This Friday, September 10, one day before the 20th anniversary of 9/11, I’ll be talking at Noon ET with former deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes. Ben has been unusually candid about what it’s like to make US foreign policy at the highest levels. In a
I don’t think Americans feeling bad for Chinese struggles in the 20th century is the solution to improving American relations with China. Looking at the world through the lens of how everything is the fault of western imperialism is just as dogmatic as any other. The fact of the matter is the Chinese Communist Party is autocratic, anti democratic, nationalistic, while also being fabulously rich. It is not difficult to understand why countries which can provide material comforts and success to their people will enjoy levels of support from their citizens. China is a successful and rich country which shares a long and amazing history including a lengthy period of being the most successful and advanced civilization in the world.
But let’s not mince words here: China’s authoritarianism is a problem, and the reality is our interests do not align with their interests. That will naturally lead to conflict. We should not keel over and accept Chinese narratives because they can claim western imperialism is a root problem. We should confront China where they threaten our interests, and work with them where our interests align. Getting China to stop burning coal is in both countries interests, we should work on that. China conquering Taiwan is not in our interest, we should work to ensure it doesn’t happen.
One of the justifications one often hears from confrontationalist, neo-Cold Warrior circles in the United States is that "liberals" promised that economic ties would eventually lead to political reform and democratization in China (à la South Korea or Taiwan in the 1980s). They were confident in their predictions of a democratic China (so goes the argument), but where are we now?
But I don't remember much "confidence" about this. It was always more of a hope than a solid prediction. I mean, when did "the liberals" promise Chinese democracy would arrive? 1995? 2012? 2031?
But here's the thing: as long as this powerful, nuclear superstate remains a one party dictatorship, the world's geopolitics are likely to remain strained, stressed and dangerous. So, I still don't see what the alternative is to China's eventual transition to multi-party liberal democracy (Perhaps a nuclear first strike by the US? Air dropping leaflets on China exhorting the people to rise up? The rest of the world simply embargoing a fifth of humanity from participation in the global economy?)
Democratization is still the only plausible solution to the China problem. And yes, it could take a long time.
First, I'm not surprised by Obama's moves. If what you seek is an enormously powerful position, by the time you get there you find that your motion is so powerfully constrained that you're essentially an implement of the position rather than the other way around.
Second, this is also unsurprising given the sort of men who get themselves into these positions (and the few women they allow in). You're talking about rich men who talk about losing a position like it's a literal disembowelment. They have everything in the world already, but my god, if that job's threatened, it's a whole Greek tragedy. And if they walk away on principle? THESE ARE THE BRAVEST AND MOST SELFLESS HUMANS WHO HAVE EVER LIVED. Sing hosanna! Despite the fact that ordinary people who actually need the money or the opportunity, and will be *genuinely* harmed by their commitment, do this every day. Despite the fact that nearly any other person on the planet is more selfless and less self-actualized than they.
How do they manage to get anything done? Four jillion other men, mostly not too bright, looking for a leader and a team uniform...and a position.
So no, I'm not surprised anymore that these men make such obviously stupid, dreadful, cruel moves that destroy the lives of millions of real people. And of course they're corrupt. What other kind of people would wish to exercise so much power over so many other people? Who else would wake up in the morning and say, "You betcha, I know what they need and by God they'll have it"?
Some years ago my daughter became interested in international relations, and I was sad, because I saw the dead end for her there. I mean yes, it's very interesting. But she doesn't find pathologies like you find in IR interesting; she finds them terribly depressing, which is very sensible of her. I said, "You realize, it's the study of horrible men being horrible to many people," and naturally she didn't know what that meant, but I am happy to report she's left IR behind and is doing work that actually makes her happy. The men will go on being cruel and horrible with or without her.
Another consequence of the lack of "cognitive empathy", especially when combined with the logic of exceptionality, is the gross double standard with which the US views the actions of its adversaries when compared to its own: while Russia is supposed to accept Nato's benevolent presence on its borders, can we imagine what the US would do if the Russians were to have a military presence in Mexico or anywhere in Central America or in the Caribbeans? in fact, we don't have to guess, we know exactly what would happen (think Cuba and Nicaragua). And speaking of the Russians, they dared interfere in the US presidential elections. Like America never interfered in other countries' elections? Seriously.
But of course the intentions of the exceptional nation are by definition good, even when its actions blatantly violate international law. Why don't we foreigners understand that?!
I love Peter Beinart's canon and agree with everything in this article. For me, though, what's missing is 'what to do instead'? If cognitive empathy is lacking and if exceptionalism are in the way of doing foreign policy better, what does State have to do to go beyond 1840-think?
I don’t think Americans feeling bad for Chinese struggles in the 20th century is the solution to improving American relations with China. Looking at the world through the lens of how everything is the fault of western imperialism is just as dogmatic as any other. The fact of the matter is the Chinese Communist Party is autocratic, anti democratic, nationalistic, while also being fabulously rich. It is not difficult to understand why countries which can provide material comforts and success to their people will enjoy levels of support from their citizens. China is a successful and rich country which shares a long and amazing history including a lengthy period of being the most successful and advanced civilization in the world.
But let’s not mince words here: China’s authoritarianism is a problem, and the reality is our interests do not align with their interests. That will naturally lead to conflict. We should not keel over and accept Chinese narratives because they can claim western imperialism is a root problem. We should confront China where they threaten our interests, and work with them where our interests align. Getting China to stop burning coal is in both countries interests, we should work on that. China conquering Taiwan is not in our interest, we should work to ensure it doesn’t happen.
One of the justifications one often hears from confrontationalist, neo-Cold Warrior circles in the United States is that "liberals" promised that economic ties would eventually lead to political reform and democratization in China (à la South Korea or Taiwan in the 1980s). They were confident in their predictions of a democratic China (so goes the argument), but where are we now?
But I don't remember much "confidence" about this. It was always more of a hope than a solid prediction. I mean, when did "the liberals" promise Chinese democracy would arrive? 1995? 2012? 2031?
But here's the thing: as long as this powerful, nuclear superstate remains a one party dictatorship, the world's geopolitics are likely to remain strained, stressed and dangerous. So, I still don't see what the alternative is to China's eventual transition to multi-party liberal democracy (Perhaps a nuclear first strike by the US? Air dropping leaflets on China exhorting the people to rise up? The rest of the world simply embargoing a fifth of humanity from participation in the global economy?)
Democratization is still the only plausible solution to the China problem. And yes, it could take a long time.
First, I'm not surprised by Obama's moves. If what you seek is an enormously powerful position, by the time you get there you find that your motion is so powerfully constrained that you're essentially an implement of the position rather than the other way around.
Second, this is also unsurprising given the sort of men who get themselves into these positions (and the few women they allow in). You're talking about rich men who talk about losing a position like it's a literal disembowelment. They have everything in the world already, but my god, if that job's threatened, it's a whole Greek tragedy. And if they walk away on principle? THESE ARE THE BRAVEST AND MOST SELFLESS HUMANS WHO HAVE EVER LIVED. Sing hosanna! Despite the fact that ordinary people who actually need the money or the opportunity, and will be *genuinely* harmed by their commitment, do this every day. Despite the fact that nearly any other person on the planet is more selfless and less self-actualized than they.
How do they manage to get anything done? Four jillion other men, mostly not too bright, looking for a leader and a team uniform...and a position.
So no, I'm not surprised anymore that these men make such obviously stupid, dreadful, cruel moves that destroy the lives of millions of real people. And of course they're corrupt. What other kind of people would wish to exercise so much power over so many other people? Who else would wake up in the morning and say, "You betcha, I know what they need and by God they'll have it"?
Some years ago my daughter became interested in international relations, and I was sad, because I saw the dead end for her there. I mean yes, it's very interesting. But she doesn't find pathologies like you find in IR interesting; she finds them terribly depressing, which is very sensible of her. I said, "You realize, it's the study of horrible men being horrible to many people," and naturally she didn't know what that meant, but I am happy to report she's left IR behind and is doing work that actually makes her happy. The men will go on being cruel and horrible with or without her.
Another consequence of the lack of "cognitive empathy", especially when combined with the logic of exceptionality, is the gross double standard with which the US views the actions of its adversaries when compared to its own: while Russia is supposed to accept Nato's benevolent presence on its borders, can we imagine what the US would do if the Russians were to have a military presence in Mexico or anywhere in Central America or in the Caribbeans? in fact, we don't have to guess, we know exactly what would happen (think Cuba and Nicaragua). And speaking of the Russians, they dared interfere in the US presidential elections. Like America never interfered in other countries' elections? Seriously.
But of course the intentions of the exceptional nation are by definition good, even when its actions blatantly violate international law. Why don't we foreigners understand that?!
I love Peter Beinart's canon and agree with everything in this article. For me, though, what's missing is 'what to do instead'? If cognitive empathy is lacking and if exceptionalism are in the way of doing foreign policy better, what does State have to do to go beyond 1840-think?