Idealism has remained at the heart of U.S. policy toward China and Russia in the past two decades.
There are historical reasons why idealism had persisted among consecutive U.S. administrations since World War II. However, the detrimental consequences of basing U.S. national security on this policy as great power competition transitions the international system back to a multi-polar order cannot be overstated.
The harmful consequences of conflating national principles of human rights such as freedom of religion and speech with U.S. national security are at the heart of the idealism versus realism debate, and contending with the limitations of Idealism might be our generation's biggest challenge.
Idealism perceives non-democratic states as perpetually afflicted with internal concerns, assigning to these states a relative inability to influence their near abroad. A thorough review of U.S. published assessments of Russian and Chinese military and economic power between 2007 and 2015 reveals an unmistakable pattern of underestimating China and Russia's capabilities, and dismissing strategic intent in their foreign policy.
Idealism still persists despite a series of less than desirable outcomes for U.S. foreign policy interventions in the Middle East and South Asia in the past two decades.
Good intentions among idealists who intend to expand freedoms and introduce democracy in other nations cannot justify the persistence of Idealism in U.S. foreign policy if the outcome is consistently incompatible with and downright harmful to U.S. national interests.
The Philippines is cooperating with China on South China Sea oil and gas concerns, while maintaining U.S. relations, all the while being less tolerable of UN and U.S. accusations of human rights abuses.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/11/27/escaping_the_idealism_trap_113983.html
There are historical reasons why idealism had persisted among consecutive U.S. administrations since World War II. However, the detrimental consequences of basing U.S. national security on this policy as great power competition transitions the international system back to a multi-polar order cannot be overstated.
The harmful consequences of conflating national principles of human rights such as freedom of religion and speech with U.S. national security are at the heart of the idealism versus realism debate, and contending with the limitations of Idealism might be our generation's biggest challenge.
Idealism perceives non-democratic states as perpetually afflicted with internal concerns, assigning to these states a relative inability to influence their near abroad. A thorough review of U.S. published assessments of Russian and Chinese military and economic power between 2007 and 2015 reveals an unmistakable pattern of underestimating China and Russia's capabilities, and dismissing strategic intent in their foreign policy.
Idealism still persists despite a series of less than desirable outcomes for U.S. foreign policy interventions in the Middle East and South Asia in the past two decades.
Good intentions among idealists who intend to expand freedoms and introduce democracy in other nations cannot justify the persistence of Idealism in U.S. foreign policy if the outcome is consistently incompatible with and downright harmful to U.S. national interests.
The Philippines is cooperating with China on South China Sea oil and gas concerns, while maintaining U.S. relations, all the while being less tolerable of UN and U.S. accusations of human rights abuses.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/11/27/escaping_the_idealism_trap_113983.html
No comments:
Post a Comment