Turkey has slid ever closer to an authoritarian regime. Nor has Egypt evolved in a way that guarantees increased support for Western liberal values. Neither the dictatorial rule of al-Sisi nor the return of the Muslim Brotherhood, even if elected democratically, will advance liberal values. Nor would a Muslim-oriented regime in Egypt be good for the people of Egypt, for Israel or for Israel’s new partners in the Middle East. Nothing would stop the evolving Middle East peace process quicker than a Muslim government in Egypt which is hostile to Israel. Does it really seem post-Trump that rejoining the WHO without significant reforms is a good idea?

“Return to Normalcy” was a popular political slogan in the 1920s. The world war was an aberration and America would never again become entangled in European wars. The sentiment was understandable. But it was also wrong; in less than two decades America was at war again. One hears a similar sentiment today among our foreign policy elite: Donald Trump was an aberration and it is time to return to “normal” by which is meant the foreign policy outlines of previous decades. Rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, rejoin the World Health Organization (WHO), return to the six-party talks over North Korea and re-engage in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Excuse our allies’ refusal to pay their fair share on defense, reach out to the Palestinians to achieve peace in the Middle East and put the most charitable construction on China’s actions. All will be well. But this too is wrong. The world has changed in significant ways, some as a result of Donald Trump’s presidency, but some as a result of forces underway for decades before President Trump was inaugurated. In some instances, the Trump phenomenon was itself the result of these forces, more symptom than cause. The most important changes, of course, have occurred in China. It is to Mr. Trump’s credit that he realized that the consensus view on China for the past three or four decades was wrong. China’s economic development has not fostered political liberalism. Short of an unexpected, wrenching change in China there is no reason to expect it to do so in the future.

Yet another organization working to defame America is the International Criminal Court. It was created by a treaty not ratified by the U.S., which means that under international law the U.S. is not subject to its jurisdiction. What’s more, according to its own rules, the ICC is to refrain from intervening in nations that have credible judicial systems. Nevertheless, the court’s prosecutors are targeting U.S. military and intelligence personnel for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. Israelis are also in their sights for defending themselves from Hamas’ terrorist attacks. In response, the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on ICC officials. In response to that, more than 70 nations have now openly sided with the ICC. The U.N. and affiliated international organizations can be reformed. But it won’t be easy. No administration, Republican or Democratic, has made a serious attempt. Short of that, the U.S. could stop paying the lion’s share of the U.N.’s bills. That would require both the White House and Congress agreeing to make such cuts. Another possibility would be to construct one or more new organizations that would include only free nations and those moving toward that goal. These organizations would compete with the U.N. in such critical spheres as human rights and health. What if America’s leaders take no effective actions over the years ahead? In that case, we should expect the “international liberal rules-based order” to increasingly become supranational and illiberal, with rules made in Beijing and other capitals of unfree empires.

Cuba called on Washington to provide equal access to health care during the coronavirus pandemic. The Islamic Republic of Iran and Venezuela chimed in as well. Even North Korea felt emboldened to “express grave concern over violations committed by the United States at home and abroad in breach of international human rights law.” America’s allies sprung to our defense, right? Quite the contrary. Move on to the World Health Organization whose inquiry into the origins of the pandemic is to be led by Helen Clark, a former prime minister of New Zealand. U.N. Watch, an independent organization, has documented her close ties with Beijing and her praise of the WHO’s response to the spread of the fearsome pathogen ― a response that, by any objective measure, was neither competent nor honest. U.N. Watch also has pointed out that Ms. Clark has a close professional relationship with James Chau, a WHO “Goodwill Ambassador.” In June, Mr. Chau was the subject of a complaint filed by 100 non-governmental organizations alleging he “systematically abused his U.N. position to whitewash Beijing’s role in the virus outbreak.” In a related effort to ingratiate itself with Beijing, the WHO named Peng Liyuan, wife of Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, as another Goodwill Ambassador. UNESCO (the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) has designated her as a “special envoy” as well. Recently, the WHO’s annual assembly spent hours beating up on Israel for such imaginary misdeeds as violating the health rights of Syrians. Israel has long been the U.N.’s favorite whipping boy. Recently, the U.N. unmistakably escalated from anti-Israelism to anti-Semitism, denying Jewish history.

With the defeat of the Axis Power in 1945, the United States emerged as the strongest military, economic and cultural power on earth. Rather than emulate hegemons of the past, American leaders envisioned a new and different world order. Their goal was to organize an “international community,” establish “universal human rights” and a growing body of “international law.” This project required new institutions, in particular the United Nations. President Truman predicted that the U.N. would become “the means of preserving the international peace and of creating conditions of mutual trust and economic and social well-being among all peoples of the world.” Though the U.N. never lived up to such high expectations, for years one could credibly argue that it did more good than harm and might improve over time. Today, it requires willful blindness to deny that the U.N. and most other international organizations have become bloated and corrupt bureaucracies, increasingly serving the interests and expressing the values of the world’s despots. Over recent days, evidence supporting this conclusion has been especially abundant. Start with the U.N. Human Rights Council, the “main intergovernmental body for human rights in the U.N. system.” It is dominated by egregious human rights violators who, within this forum, are rarely criticized and often praised. One example: The concentration camps where China’s rulers have incarcerated several million Muslim Uighurs were recently lauded as “vocational skills education and training institutions.” Summoning extraordinary chutzpah, UNHRC members China and Russia recently demanded that America root out racism and police violence.