The great conundrum of international diplomacy is that it's impossible to speak constructively with the bad actors of the world without "legitimizing" them to some degree. Either you reject their legitimacy as nation-states or you don't.
The U.N. has long been criticized for inherently legitimizing governments that don't deserve it. The bar for entry had to be set very low for the concept of a "global parliament" to work. We have to pretend Russia & China are morally fit to sit on a global "security council."
It is essentially impossible for a more civilized nation to have productive diplomacy with less civilized states without ceding some of their moral authority to the latter. At some point, you have to pretend thug states and kleptocracies deserve a seat at the big kids' table.
This is usually done by pretending that the current rulers of the less civilized nation are better than their predecessors and seriously contemplate liberalization, or that a hypothetical government to come after them will do so.
And, of course, there is the grand optimistic illusion that the very act of engagement will liberalize authoritarian governments - that liberty is viral and spread through commerce.
There is very little evidence to support the notion of liberalization through engagement in the modern world. On the contrary, authoritarianism spreads more quickly, especially since tyrants use globalization to force companies from free nations to embrace their worldview.
Also, the world is trending toward authoritarianism because collectivists taught for generations that freedom is terrifying, capitalism cannot be trusted, and security requires strong centralized authority. Authoritarianism blends easily with nationalism, socialism, and cronyism.
It is therefore difficult to sustain the idealistic notion that America can talk the rest of the world into being more like us. America 1988 would have a hard time talking America 2018 into embracing its level of free speech and free commerce.
The realities of the new global economy also make it hard to sell the notion that authoritarianism automatically means poverty and squalor. China is working hard to convince the world its brand of authoritarianism performs *better* than capitalism, as well as being more "just."
It's hard to promote the superiority of constitutional liberty and free-market capitalism when so much of the electorate in the world's greatest champion of those ideals clearly no longer believes in them.
The Western world is not likely to use military belligerence to get what it wants, despite endless screeching to the contrary from its critics. Authoritarians know the real balance of responsibility for avoiding war always rests on the more civilized nations they deal with.
Economic pressure is a favored tool in the Western toolbox, but as we're seeing right now, it's hard to sustain for long enough to get the job done. Too easy for rogue nations to cheat, too many bad actors willing to help them, threshold of economic pain in the West too low.
The great strategic insight of authoritarians, the great tragedy of the Information Age, is that the Internet destabilized free nations more than tyrannies. It's nourishing the authoritarian contagion lurking within free societies. It's making us more vulnerable to pressure.
In that environment, and since the post-WW2 order sacrificed so much of the legitimacy advantage enjoyed by free nations to foster international diplomacy, it's very difficult to liberalize adversary nations or assert such a towering moral advantage that they fold.
It's more realistic to assert our interests strongly, make it clear we will not deal from positions that put us at a disadvantage (i.e. you can threaten us but we can't threaten you because that would be "wrong") and deal cynically with thug states on matters of mutual interest.
You can really only avoid the charges of hypocrisy so beloved of the international elite by being blunt in the pursuit of national interest. Here is the carrot we offer, here is the stick we hold in the other hand, and neither will be veiled with high-minded illusions.
Such bluntness is especially important because the military and economic advantages held by the U.S. are eroding. Our elite believes it is sinful for us to preserve our strength and hypocritical to advance our values. The moment we can do both will pass unless we act boldly.
In sum, we no longer have the power to rule that various sons-of-bitches are not the legit rulers of their nations, if we ever did. It's hard to refuse to deal with them entirely. How loudly we can call them sons of bitches without driving them from the table is debatable.
What remains is to drive the hardest bargains we can, cleanse ourselves of authoritarian infection, whip our own system into fighting shape for the coming century, and PROVE we're better than them. It will not be easy. It might be the hardest challenge we've faced yet. /end
