1/Today's Substack post is about foreign policy. It's about the looming threat of Cold War 2.
I don't want Cold War 2, and you shouldn't either. Cold wars are bad. But we don't always have good options.
noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-us-didnt…
I don't want Cold War 2, and you shouldn't either. Cold wars are bad. But we don't always have good options.
noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-us-didnt…
2/The post was prompted by allegations coming from the Left that the U.S. is trying to start a new cold war with China.
For example, here's the open letter from the Sunrise Movement:
foe.org/wp-content/upl…
For example, here's the open letter from the Sunrise Movement:
foe.org/wp-content/upl…
3/Sunrise and the other groups never specify whether the "anti-China rhetoric" is criticism of China's human rights abuses.
Anyway, here is Bernie Sanders in Foreign Affairs:
foreignaffairs.com/articles/china…
Anyway, here is Bernie Sanders in Foreign Affairs:
foreignaffairs.com/articles/china…
4/Bernie does call China out for both human rights abuses and economic mercantilism, but still criticizes both parties for being too anti-China.
It's not clear what he's referring to.
It's not clear what he's referring to.
5/Meanwhile, Peter Beinart ludicrously praises Bernie for voting against the Endless Frontier Act (a science funding bill!), claiming that it's an anti-China bill, and that voting against it was similar to voting against the War on Terror.
peterbeinart.substack.com/p/bernie-sande…
peterbeinart.substack.com/p/bernie-sande…
6/In fact, Bernie's reason for voting no was that he thought the bill would hand money to billionaires. But it's a sign of just how silly folks like Beinart have gotten that they see *government funding for science* as an aggressive act against China.
washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021…
washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021…
7/Anyway, all of these arguments coming out from the Left assume that China would be a willing, cooperative partner on issues like climate change, if only the U.S. wouldn't be so hawkish and aggressive, etc.
This is, simply put, B.S.
This is, simply put, B.S.
8/Engagement with China was our policy for decades upon decades.
It didn't stop China from scuttling the Copenhagen climate talks.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
It didn't stop China from scuttling the Copenhagen climate talks.
theguardian.com/environment/20…
9/Nor has anyone put forward a reasonable argument for how U.S. wheedling, cajoling, or "moral leadership" is going to dissuade China from building the fleet of new coal plants it is now building.
e360.yale.edu/features/despi…
e360.yale.edu/features/despi…
10/Nor did engagement with China prevent it from taking a sharply authoritarian turn under Xi Jinping.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
11/Nor did this repression begin as some sort of reaction to the Trump administration; it began much earlier.
time.com/4519160/china-…
time.com/4519160/china-…
12/Bernie Sanders himself acknowledges the failure of our engagement policy to improve China's human rights or economic record. So why does he want to double down on a failed strategy?
13/OK, so how about the allegation that hawkishness by the U.S. foreign policy establishment is provoking Cold War 2?
This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most of China's intensifying conflicts are with its neighbors, rather than with the United States.
This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most of China's intensifying conflicts are with its neighbors, rather than with the United States.
14/China's popularity in its region was never high and has slipped to very low levels in recent years. Other countries around the world are regarding China more negatively, too.
noahpinion.substack.com/p/china-just-i…
noahpinion.substack.com/p/china-just-i…
15/Because of rising tensions with China, other countries are actively courting the U.S. and seeking greater military cooperation with us.
For example, India:
foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/25/ind…
For example, India:
foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/25/ind…
19/None of this has to do with U.S. hawkishness. It's all about countries in Asia wanting U.S. help to balance an increasingly scary and increasingly powerful neighbor.
THAT is the root of Cold War 2.
THAT is the root of Cold War 2.
20/Now, some leftists argue that the U.S. presence in Asia is itself an act of aggression, and that helping maintain the status quo (even at the request of Asian countries) is American imperialism.
Does this make any sense? No.
Does this make any sense? No.
21/The status quo in Asia since 1980 has been *remarkably* good, especially for China. It has led to enormous prosperity, rapid catch-up growth, and cultural flourishing, all in an environment of peace.
22/A Chinese conquest of Taiwan or other aggressive military adventure wouldn't just slaughter a bunch of innocent human beings. It would disrupt a situation that is making life dramatically better for literally billions of Asian people.
23/Anyone sympathetic to leftist arguments on this issue needs to realize that this situation is NOT like the Iraq War. The U.S. is not attacking; it is reacting, as are China's neighbors. We are now playing defense.
24/In addition, if China conquered Taiwan or other territory, and the U.S. stepped back and did nothing, there's a good chance it would open up a whole new global era of conquest and war -- only this time, with nukes.
25/The Left's accusations that the U.S. is responsible for Cold War 2 are actually a call for appeasement.
Cold wars are bad. But appeasement in this case is even worse.
(end)
noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-us-didnt…
Cold wars are bad. But appeasement in this case is even worse.
(end)
noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-us-didnt…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
