I welcome debate w @HalBrands & @ZackCooper & this important contribution! But I think lets have the debate where it actually is. Tho they link to Bob/my piece (foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…) as opposing "realism" example, their piece isnt engage w our actual arg. Some egs&thoughts. 1/
https://twitter.com/HalBrands/status/1371813150400643075
Our arg is that competition w/China isn't ***primarily*** ideological. Used word 5 times in article. World is complex so ideology et al play a role in int'l politics but our point was that primary driver is state power. Not trying to be cute - we made clear arg for primacy of 2/
state power in intl politics - but that's different than "purging ideology from American statecraft." Ditto: "Better, these analysts argue, to approach the rivalry in realpolitik terms—as a cold-eyed contest over power." In fact we said "We are not proposing a one-dimensional" 3/
"realpolitik. The United States must stand for freedom, republican government, and human dignity." Our point was that US must see balance of power as key dynamic, not that ideology is wholly irrelevant or should be purged from US FP. 4/
Moreover, their argument fails to acknowledge that US *use* of ideology as element of FP *primarily motivated by geopolitical concerns* is wholly consistent w our argument. They accuse us of ignoring freedom's role in mobilizing Americans & drawing others to our side. 5/
Hence we said "Standing for these values will draw others around the world to the U.S. banner, help demonstrate the dangers of bowing to Beijing, and provide a motivating force to collective efforts." Obvi not call to go overboard, but realists can leverage our ideol/HR edge. 6/
They argued "a strategy that requires the United States to cast aside its values and ideals would be unwise and unrealistic." Ok! We said: "The United States can and should certainly emphasize respect for human dignity and political rights as a way to distinguish itself..." 7/
"from China. But policymakers must maintain a clear-eyed perspective and be selective, especially when the stakes are so high." So this smacks of strawmanning. I wouldn't mind if it weren't using our article as the basis for it! 😉 8/
Here's the rub: There's a real argument in here. As the authors state, prudence & compromise our part of FP - we can blend "ideology & realpolitik". 👍👏 The ? here is *how* central is ideology in how we see the stakes and what we emphasize in our FP. 9/
I assume they think ideology is a lot more central & key in the competition & for our FP than Bob & I argued. Ok! But then let's carry their point to its conclusion. We can't be safe unless PRC is a lib dem, right? But they blink! Say that fear is "innacurate" on part of PRC. 10/
Why? If ideology is so central (not just as a useful tool but as what's *really* going on in the world), then doesn't it make a *HUGE* difference that PRC is a Leninist state? So wouldn't it logically follow that we should seek regime change, however prudently? 11/
If all they're saying is US should leverage its advantages as democracy etc for geopolitical purposes w/in reason, GREAT! Totally on board! Matter of proportion & doing then - prudential. But this debate should go deeper. How important is China's ideology to its behavior? 12/
How important is it that our allies & partners are lib dems? Are we in a "techno-dems vs. techno-auths" world? They hand wave this *crucial* point w point that Vietnam et al will have no choice. But this is a huge issue *esp* if hard power matters most & thus Asia is esp key. 13/
Are we assembling a "democratic coalition" motivated w "ideology at the center of the competition" as they suggest? Or shld we put together a more ecumenical grouping motivated by shared fears? Again, matter of degree in practice but lucidity good from outsiders IME. 14/
Final point: They say Bob & I are "self-described foreign policy 'realists.'” Can't we just be realists? Didn't know it was *such* a desirable moniker! As Kissinger says, only in America is calling someone a realist considered an epithet! 16/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
