Rather than taking a "holier than thou" stance and refusing to engage with governments that have committed atrocities, it is more effective to build bridges. Cooperation invites them into the 21st century and aligns them with your values, whereas isolationism is counterproductive.

Latin America's strong legal commitment to national sovereignty and non-intervention was not an abstract ideal developed in a vacuum. It was a pragmatic and principled response, forged over centuries of living next to the United States as it expanded, conquered territory, and asserted its dominance across the hemisphere.

For a blueprint on AI governance, look to Cold War-era geopolitics, not just tech history. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which established cooperation between the US and Soviet Union, shows that global compromise on new frontiers is possible even amidst intense rivalry. It provides a model for political, not just technical, solutions.

Much of government functions on decorum and unwritten rules. When political actors attack these norms—like challenging procedural traditions—it creates a cycle of retribution that destabilizes the entire system more profoundly than any single illegal act could.

While a unipolar world led by one's own country is advantageous, a multipolar world with competing powers like the U.S. and China creates a dynamic tension. This competition may force more compromised global decisions, potentially leading to a more balanced, albeit more tense, international system than one dominated by a single unchallenged power.

In global conflicts, a nation's power dictates its actions and outcomes, not moral righteousness. History shows powerful nations, like the U.S. using nuclear weapons, operate beyond conventional moral constraints, making an understanding of power dynamics more critical than moralizing.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

The West reluctantly included human rights provisions in the Helsinki Accords, believing them unenforceable. However, dissidents across the Eastern Bloc weaponized these clauses to hold communist regimes accountable, undermining their legitimacy from within and contributing to their collapse.

Counterintuitively, the more complex a deal—spanning multiple countries and legal systems—the more suitable it is for a relational contract. Instead of attempting to codify every eventuality, this approach establishes a shared corporate culture and flexible principles that can adapt to unforeseen challenges, effectively trumping national or legal differences.