Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

When it comes to 🇺🇸 foreign policy, is it better to be a "globalist" or a "restrainer"?

[THREAD]

For those not aware, I'm referring to the new @SurvivalEditors piece by Deudney and Ikenberry

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

This article generated a variety of responses the past week. For example...

...@stephenWalt was having none of it...

https://twitter.com/stephenWalt/status/1423302951959941126

...the @QuincyInst (the key target of the piece) was not amused...

https://twitter.com/QuincyInst/status/1422924302089867267

...@dandrezner seemed perplexed by the article's claims...

https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/1422376617830195206

...while @AlexMStark offered a more measured response.

https://twitter.com/AlexMStark/status/1420787946396033034

So what are Deudney and Ikenberry (let's call them D&I) arguing and why should scholars of international relations care?

I'm not going to speak to how they define a "Quincy Coalition". Yes, there is a @QuincyInstitute with excellent scholars conducting research that I respect (and I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it).

Instead, let's focus on D&I's main claims

Their claim is that "globalist internationalism" is under attack by "the restraint school" (which is represented by the "Quincy Coalition").

They write

What is "globalist Internationalism" and what is the "restraint school"?

Let's start with "globalist internationalism".

For D&I it is the idea that international institutions are useful for solving and controlling the problems of world politics.

- Destructive weapons? Create Collective Security IOs & sign Arms Control Agreements

- Economic Interdependence spreads recessions? Sign agreements to maintain trade & financial flows.

- Global Environmental degradation? Create a global regime that restricts polluting actions

The purpose of these institutions is RESTRAINT, but of a different type: "restraining" the negative consequences of 🇺🇸 existing in a modern (i.e. post-industrial revolution) international system without a central world government (i.e. anarchy).

So 🇺🇸 must continue to do what is necessary to maintain these institutions, just as it has done in the past

Note: Interesting that D&I used the term "globalist". I think that was intentional

Let's now talk about the "restraint school".

According to D&I, the restraint school is opposed to projects that seek to artificially restrain the actions of states in the international system.

They want to constrain international organizations, not have the IOs constrain states.

Instead, the restraint school wants states to have the freedom to be left alone and choose when and whether to be engaged globally.

So where is the restraint?

Consistent with leaving others alone, the restraint school wants to 'restrain' the "neo-imperialist" tendencies of 🇺🇸.

This is because promoting American ideals and freedom abroad has a tendency to slip into "American knows best".

When that tendency is combined with American military power? Well 👇

https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1369647631006392321

Needless to say, D&I view this camp as wrong. To quote them again

What to conclude from the piece? I have three thoughts.

First, that Ikenberry would oppose "balance of power" thinking to his "global internationalist" (or "constitutionalist") thinking is unsurprising: in his highly influential book, he described those as two main ways to "order" international affairs.

press.princeton.edu/books/hardcove…

Second, I think D&I are using a "strawman" for their argument. Nobody is really arguing that the USA should fully disengage from the world. That's simply never been the case, as @PatPorter76 recently stated.

https://twitter.com/PatPorter76/status/1422850531140280320

Consider my US Foreign policy 2x2. Even the "America First" camp was still highly engaged globally, they just don't feel an obligation to try to solve every problem everywhere.

https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1413820365328031747

Third, from a policy advocacy perspective the piece has strong "American Exceptionalistic Messianic Complex"-vibes. There is a long history of USA having the "only we can save the civilized world from itself", going back at least to Wilson. Consider the closing passage

In sum, I think this whole debate comes down to whether you think 🇺🇸 is the "indispensable nation" (globalist) or a "normal country" (restrainer).

[END]