Henry Kissinger apparently (still) thinks so - his last two books demonstrate that.

But there is nothing new in this, at least in British and American diplomacy: Harold Nicolson and G.F. Kennan also thought so too.

All three authors, however, also pointed out the importance of the unexpected, and unexpectable. History gives some understanding of what is happening, but also demonstrates that the past is no sure guide for what could happen in the future.

Dear Eric,

thanks for the names and the arguements of your comment. I especially like the apparent paradox that hstory teaches us that the past is no sure guide for the future. :)

As for the real merit of your contribution, my question is what the real relvance can be of these intellectual historical reconstructions. FOr in political philosophy it was clear: they brought back earlier concepts or clarified the meaning of conecpet often used, but very often misinterpreted.

How is the case in international relations?

Well, in general terms - there are many schools of thought, of course, and what I write below will be (rightly) seen as superficial by many international affairs specialists:

One might start with simple protocolists such as Nicolson, who wrote a history of diplomacy in which he gave an overview of how to establish the ideal intercourse between nations to achieve harmony, or at least avoid war. Using examples going right back to the ancient Greeks, Nicolson pointed to what he saw as the best principals for diplomacy, even going down to minute details such as the observation that a lawyer is not a good diplomat because of the habits of a legal mind (an idea Nicolson borrowed from De Callieres -De la maniere de negocier avec les Souverains, 1716).

Another tradition is more sociological, or social-psychological: A suggestion from this school is that to understand why a particular foreign country's government has acted as it has, it may help to know what representatives of that government believe about its nation's past: What makes the heart beat faster in any given country? Which injustices from the past are emphasized, which victories are celebrated, etc. That is, it is not history that is important per se, but what people of any given nation commonly believe about the past. Another side view: people often seek to make harmony between what they believe happened in the past, and what they do today, and this harmony can be played upon, as it were (that's a borrowing from the French sociologist Halbwachs, but also from the British anthropologist A.M. Hocart.

Kissinger, following a different intellectual tradition (one he shared with the German historian I. Geiss), looks for patterns of behavior among the various powers over history. He finds a tradition of alliances and real Politik among European powers, arising from their geographical and historical realities, and a tradition that goes back over many centuries.  In Kissinger's view of European history, whenever any power becomes too great and threatening in Europe, others come together against that power to overthrow it in a constellation of alliance.

For China, Kissinger sees a different pattern, arising from very different geographical and historical experiences.

For the United States, Kissinger sees idealism (particularly Wilsonian idealism) as being very utilitarian (for the US), and arising from America's very different geographical and historical experiences.

This is not to say that in Kissinger's view Europe is wise, or the US is silly - to the contrary. Europe is (or was) the way it has been because of a particular, unique historical and geographic experience experience. And the same goes for the US.

Then there is the Marxist view of history that you would have had drummed into you as a young student, which leads to a rather different view of the uses of history.

And then there is Kennan, who reacted precisely to that Marxist view.

I could go on, but a proper, thorough overview of the above would surely be enough to fill a course in International Relations.

P.S. Short answer: There is no overarching agreement in IR on the relevance or use of past examples to problems of the present. Some say history can provide a guide. Others point out that each situation is unique. I seem to recall Nicolson argued that history can make the diplomat complacent, as the idea creeps in that nothing I do will matter in the end, anyway... all is kismet. Richard Holbrooke once allegedly said "history is shit" during a meeting with a Yugoslav leader.  Still, IR people do read certain classic authors, just as military men still read von Clausewitz, hoping perhaps to glean some insight into problems of today. 

Dear Eric, thanks again, for the energy put into the comment.

My reactions:

- indeed, I myself would be quite interested in that course. (Maybe in a conference, as this is the format we adults use to fill in missing links, like the ones courses are planned to fill in for students.)

- Your P.S. seems to link back to your earlier paradox.

- but perhaps most importantly: let me narrow down my last question to the history of political thought, as it relates to issues of IR as a discipline.

Best,

Ferenc

To answer this question I will ask a question too… Does the Finno-Ugric theory reflect of real Hungarian History? … How you can get a correct conclusion to your question in connection example with Hungarians if exist strongly difference between Hungarian Academic thought and the free Hungarian thinkers?… In current adulterate condition it is hard to get a correct conclusion … because not only the Hungarian people, other people origin not reflecting their real history… But same time is an answer to your question, because these facts are affecting the international relations…     

Perhaps it would clarify things a bit if I turned one of your statements into a question, and addressed it to you: Is there "a trend among historians of political thought to influence international relations"? Where do you see it, and in what way?

Dear George, thanks for your answer. If we start out from your last sentence, it shows that there is a point in studying the past in order to confront the future, even if the past does not determine the future. Mind you, if the latter was the case, there would be no need to study the past, it would determine the future anyhow. .)

Best,

Ferenc

Dear László-Attila, indeed you are right, there are large discrepancies between official science and public views on history, but you are also right that this is the case in otrher countries, as well. Which brings us to the conclusion that the philosophy of history claim might be right, that indeed studying the past does not necessarily lead us back to the "real" past. On the other hand, I also agree with you that studying it might still be relevant for future actions (including IR).

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Eric, I was "brought up" by what is simplistically called the Cambridge school of the history of political thought. Now students of them, as well as some of the original members of the group (i.e. Richard Tuck, John Dunn and István Hont) came to be really interested in IR, and perhaps IR is getting also interested in them . Here is a colleague, also available on Researchgate, who seems to be interested in the same: Luca Gino Castellin, topic: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luca_Castellin, from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano, Lombardy, Italy.

These are the signs that made me interested in the topic.

thanks for letting me explain it a little bit better.

Interesting - you see an IR specialist interested in political thought. I see a historian writing about the mental worlds of his subjects, who happen to have had ideas or influence on IR.

Perhaps both views are okay - if they are okay with Castellin.

The person considered the "founder" of IR as a separate field (it's a very new field) was the Marxist British historian E.H. Carr and he once said that considering IR a separate field is a bunch of nonsense. That same view was prevalent among Political Science people  when I was young.

Dear Eric, it is always noteworthy to learn each other's views, no matter how different day are. But I do not think that in this matter we would be too far away.

As for IR and science, I agree - just as much with those who claim that there could be a science of politics, as well.

However, I do thing that Carr and others - I rely more on Morgenthau when I try to make sense of the subhect - had much to say whiuch is worth considering for historians, philosophers - and efen politicians. :)

Dear Eric, 

I am a Sri Lankan student of politics and international relations. I had observed that history is a very important force in shaping the political behaviour of people of the country. In the case of IR too, historical perspective is very important because it is through history and historical narrations of friend/enemy mentality of bureaucrats are shaped. 

The construction of rogue state by US foreign policy bureaucrat can explain if you de-code the US grand strategy through historically perspective. Different approaches and perspectives are needed to understand IR or perhaps Global Relations.

I think history is most used in foreign policy making, especially by those who actually make policy.  In IR theory, say, Mearsheimer, history tends to get used to illustrate (and sometimes to inspire) a theoretical argument. 

I think the history of world affairs built into international law is very important to understanding international relations, both in theory and practice.  It's essential in policy--there's a wonderful, if now old, Pew case study on the US-Mexico debt negotiations from the early 80s.  They studied debt decisions with the new Soviet government and looked at other historico-legal affairs.  When those did not yield a good answer, the decisionmakers then haggled internally to shift money around.

Szia,

Mary

Dear Ferenc,  hi, two points:

1.  There is much work in IR that demonstrates that the use of historical analogy by policymakers has led to poor policies being adopted. This does not seem because policymakers are poor historians (I note Goldstein's Lessons in Disaster here) but rather that the past and the future in terms of our understanding and knowledge really are different.  

2.  IR scholars are great 'data miners' who search history for specific events that support their hypothesis - what else can they do?  Historians are similar in imposing their mental frameworks on the past - but again what else can they do, this is an inherent human cognitive constraint. (note that this is different to the instrumental use of history for political purposes which is arguably growing).  I do like E.H Carr's 'What is history' for a person who encompassed both disciplines.

Regards,

Peter 

Peter raises good points, especially the first one.  The best discussion of history relative to decisionmaking, at least for the US, is Neustadt and May, Thinking in Time.  Old book, but thoughtful and not at all like the way IR sorts "mine" history and a useful approach to how to use history a whole lot better than usual.

Peter raises good points, especially the first one.  The best US discussion of  better ways to use history relative to decision making,  is Neustadt and May, Thinking in Time.  Old book, but thoughtful and not at all like the way IR sorts "mine" history and an approach to uses of history that's a whole lot better than usual.

Dear Peter and Mary,

 thanks for your contributions. I take the cautionary remarks, and I admit their relevance. Mind you, however, that what we are talking here about is the relevance of reconstructing past IR theories (from the early modern period), and the discourses they were part of.

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,

Perhaps philosophers are interested in something a bit more abstract (thought processes, influences), while IR people are more focused on the concrete - on policy and outcomes. 

The title of your question - Are the issues of international relations to be explained historically ? - invites the divergence in interpretation evident in several people's responses to your question, and this must give rise to your repeated attempts to re-direct the focus of the discussion. 

Your clarification to me (above) made your question seem more abstract and interesting in terms of the history of ideas, but far less applicable in terms of concrete policy analysis. In this sense, your framing leads away from - perhaps even in a sense excludes - IR analysis. It seems more fruitful for historical and philosophical work (which naturally influence IR - there are no clear boundaries).

A side issue: It seems we agree that philosophy, history, political science and IR are not  "scientific" in the English sense of "science. We seem to agree on a lot, here. Indeed, even if I tried I could not find a word to disagree with in your comments above. Nice to see that! So often continental scholars miss the essential difference between the English idea and the continental ones - Wissenschaft, or Hungarian tudományok - which are in their turn often misunderstood/misinterpreted by native English speakers.

Dear Eric, I appreciate your vigilance and helpful comment. So I changed the title to make it less ambigous and a bit more focused. Looking forward to further comments,

kind regards,

Ferenc

P.S. Good change. Perhaps the first "the" should be removed? As it is formulated, "the issues of international relations" means ALL of them, and the answer to that can only be a "no" (there are no overarching answers for any field, after all). If you change it to "issues of international relations" it can invite a "yes, perhaps" and discussion of when, where, and how.

Eric, thanks again for your help. Do you have a yes, perhaps answer as well?

Well, I'm still struggling with the "trend" part of your question. I'm not trendy, you see. I never notice trends until a decade after they have ended. For instance, I'm still stuck in a refutation of (long-dead) post-modernism.

But sure - Yes, perhaps... what do I know?

Dear Eric,

 the problem is that this trend-business is the crux of my question.

But I share your uncertainty - I have thew feeling as far as fashion is concerned. :(

Let me try to illustrate my point with a further example. Here is a paper by a colleague:

"The View Beyond Cambridge: The'International'Turn and the Foundations of Modern Political Thought" by Theodore Christov: https://www.academia.edu/563299/The_View_Beyond_Cambridge_TheInternationalTurn_and_the_Foundations_of_Modern_Political_Thought

Although I have not yet read the paper, but the title and the abstract seems to refer to the topic I am interested in.

In the meantime Theo sent me the link of his book published from these papers as well:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-theory/anarchy-hobbes-and-his-critics-modern-international-thought?format=HB

Well, again,  I don't know about it being a trend, but if you are interested in that sort of thing then you will surely be interested in this book - by an author who seems to have had some small effect on international affairs in SEE (at least according to his critics he has - and they are not happy about it) - n.b. He also happens to be a nice man, not just a great scholar:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199247145.001.0001/acprof-9780199247141

Review here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/feb/01/highereducation.news

And of course you are surely interested in the source itself - see below -as translated by the author of the above:

http://www.amazon.com/Reason-State-Propaganda-Thirty-Years/dp/0199575711

and

http://www.amazon.com/The-Correspondence-1622-1659-Clarendon-Edition/dp/0198240651

and

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Hobbes-Leviathan-Clarendon-Edition/dp/0198709080/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=51XawwlmMlL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR128%2C160_&refRID=0B5QJCP98EVA563SRMD3

 P.S. The "Reasons of State" - a translation by Hobbes (above) - was unknown until Malcolm found it and (re)published it in 2010. I guess it will interest you no little, because in it "Gábor" appears in a few places, meaning, I guess, Bethlen. So: "the situation in the Danube region is highly inflamed; it astonishes us that Gábor remains at rest and does not seize this ripe opportunity"

In the original:  ...ad Istrum res fervet, miramur Gaborem quiescere, & occasionem capillatam non prendere

Surely this ought to be translated into Hungarian. 

"The bringing to light of a previously-unknown work by a major writer or thinker is always a cause of excitement, and even more so when the author in question is a figure of the stature of Hobbes. Noel Malcolm's discovery amongst the papers of the first Earl of Newcastle of an imcomplete manuscript translation, unmistakably in Hobbes's handwriting, of an inflammatory European political pamphlet of the 1620s, is thus a tantalising and provocative event...Most professional scholars...will close this slim volume with mingled emotions of admiration and despair: admiration at the reach, precision and judgement of Malcolm's scholarship, despair over whether they could themselves emulate it." --David Womersley, Social Affairs Unit Web Review

Dear colleagues, I am interested to research of how many English (as L2) words do preschool children know before going to the first grade of Primary school? Preschool teachers in Serbia say that only those children who go to private language schools know some words but they are not sure how many and on average and which words. What is your opinion? Can anyone recommend a research article on this topic?

Thank you in advance,

Ivana

Dear Ivana, I guess you filled in the wrong rubric with these question of yours.  Roll up on your screen, and click on questions!

Best,

Ferenc

The trouble with your question is the aspect of 'explanation.' The way you have it phrased will lead to a straw man answer, a principled 'yes' or 'no' with little thought to the methodological complications of 'explaining' anything in the international sphere. Do you mean prediction? Do you mean retroactive re-constructions of a causal story? Do you mean the identification of mechanisms or processes which might have some ubiquity in the international sphere? If we are to take a more nuanced approach, then the answer will probably fall under a broad range yes/no. Historical analysis can help us solve problems in international relations in that issues often have deep-seated causes, and similar events in the past may be similar enough to teach us something about how the future may progress. Such analysis should be taken with a grain of salt, however, as the rhetoric of 'ancient' conflict can often mask real and complicated grievances, and the present is never truly identical to the past, and can thus offer misleading advice. 

LOK - With the question as now formulated, I can imagine a "yes, in this way and that way, for these reasons," leading to a longer and more interesting discussion, or even debate.

 Dear Lewis, thanks for your contribution.

Can I, however, allow myself the comment that the discussion seems to be a little bit stuck with my question. To illustrate my point, I could have started my reply this way: "Dear Lewis, the trouble with my answer is,,,, etc."

Add to this, that you still think I am simply referring to the historical dimension of IR issues. WHich is not the case, that is why I have changed the title the way I did. So please consider the new title. :)

Can I in the meantime enquire  what exactly is your researchfield. It is not obvious on your researchgate homepage, and I do not find your Cambridge homepage for the moment. I would be glad to know that, as I myself researched in Cambridge earlier.

Let me add now that I I found that you are interested in both political philosophy and IR so we share some of our interests.

 Hi Ferenc, 

My current research field is philosophy of social science with a concentration on international relations and economics, and my undergraduate degree was in International Relations. Sorry I initially read the wrong question (my bad!). I am still a bit unclear what you mean, however. Allow me to rephrase, "Recently, political philosophy has become both more historically inclined and more influential in International Relations. Do I agree that this can have a positive impact on International Relations?" Is this roughly what you mean? If so, I find it hard to imagine an argument which would lead to an un-qualified no. I think, to contribute to your question even further, political philosophy has not only become more historically informed but also globally informed. Recent work in African political philosophy has a lot of very interesting things to say about concepts such as universal human rights and the notion of 'well being' in political-economy. Such work could certainly inform and enrich IR scholarship. 

Dear  Ferenc Hörcher,

We have a moral obligation of acting towards bringing about the good which some scholarly endavors may have allowed one to see the possibility.  

Regards

Hi, Lewis,

 thanks for your comment. African philosophy sounds quite interesting!

In the meantime can I askyour view on this part of my question:

"what can be the specific constirubtions of these researchers (i.e. historians of political thought) to present day challenges in international relations?"

Best,

Ferenc

Let me add one further clarificatory note. My question was motivated by my recent work on István Hont'Jealousy of Trade. International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective, Harvard UP, 2006. István was a great colleague at the history dept of Cambridge University. I am greatly impressed by this book by him.

It's unfair to judge a book by it's title - but that one appears to be a discussion of national mercantilism of the sort that was so very popular prior to WWI. As a sort of game, tell me: I am even close? (I haven't looked at the book).

Well, it is a rather complex book, but one of the points is that 18th century national (political and commercial) rivalries led directly to the national mercantilisms you are talking about. :) But it is fundamental, István claims, to present day dilemmas as well!

I think it's hard to nail down specific contributions for a general trend. Even something like history, which seemingly has a singular purpose, can be pursued for a myriad of reasons. An obvious contribution, however, and one which I would be sympathetic towards, would be to demonstrate the contingencies of current philosophical concepts, and the disconnect between their principle and practice. How did norms which we now take to be universally applicable, such as human rights, or state sovereignty come about? How have they been applied thus far, and how can that application inform us about how they are currently received, regardless of how ideal or logical they are in principle. 

To give an example, the ICC arises out of seemingly universal notions of human rights and the rule of law. The ICC, however, has only ever tried and convicted people from African and Eastern European states, even though there are well documented human rights abuses which arise out of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and China, etc... To what extent is this really the rule of law then? In many ways it seems to be an extension of the Westphalian state system in which those states who are able to sustain a strong sense of sovereignty are immune. This is a clear case in which historical work can highlight disconnects between our philosophy in principle and in practice, and potentially reveal how such a disconnect can invert the norms which such concepts are based upon. 

Dear Expert,

I consider International Relations as the study of historical events that helps the current policy-makers to design a policy by identifying and implementing the merits of certain policy as well as eliminating the demerits or loopholes that existed and led the circumstances to particular undesired event!!

Regards

Dear Ferenc

I think the history of politcal thought is very important to address the discipline of international relations from a constructivist point of view, especially when the object of study is related to non-Western relations or South-South relations. Political thought is very useful to go beyond traditional IRT, which is based on Western political thought, so to understand the non-Western world it is necessary, for example, to start by knowing Chinese political thought and its problematic relations with modernity (Wang Hui).

Qing Yaqin, in his endeavour to elaborate a Chinese IRT, has explored on pre-modern Chinese thought (e.g. Confusianism, Tributary System, Tinxia). Amitav Acharya has stressed the necessity of studying the non-Western "voices", while Eduardo Devés, in Chile, has proposed the peripheral thought thesis as a key to find out a peripheral sensibility between intellectuals and political leaders from Asia, Africa and Latin America. In India there are authors who have discussed about the importance of Pan-asiatist thought of Nehru and Tagore as an intellectual source of the Indian foreign policy, while in Japan it is crucial to know the intellectual movement of Pan-asiatism to understand the Japanese international behaviour during the first half of the 20 century.

Kind regards 

Dear Claudia,

I think yours are really relevant thoughts. In fact it seems to lead towards a collaboration between IR and cultural anthropology, or a kind of comparative IR cultures, like that of Huntington, but perhaps in a hermeneutically more open fashion.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Ferenc

You're knocking on an open door. IR, from the outset, has taken inspiration from other fields.

I really do, but certainly IR has a lot of links. THe question is how IR and history of political thought (HPT) might go hand in hand. And Claudia drew attention to the fact that it gives you the chance to reconstruct the "philosophical" background to different cultures/religions, etc., in a historical dimension.

But there's nothing new in that.

As I said above, the man who is considered the "founder" of IR, EH Carr, was a historian and wrote as one who was also interested in the history of political thought, incidentally.

Hans Morgenthau, whom you like and whose first contribution to the field came a full decade after Carr's, took much from international law and pointed out the "imagination" (of the past as well as present) as a factor in IR.

So, after all this discussion above and your clarification of your question through your responses, I would say:

Yes, the history of political thought has - for a long time now - been proven to be of use to CERTAIN aspects of IR; and No, this is not a new trend. It's long established - going right back to EH Carr's International Relations Since the Peace Treaties (1937)

I don't know what to do with your question "Do you agree with this trend." One cannot agree or disagree with trends, one simply notes that they exist.

Dear Eric,

 thanks again. I agree that there were earlier trends like the one I mention, so it is rather a renaissance than a simple naissance.

As for agreeing, perhaps the right word would be whether you like it or not. I ask it because I find it VERY relevant. But I can accept a more relaxed, objectivist attitude as well.

This is something that has proven to be useful over long decades. Saying I "like" it would be as insignificant as saying I "like" hammers.

There are hammers I like better than others. :)

Add to this that there are modern equipments to substitute hammers, so you might want to say, I am fed up with these old fashioned tools.

A good overview of pros and cons of a "historical turn" in IR:

What’s at Stake in the

Historical Turn? Theory,

Practice and Phrone sis in

International Relations

David M. McCourt

University of California, Berkeley, USA

Available at: https://www.academia.edu/1886002/What_s_at_Stake_in_the_Historical_Turn_Theory_Practice_and_Phron%C4%93sis_in_International_Relations_Millennium_2012

Nice to see that the first footnote provided by author of that, McCourt, is from a work dating 1969, and that there is also a reference to a work from 1933, one from 1946, and plenty from the 1980s. Nihil sub sole novum.

One could quite easily write a history of the rise, disappearance, reappearance, fall, and debate over the "Historical turn" going to a time before IR even existed. Who would want to read such a history of historicism, I can not imagine.

THe main text refers to the debate whether the historical turn is relevant or not. SO if you are interested in more than the first footnote just go ahead.

In the meantime, of course, consider, that what is at stake is exactly the advantages  hoped from such a renaissance.

I'm not interested in more than the first footnote. I spent a good part of my first year at Oxford reading historiography, and have had quite enough thank you.

Dear Eric, I certainly understand that.  :)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ferenc & readers,

I've just found this interesting question and discussion and read through the replies and exchanges.

I'm certainly inclined to think that a turn toward history is important, generally, and also that it is a sign of the times. But I would not describe what is under discussion as a matter of "historicism." Its more a matter of an historical orientation to particular political problems and questions. Does this have a genuine value for international relations in particular?

The study of history and of the history of political thought in particular can serve several sorts of purposes. Some of these have been mentioned in the discussions above, such as attempting to understand how foreign policy makers understand their own international situation. At the least, policy makers would want to know if their foreign counterparts have a distinctly contrasting view of their own geopolitical situation. That seems useful to avoid, though differing interests may persist through a good deal of mutual understanding. 

History may also suggest useful models for understanding contemporary problems and conflicts --historical analogies--which often require some considerable refinement in light of details of contemporary problems. But the analogies are the sorts of things that can be productive of new approaches or new insights.

On the other hand, I've some inclination to think that a new trend toward historical studies generally indicates some level of stalemate in heretofore prevalent approaches to outstanding problems and a search for new models. It can also be simply a retreat from daunting problems. Periods in the history of philosophy dominated by historical studies, for example, I think of as indicating exhaustion of previous methods and approaches to problems of the day. By the way, I think that philosophy is also becoming more historically (and comparatively) oriented of late. Something or other, it seems, has been too narrow? 

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G. 

Thanks for you thoughtful comment.

I would react to one of your points only. This concerns the supposition that return to history might be a sign of momentary weakness on the side of the given science. I do not want to deny the rationality of this claim, however, I would put it differently: turning towards history always opens up the chance to reconfigure a given science, offering it new vistas.

Thanks anyway,

Ferenc

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ferenc,

A point well taken. I tend to agree with your alternative characterization of the roles of history --in addition to my prior statement. I think it is the nature of historical analogies to suggest new configurations and new perspectives on problems. In this way, they facilitate creative responses and innovations of thought. Its the very imperfection of the analogies which makes them so suggestive.

H.G. Callaway

Here is an example:

John D. Mueller' Redeeming Economics. Rediscovering the Missing Element,

http://www.amazon.com/Redeeming-Economics-Rediscovering-Missing-Enterprise/dp/1932236953#reader_B00JBRUK2G

which claims to return to an Aristotelian-Augustinian-Thomisitc kind of economics, because the author thinks that (neo)classical economics is lacking one key element.

If he is right, history of economic thought helps out economics, helps out economics, proper, in crisis.