My views on foreign policy

Many commenters have great difficulty understanding my views on foreign policy.  I presume this is because many (most?) commenters think this way:   “Sumner said X.  People who say X usually believe Y.  Therefore Sumner thinks Y”.  That might work for most people, but it doesn’t work for me.  Actually, my views on foreign policy are boringly conventional and quite moderate:

1. Some of my commenters accuse me of being a bloodthirsty warmonger, because I support NATO.  I.e., I think we should go to war against Russia if they invade Estonia.  I also think we should go to war against China if they invade Japan or Australia, due to our defense treaties with Pacific powers.  I like mutual defense treaties among countries that have their act together.  AFAIK, it’s the only “foreign policy” that seems to consistently work.  They are one of humanity’s greatest achievements.

2. Another group of commenters think I’m a lily-livered, Neville Chamberlain appeaser, because I don’t wish to go to war against China over Taiwan or Xinjiang.

3.  Another group thinks I don’t care about human rights abuses in foreign countries, even though I passionately care about human rights abuses in foreign countries—far more than 90% of Americans, and infinitely more than Trump—who is quite upfront about not caring at all.  Reading about the Rohingyas and the Yazidis literally brings tears to my eyes.  I care so much about foreigners that other commenters say I’m not patriotic enough, putting the interests of the most oppressed people in the developing world ahead of red-blooded Americans.  I can’t win.

4.  Another group claims I don’t believe that distinct regions should be free to secede from larger entities, even though I’ve expressed support for peaceful examples of secession, as with the Czechoslovakia.  They confuse my statements about the current agreed upon rules of international law (no secession without consent) with my personal views as to what sort of world would be best.  My claim that Taiwan would be foolish to secede from China without their permission, thereby triggering a horrific war, makes me a Chinese apologist in their view.  Taiwan already has all the advantages of de facto independence, and is fortunately too smart to take the advice of my rash commenters (safely out of harms way) and commit mass suicide by seceding. While I have no problem with the idea of an independent Taiwan achieved peacefully with Beijing’s consent, the US should tell Taiwan “If you formally secede, you’re on your own.”  I’d guess we already have.  And in any case, Taiwan is currently doing fine.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Are there other occasions where you might want to use military force, beyond mutual defense treaties?  As a utilitarian I cannot say there are no circumstances where military force is appropriate, but I’m generally almost as skeptical as Bryan Caplan.  Perhaps military force should be used to stop extreme human rights abuses like genocide.  But how many now favor a US invasion of Myanmar, where the government is massacring the Rohingyas?  There are enormous practical problems with that policy option. Saddam Hussein had an appalling record in many different dimensions, and indeed in 2003 I thought there was a pretty good utilitarian case for getting rid of him.  (I wrongly assumed a quick war like the 1991 Gulf War.)  The 2003 Iraq War obviously turned out to be a disaster, and this has helped to shape my views on foreign policy.

I’m now more skeptical of the hawks than before.  History is full of examples where the hawkish stance turned out to be a complete disaster (1914, Vietnam, Iraq War, etc.)  Even cases where we had a quick victory (Spanish-American War) look like clear mistakes in retrospect.  People often point to 1938 as an example of the doves being wrong.  But even there, a hawkish stance by Chamberlain would have merely triggered the “Phony War” portion of WWII a year earlier, resulting in a less clear cut historical record that the Nazis were 100% the aggressors.  Would you want a modern Germany full of Germans who feel that Germany was picked on twice?  So I still say we should use the military primarily for self (or mutual) defense, and any other use should be exceedingly rare. Countries allowed into mutual defense pacts should be free of ongoing border disputes.

There’s a better case for using economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool.  But here again, the historical record is quite unimpressive.  Yes, the sanctions against South Africa may have contributed to the end of apartheid.  But for every success like that there are far more failures, such as the Cuban sanctions.  If you are using sanctions because of human rights abuses in the targeted nation, the goal should be to make the people in the targeted nation better off.  Thus it helps if you have popular support, which seems to have been the case in South Africa (but not Cuba.)

As an example, I’d guess that 98% of the Chinese public would oppose Western economic sanctions.  The Chinese are very nationalistic and intensely feel the humiliation imposed on them by Western powers in the 19th century.  None of that may matter to you, but it will definitely impact the effectiveness of any sanctions that try to force China to change its ways.  US sanctions on China will certainly make the US worse off, and certainly make China worse off in the short run, and definitely make China more prickly and nationalistic.  For that sort of “human rights” policy to pass the utilitarian test you’d need a series of political changes in China that are about as likely as making a 4 bumper shot in billiards.  How’s our previous track record in that regard?  In contrast, economic development usually (not always) improves human rights.  And yes, Xi Jinping is an exception.

I’m particularly amused by my right-wing friends who are outraged by human rights abuses against Muslims in Xinjiang, but are silent about Modi’s record in India. Or Saudi Arabia’s appalling record in Yemen.  Or who had no problem with the US torturing Muslims and imprisoning them without trial. (And no, I’m not saying these abuses were anywhere near as bad–but do you have consistent principles?) Or those conservatives who favor economic sanctions against the Chinese for violating human rights in Xinjiang, but used to complain that sanctions against South Africa under apartheid “hurt the people they were supposed to help”.  (A view I held at the time, but now less certain about.) Unlike many people on both the left and the right, I don’t tailor my views to whether the human rights abuses are committed by a right wing or a left wing government.

A better argument for sanctions is as a deterrent to countries that engage in dangerous military behavior.  Thus sanctions on Russia were appropriate after they conquered part of the Ukraine, and sanctions on China would be appropriate if they attacked Taiwan without provocation.  Perhaps sanctions are appropriate on North Korea; I think that’s a close call.

My views are pretty simple.  We should have defense treaties with like-minded countries to deter aggression.  Otherwise try to avoid going to war.  Trade freely with all nations, except under a few very limited conditions.  I have an open mind as to what sort of military behavior or human rights abuses calls for sanctions, but in general I think the bar should be pretty high.

What about non-military predatory behavior, such as what China is accused of?  First we need to figure out the facts.  The news media has recently reported claims of Chinese spying that turned out to be false.  When there is Chinese spying, or related behavior, it should be handled in the same way we’d handle spying from Russia or some other country.  Tit for tat is fine.  If they punch us, then punch back.  But it’s extremely unlikely that a policy such as 25% tariffs on Chinese goods, which was first developed as a weapon to be used to reduce our trade deficit, would suddenly be the appropriate policy for Chinese human rights abuses in Xinjiang, or Chinese spying on US tech firms.  What sort of tariff should we have on Vietnam, for its severe human rights abuses?  (Vietnam is in many ways the most similar country to China.  A reforming communist East Asian country that is growing fast and still has lots of human rights abuses.)

Some regard China as a military threat to the US, which I think is implausible.  The combined strength of NATO plus Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand towers over anything else on the planet.  These mutual defense pacts are hugely successful and will almost never be attacked by outsiders (except possibly by the accidental launch of nukes or, of course, terrorism.)

To summarize, I’m a utilitarian on foreign policy.  Show me evidence that an alternative plan will make the world a better place, and I’ll support it.  I’m not an ideologue.  But right now the evidence suggests that mutual defense and free trade are generally the best options.

I’m certainly no expert on foreign policy.  But when I read some of my commenters, I feel like most other people are even more clueless than me.

One final point.  Whenever you read a commenter saying,”Sumner believes . . .” you can be pretty confident that I do not in fact believe what comes next.  And when you read, “Because he has a Chinese wife, Sumner believes . . .” LOL.

Update:  I recommend this Edward Luce piece in the FT:

In most professions, such a litany of errors would prompt a soul-searching. Heads would roll. Schools of thought would close down. The magic of Mr Trump is that by uniting the elites in revulsion against his abrasive style, he has restored their sense of moral self-belief. Last month, William Kristol, a leading Never Trumper and Iraq war cheerleader tweeted: “Shouldn’t an important foreign policy goal of the next couple of decades be regime change in China?”

On China, Mr Trump and the blob are ominously coming around to the same view — that it must be confronted. They differ on methods. Mr Trump’s critics would prefer the US to build an allied consensus to win the “new cold war.” They dislike Mr Trump’s bilateral pugilism. They also bemoan his obliviousness. How could he have not known of the arrest of one of China’s business stars on the same day he was negotiating a truce with its president?

Yet they concede that Mr Trump has identified the right target. All of which presages danger. Whenever Mr Trump leaves office, the chances are that the blob will find itself back in the situation room. The story of this young century is a series of US blunders that boosted China’s power far beyond its expectations. It would be odd to hand back control to the people who brought this about.

 


Tags:

 
 
 

55 Responses to “My views on foreign policy”

  1. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    13. December 2018 at 10:56

    What do you think Mearsheimer gets wrong?

  2. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    13. December 2018 at 10:57

    How about Stephen Kotkin?

  3. Gravatar of Matthew Moore Matthew Moore
    13. December 2018 at 12:09

    Well said, looks good.

    I would say the space of utilitarian military interventions is quite large (most often they aren’t utilitarian is the short run, but only taking into account long run global incentives), but it doesn’t overlap with the politically advantageous set often

    Kosovo is a good example of an overlap. Fun fact, lots of children were named Tonibler after Tony Blair intervened :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonibler

  4. Gravatar of Matthias Goergens Matthias Goergens
    13. December 2018 at 12:33

    Don’t Jaoan and Russia have very long running disputes about their borders?

  5. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2018 at 13:19

    Brian, Mearsheimer is right about lots of stuff. I’d disagree about Nato expansion. Putin seemed fine with Nato expansion back in 2004, even into the Baltics. In my view, he later turned anti-West for unrelated reasons.

    Matthew, You may be right about Kosovo, (and perhaps Bosnia as well.)

    Matthias, We are not committed to defend any Japanese territory claimed by Russia.

  6. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    13. December 2018 at 15:26

    1. “I also think we should go to war against China if they invade Japan or Australia, due to our defense treaties with Pacific powers.”

    Article V doesn’t say anything about the U.S. defending Japan if China or any other country attacks.

    2. “Brian, Mearsheimer is right about lots of stuff.”

    Like what? So far he has been wrong about “soon missing the Cold War” after 28 years.

    2.

  7. Gravatar of John Thacker John Thacker
    13. December 2018 at 16:37

    The US does have a mutual defense agreement with Taiwan, despite not recognizing the ROC as China. The Taiwan Relations Act puts the US on the hook for more than sanctions if the PRC invades. That’s why people support the status quo. Absent the mutual defense agreement, war would be more likely.

    That’s why Republican and Democratic foreign policy experts alike have much higher support for military defense of Taiwan if China invades than the public in general: https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/united-goals-divided-means-opinion-leaders-chicago-council-survey-results-2014

  8. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    13. December 2018 at 17:31

    I have concluded that US foreign, military and trade policies are in general determined by multinationals.

    This makes sense. For example, the Department of Agriculture is very much in tune with what the agriculture community wants. Multinationals have the institutional strength and the interest to weigh upon military, foreign, and trade policies.

    This explains the cozy relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia. A typical citizen of the US probably wants nothing to do with the Khashoggi killers who financed 9/11. Multinationals want a good relationship with Saudi Arabia.

    Until Trump, the US had a very neutral policy towards China, despite that nation’s horrible human rights record, which appears to be getting worse daily. For all of his bluster, all Trump is done is apply a few tariffs— and even this rather small action has set the establishment screaming for months on end.

    I assume after Trump leaves office, multinationals will again reassume control of US policy towards China. After all, GM produces more cars in China than the US, and Apple produces all of its phones there, and BlackRock has major investments inside China, etc.

    Multinationals prefer stability to all else, and have fiduciary obligations to global shareholder bases that preclude allegiance to any particular city, region, nation, or ethical code.

    Multinationals can also pour unlimited resources into media, academia, foundations, trade groups,think tanks, lobby groups and even political campaigns.

  9. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    13. December 2018 at 18:19

    Todd, Here’s Wikipedia:

    “Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration.”

    And didn’t Mearsheimer oppose the Iraq War?

    John, Fair point, I would distinguish between an unprovoked Chinese invasion, and one provoked by a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan. I’m not sure about the wisdom of our current defense treaty with Taiwan, but will concede it’s worked well so far. It should probably be grandfathered in, even if it doesn’t make sense.

  10. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    13. December 2018 at 22:40

    Scott, here’s the first part to Article V:

    Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.

    I don’t see an obligation to defend Japan here. Do you? The U.S. just has to act…somehow. You’ve met a few American lawyers, right?

  11. Gravatar of Benny Lava Benny Lava
    14. December 2018 at 05:47

    The reason we misunderstand you is that you are a terrible writer. Muddle thesis statements that don’t clearly express your ideas and are not concisely and logically supported by examples. Its not me. Its you. Write better and we will understand you better.

  12. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    14. December 2018 at 06:41

    “Putin seemed fine with Nato expansion back in 2004, even into the Baltics. In my view, he later turned anti-West for unrelated reasons.”

    Surely “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

    Russia was very unhappy about NATO expansion in 2004, but they were a shambles. As NATO next poked into Ukraine and Georgia in 2008, Russian resolve stiffened. Enough is enough. Hardly unrelated reasons.

  13. Gravatar of J.V. Dubois J.V. Dubois
    14. December 2018 at 06:47

    “People often point to 1938 as an example of the doves being wrong. But even there, a hawkish stance by Chamberlain would have merely triggered the “Phony War” portion of WWII a year earlier, resulting in a less clear cut historical record that the Nazis were 100% the aggressors.”

    There is also an alternative universe where Hitler gets his way with Czechoslovakia and maybe Poland gives him Danzig. And that is all.

  14. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    14. December 2018 at 07:00

    @Todd K,

    What don’t you like about this?

    https://nationalinterest.org/print/feature/great-delusion-liberal-dreams-and-international-realities-32737

  15. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    14. December 2018 at 07:53

    ‘People often point to 1938 as an example of the doves being wrong. But even there, a hawkish stance by Chamberlain would have merely triggered the “Phony War” portion of WWII a year earlier….’

    The reverse actually. A group of German Generals had a plan to overthrow Hitler in 1938, to be triggered when he gave the order to invade Czechoslovakia. They feared Hitler was leading the country into a replay of 1914-18.

    Until Chamberlain backed down. Then several of the coup plotters changed their minds. ‘Maybe Adolf is onto something….’

  16. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    14. December 2018 at 10:24

    Houellebecq on Trump, North Korea, China, Nationalism, and the EU. I don’t really like Houellebecq, but he’s surprisingly often on point:

    President Trump doesn’t like the European Union; he thinks we don’t have a lot in common, especially not “values”; and I call this fortunate, because, what values? “Human rights”? Seriously? He’d rather negotiate directly with individual countries, and I believe this would actually be preferable; I don’t think that strength necessarily proceeds from union. It’s my belief that we in Europe have neither a common language, nor common values, nor common interests, that, in a word, Europe doesn’t exist, and that it will never constitute a people or support a possible democracy (see the etymology of the term), simply because it doesn’t want to constitute a people. In short, Europe is just a dumb idea that has gradually turned into a bad dream, from which we shall eventually wake up

    It seems that President Trump has even managed to tame the North Korean madman; I found this feat positively classy.

    It seems that President Trump recently declared, “You know what I am? I’m a nationalist!” Me too, precisely so. Nationalists can talk to one another; with internationalists, oddly enough, talking doesn’t work so well.

    In summary, President Trump seems to me to be one of the best American presidents I’ve ever seen.

    https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-is-a-good-president/

    Scott, you should write like that. His style is quite impressive.
    But then you wouldn’t keep this great blog alive anymore. So it’s actually good that you don’t (and aren’t able to) write like that.

  17. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    14. December 2018 at 10:59

    Todd, Perhaps not there, but you didn’t respond to the quote I provided. Is Wikipedia wrong? BTW, I am not claiming a legal obligation, just a solemn promise to come to Japan’s aid. But I think everyone understands that if we defended non-Nato member Kuwait, then obviously we’d defend Japan, where we have a mutual defense treaty and a massive troop presence.

    Benny, Funny that when people say that they almost NEVER provide an good example from the post they are criticizing. Maybe I am a horrible writer, but can’t anyone give me some examples when they say “Sumner claims . . . ” Really, where do I claim that? And when they do try to provide examples, all they do is show a lack of reading comprehension.

    Let me ask you this. Is “Sumner frequently points to China’s amazing growth” logically equivalent to “Sumner likes Xi and doesn’t care about his human rights violations”. If your answer is yes, then I respectfully disagree.

    Brian, Here’s an alternative view:

    “When Mr Putin became president in 2000, he showed no overt hostility towards America or the West, despite a recent NATO bombing raid on Belgrade without a UN resolution that had triggered a shrill anti-American response. In his first interview with Britain’s BBC, Mr Putin said: “I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe, so it is hard for me to visualise NATO as an enemy.” Russia, he said, might become a member of NATO if it were treated as an equal partner. Even when the three Baltic states joined NATO in spring 2004, Mr Putin insisted that relations with the defence organisation were “developing positively” and he had “no concerns about the expansion of NATO”.

    The breaking-point in Mr Putin’s relationship with the West came towards the end of that year when several seemingly unrelated events coincided. The first was a terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, in the north Causasus, in which 1,200 people, mostly children, were taken hostage. After Russia’s special forces stormed the school, leaving 333 people dead, Mr Putin accused the West of trying to undermine Russia. He cancelled regional elections and handed more powers to the security services.”

    Is Putin the kind of weak guy who would say he has “no concerns” about Nato expansion into the Baltics, just because Russia was weak? Seriously? He wouldn’t say “I have some concerns”?

    JV. Not sure if you are being sarcastic, but he did invade Russia, didn’t he?

    Patrick, Well that’s important if you are correct, and I’m certainly not denying that Chamberlain’s agreement looks really bad in retrospect. Churchill was right. But count me skeptical on the plot. There were lots of plots against Hitler, easier said than done. I wonder if that wasn’t an excuse offered by generals after the war. In any case, even with Chamberlain, there are far more examples of the doves being right in retrospect than the hawks being right in retrospect.

    Christian, He’s a great writer, but his claim of Trump taming North Korea doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Trump’s attempt to tame N. Korea failed miserably. Trump said he wouldn’t allow N. Korea to have nukes, and now he’s caved in. That’s a win? And Houellebecq also knows nothing about economics. But I don’t hold that against him–people who understand economics are never great writers, indeed an understanding of economics might almost be said to prevent one from being a great writer.

    I’d rather be a great writer than a mediocre economist, or even a great economist.

  18. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    14. December 2018 at 11:26

    Christian, You forget this:

    “I like Americans a lot; I’ve met many lovely people in the United States, and I empathize with the shame many Americans (and not only “New York intellectuals”) feel at having such an appalling clown for a leader.”

  19. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    14. December 2018 at 11:30

    Scott,

    Interesting perspective, but here’s the NYT on 4/3/2004:

    “While Russia has resigned itself to NATO’s expansion, albeit grudgingly, the reality of NATO forces being deployed in the Baltics — on short notice — has deeply unsettled and angered its politicians and commanders, prompting some of the sharpest criticism of the alliance since its war against Serbia in 1999.

    Russia’s lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on Wednesday denouncing NATO’s expansion generally and the deployment of the F-16’s specifically.”

    Putin was playing footsie with Schroeder at the time related to the huge sale of energy from Russia to Germany that has been a staple of the relationship between the two countries for decades. Also, energy prices were depressed in 2004, reducing Putin’s leverage. He had no choice but to take NATO’s encroachment and be a good sport about it. How easy would it have been to pander to his people at the time, unless he was after something else?

    By 2006, oil prices had doubled and Putin was a lot more assertive, but Western encroachment continued obliviously.

  20. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    14. December 2018 at 11:50

    Sounds reasonable. I’d vote for you.

  21. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    14. December 2018 at 12:40

    Scott,

    your soundbite is one reason I’m not so fond of Houellebecq.

    He uses ambiguity too much, like many intellectuals do. I know it makes them look smart, and witty, and mysterious; not to mention that it is a huge hedge, but most of all it’s just cowardice.

    I personally would interpret this sentence in a Straussian way. He makes fun of NY intellectuals. Empathy is not sympathy. His view, the outer view, starts after ‘however’. But I’m sure there are other interpretations as well.

  22. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    14. December 2018 at 13:03

    Scott,

    Your views seem reasonable. For my taste, they are somewhat lacking in neorealism, but you seem well ahead of most. You probably put less emphasis on balances of power than I do.

  23. Gravatar of Benny Lava Benny Lava
    14. December 2018 at 13:11

    “show a lack of reading comprehension.”

    This is so fucking sad, Scott. The fact that we are reading this blog puts us in the top ten percent in reading comprehension. But here is an example, since you begged for it so pathetically:

    “There is an epidemic of depression among the young, and suicide rates keep soaring to new highs.”

    “iven that Americans are happier, on average, than Europeans or East Asians”

    So your thesis is that Americans are increasingly unhappy but you stupidly make the argument that Americans are happy. You see how this is poor writing, poorly thought out, with examples that undermine your own half baked thesis. Americans are unhappy when it suits you but happy when it doesn’t? Which is it?

    The problem, Scott, is that you are a bad writer that has problems with the very basics: write a thesis and support it.

  24. Gravatar of Rein Rein
    14. December 2018 at 14:37

    How do your views align with those of Chomsky? It seems that they now mostly would align. Especially from an utilitarian viewpoint, it’s easy to point out the suffering US persuing its interest has caused in the world. Shouldn’t this make us extremely cynical towards almost any argument in favor of intervention?
    Thank you for your posts sir, I learn a lot from them.

  25. Gravatar of Hmmm Hmmm
    14. December 2018 at 14:53

    I owe you an apology, obviously. As I apologized literally in the comment itself, it was an unfair response.

    You’re a utilitarian when it comes to international trade, even in respect to granting Most Favored Nation status to governments that throw their minorities in concentration camps and murder dissidents. From a utilitarian perspective i would agree with you in the short term: that the massive reduction in poverty is a fair trade for enabling the 21st century version of Nazi germany. Trading with China has lifted millions out of crushing poverty, and it stands as the human miracle of the 20th century.

    However, that government is now using the funds to create concentration camps. I understand the dillema. Cutting off trade hurts the most vulnerable people. In a utilitarian world it makes sense to allow a Concentration Camp regime in favor of economic growth that lifts citizens out of poverty.

    My concern is what do we enable?

    And your comment about “from safety” vis-à-vis Taiwan and independence is wrong and an unfair assumption. I’ll be one of the first Americans to die for their right to be free and not be thrown into concentration camps at the Communist party’s discretion. And I still believe Taiwanese deserve to live in a world where a facebook post doesn’t land them in the Gulag.

    With all due respect, maybe a reading of Kolyma Tales is in order. Chinese Muslims are living it….

  26. Gravatar of H_WASSHOI (Maekawa Miku-nyan lover) H_WASSHOI (Maekawa Miku-nyan lover)
    14. December 2018 at 14:56

    TPP11 extended the copyright from 50 years to 70 years

  27. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    14. December 2018 at 15:54

    I generally agree with your positions, but I’m curious about the parameters you use when tallying the utils of different options. How, for example, do you determine the timeframe for measuring utils.
    For example, it might be better to have some more authoritarianism now in some places to avoid chaos, but that chaos could eventually lead to a new and more vibrant world. Think of what came out of the chaos of the European Middle Ages. You could also have a technologically advanced country wipe out a technologically backwards country and colonize it with a population 10x the former indigenous population within 5 generations. Would that count as an increase in utils? Or is 5 generations too long a time window?

  28. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    14. December 2018 at 18:09

    Scott,

    like others, I don’t really understand your approach. “Utilitarian” sounds really nice and all but it doesn’t solve anything by itself.

    Firstly, your whole approach is retrospective. It is not obvious how your approach to decision-making can help you in questions about the future. Or in other words: It’s not clear why utilitarianism should have a predefined preference between non-interventionism and interventionism. You can not look behind the veil.

    Secondly, let’s assume that the failed interventions of the past allow statements about the future, especially that one should avoid interventions. Well it’s just not true. The biggest war in recent history, and maybe in world history, WW2, needed massive interventions, and very early on.

    Your theory reminds me of economic theories that fail in the biggest economic crisis of recent history, the Great Depression. What’s the point?

  29. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    14. December 2018 at 21:42

    Sumner, your foreign policy views suck. The US should credibly support Taiwan against PRC imperialism. It should also support the people of Krim in their struggle for self-determination against Ukrainian claims. The Vietnam and Korean Wars were basically good ideas, but neither of the two Iraq Wars were. This isn’t hard at all. The Yugoslav situation is a more complicated one I have not yet thoroughly thought out.

    “even into the Baltics”

    The Baltics are strategically irrelevant, and accepting a friend having half a pie does not mean accepting him having a whole pie. Putin has historically (and stupidly) given the imperialist West *waaaaaaaaaaay* too many olive branches. By 2014, he had started to wisen up, but only a little. He should have been much more proactive during Ukromaidan.

    The reason Putin turned against the West is very simple: violent Western attempts to change the status quo to their favor (Ossetia, Maidan coup).

    “None of that may matter to you, but it will definitely impact the effectiveness of any sanctions that try to force China to change its ways.”

    Exactly the same applies to Russia, though to an even greater extent, since it is a much more democratic country than China. Sanctions alone are stupid and mindless if the country affected by them has no intention of changing its behavior with only them.

    I oppose arms sales to Vietnam and Saudi Arabia due to issues with their regimes.

  30. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    14. December 2018 at 21:44

    “Is Putin the kind of weak guy who would say he has “no concerns” about Nato expansion into the Baltics, just because Russia was weak?”

    Uh……. yes, absolutely. Putin is a c*ck. It’s the West that are bloodthirsty imperialists.

  31. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    15. December 2018 at 03:55

    “Todd, Perhaps not there, but you didn’t respond to the quote I provided. Is Wikipedia wrong? BTW, I am not claiming a legal obligation, just a solemn promise to come to Japan’s aid. But I think everyone understands that if we defended non-Nato member Kuwait, then obviously we’d defend Japan, where we have a mutual defense treaty and a massive troop presence.”

    The actual treaty is what is important, not a quote from wikipedia. There is a reason the U.S. chose the wording that it did. Unlike, Kuwait where Iraq didn’t have ICBMs that could wipe out the East and West coasts of the U.S., China does have that capability.

  32. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    15. December 2018 at 05:43

    “And didn’t Mearsheimer oppose the Iraq War?”

    So did I and half the country – that wasn’t a difficult one. His best known essay about soon missing the Cold War because millions will die in European wars was bold and completely wrong almost 30 years later.

    Mearsheimer is also positive that the U.S. and China will go to war, and his nearly 100% certainty makes no sense to me, especially considering that both are nuclear powers. China has been growing rapidly for 40 years and no sign of war.

  33. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    15. December 2018 at 09:26

    Brian, I wish Russia could have joined Nato.

    And why is Nato a threat to Russia?

    Christian, Houellebecg is ambiguous on Trump? Seems pretty clear to me.

    Are you suggesting that I don’t believe the US should have fought WWII? We were attacked by Japan, and then Germany declared war on us. “Interventions” is such a vague word as to be useless. Was D-Day an “intervention” into France?

    Benny should read your comment as an example of the lack of reading comprehension that I frequently complain about.

    Benny, But polls do show that Americans are happier than Europeans, and suicide rates do keep soaring to new highs. I don’t see the problem. Was I wrong?

    Rein, Chomsky’s a fool. He seems to think that every time there’s a problem in region X, and the US is involved in region X, then ipso facto we caused the problem.

    I recall him arguing that North Vietnam was more democratic than the US. And do you recall his views on the Khmer Rouge?

    Hmmm, Do you actually believe that drivel?

    Carl, I agree that the future is important, but I’m skeptical of the argument for authoritarianism. On average, democracy does better.

    Harding, You said:

    “The Vietnam and Korean Wars were basically good ideas, but neither of the two Iraq Wars were. This isn’t hard at all. The Yugoslav situation is a more complicated one I have not yet thoroughly thought out.”

    The entire world eagerly awaits your decision as to whether Yugoslavia was an equally “good idea” to the Vietnam War.

    Todd, Very few people would agree with you on Japan, certainly not top US government officials. That’s why we have all the troops there.

  34. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    15. December 2018 at 10:24

    Scott, It was known as the Oster Conspiracy. Wiki does a good job explaining it;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy

    ——–quote—-
    The plot was organised and developed by then Oberstleutnant Hans Oster and Major Helmuth Groscurth of the Abwehr.[2] They drew into the conspiracy such people as Generaloberst Ludwig Beck, Generaloberst Walther von Brauchitsch, Generaloberst Franz Halder, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, and Generalleutnant Erwin von Witzleben. The working plan was for Count Hans-Jürgen von Blumenthal to lead a storm party into the Reich Chancellery and kill Hitler. It would then be necessary to neutralize the Nazi Party apparatus in order to stop them from proceeding with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which they believed would lead to a war that would ruin Germany.[3]

    In addition to these military figures, the conspirators also had contact with Secretary of State Ernst von Weizsäcker and the diplomats Theodor and Erich Kordt. Theodor Kordt was considered a vital contact with the British on whom the success of the plot depended; the conspirators needed strong British opposition to Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland. However, Neville Chamberlain, apprehensive of the possibility of war, negotiated at length with Hitler and eventually conceded strategic areas of Czechoslovakia to him. This destroyed any chance of the plot succeeding, as Hitler was then seen in Germany as the “greatest statesman of all times at the moment of his greatest triumph”, and the immediate risk of war had been neutralized
    ——–endquote——

    Oster was apparently also involved in the Wolf’s Lair bombing. He was executed in 1945. The true tragedy of Neville Chamberlain; had he stood up to Hitler WWII never would have happened.

  35. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    15. December 2018 at 12:19

    “And why is Nato a threat to Russia?”

    Because its only possible purpose is to be so.

    ” And do you recall his views on the Khmer Rouge?”

    Yes; they were whiny.

    What was bad about the U.S. intervention in Vietnam? The original decision to support the Diem government was questionable, but the Vietnam War was a very logical extension of that support. Though perhaps too many U.S. troops were sent there.

  36. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    15. December 2018 at 13:06

    Are you suggesting that I don’t believe the US should have fought WWII?

    Surely not. I tried to answer to the following statement:

    In any case, even with Chamberlain, there are far more examples of the doves being right in retrospect than the hawks being right in retrospect.

    Firstly, I don’t think this is true.

    Secondly, your approach is retrospective only. So let’s assume (for the sake of the argument) that the doves were being right more than the hawks. Then what? That does not necessarily help us in the future.

    Thirdly, your approach fails in the biggest war of them all, in WW2, and that flaw is too huge to just ignore (or whitewash).

    We were attacked by Japan, and then Germany declared war on us.

    That’s true but don’t be naive. The US intervened in WW2 way earlier.

    Was D-Day an “intervention” into France?

    I think you mean “invasion”. It surely was an intervention.

    “Interventions” is such a vague word as to be useless.

    I assume you mean “invasion” again. I think you can separate between intervening somewhere and not- intervening somewhere pretty clearly in theory (and even in US history, see isolationism).

    But you are right in the sense that it would be stupid for a hegemon like the US not to intervene. That’s exactly the point of a hegemon: Intervening, intervening, intervening. There should be no ambiguity about whether they would intervene or not. Ambiguity in this case is a real killer.

    That’s exactly my point as well. One main reason for WW1 and WW2 was massive ambiguity. In WW1 it was basically the US, the UK, and Germany fighting for world power status, but the US followed their isolationist dovish weltanschauung back then so Germany naturally smelled its chance.

    Something similar happened again before WW2: The US did not reaffirm its hegemonic status, which encouraged Japan and Germany.

    The doves have contributed their sad part. After the Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, and then Czechoslovakia, someone like Hitler had to feel encouraged.

    It was also not clear for someone like Hitler that the US would support the USSR so massively. Don’t forget for example that Germany and the USSR attacked Poland together. Hitler thought he would get away with it again, and why wouldn’t he? And why would he think that Great Britain/France would declare war on him but ignore Stalin?

    Houellebecq is ambiguous on Trump? Seems pretty clear to me.

    In short, yes. You don’t stick your neck out with that statement, that’s for sure.

    On a second reading, I think he makes it pretty clear that he loves Trump’s foreign policy, and that’s all he really cares about, because he’s a Frenchman and a nationalist.

  37. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    15. December 2018 at 13:24

    What was bad about the U.S. intervention in Vietnam? 

    Scott (like so many people) is making the “retrospective error” (hindsight bias) again. After WW2 and the Korean war it was only logical for the US to intervene in Vietnam as well, not to mention that the Vietnamese communists must have gotten support from China and/or the USSR.

    I can solve any conflict of the world in a perfectly utilitarian manner as well. In hindsight.

    And let’s not do anything anywhere ever. No military interventions, no sanctions. So we will never make mistakes.

    Scott, what is your alternative to sanctions again????

    Talking to the dictators of the world in a really deep voice, maybe? With a raised forefinger?

    I’m really sorry, but I just don’t get it at all. My latest impression is that huge parts of the Western world turned into a mad 14 year-old teenager. Or an ostrich burying its head in the sand.

  38. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    15. December 2018 at 13:34

    @Christian List

    Also, the embarrassment in Cuba must have made a big difference in the minds of U.S. military policymakers. Yes, Scott appears to be making a hindsight bias error.

  39. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    15. December 2018 at 13:50

    “Todd, Very few people would agree with you on Japan, certainly not top US government officials. That’s why we have all the troops there.”

    Actually for decades, U.S. officials have been very careful to not say the U.S. will defend Japan. Instead, the have unanimously said something like “The U.S. will honor its commitments to Japan.” And the commitment is spelled out in Article 5 – to act. It is journalists who often say Article 5 says the U.S. is obligated to defend Japan.

    The first time that I could find an official (going back to at least the Clinton administration) who has used the word “defend”, was Sec. of Defense Mattis last year.

    The U.S. may or may not directly defend Japan if attacked. It will depend on what an administration thinks the likelihood is of escalating to a nuclear war.

  40. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    15. December 2018 at 14:01

    “But polls do show that Americans are happier than Europeans, and suicide rates do keep soaring to new highs. I don’t see the problem. Was I wrong?”

    Yes. The suicide rate has been slowly but steadily increasing for years (not soaring) and has reached the highs of 1950 and 1986.

  41. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    15. December 2018 at 14:58

    @E. Harding
    Cuba is really interesting. Hardly any other hegemon would tolerate such a regime in its backyard for so long.

    So much tolerance can cause ugly chain reactions. I recently read an interesting interview with Chile’s Foreign Minister, explaining how immensely important Cuba was for the rise of Chavez.

    @the piece by Luce the FT

    The story of this young century is a series of US blunders that boosted China’s power far beyond its expectations. 

    Pretty questionable statements by Edward Luce. The Iraq war was a mistake but Luce’s framing is so slanted. China’s rise is because of China itself, not because of the Iraq war.

    With regard to China, the US has made other mistakes. Let us return to Venezuela as an example. I read so many articles about how Chinese and Russian businessmen and officials are Maduro’s permanent guests. The luxury hotels in Caracas are stuffed with this scum. The regime in Venezuela would have long since disintegrated without the Chinese, the Cubans, and the Russians (in that order). A hegemon like the US should not tolerate such things in his backyard.

    I do not like Obama’s policies for the most part, but in the case of Cuba, he has taken first steps that looked like the possibility of improvement. Trump should have continued on this or a similar path. Doing nothing might not be the best option from a utilitarian perspective.

    @Todd

    Todd, you’re right, the guarantees of the US and its allies are oftentimes no longer credible.

    Todd, you’re right, the guarantees of the US and its allies are often no longer credible. Help for Japan is indeed questionable, and for Taiwan even more so.

    I still trust the USA the most, but Europe, for example, is completely weak. No one believes anymore that the other Europeans would really help the Baltics in case of an Russian invasion.

    Putin knows that anyway, he can take away from countries like Georgia and Ukraine as much as he wants.

    Or take Erdogan. He has often said which parts of Greece and Syria he would like to make part of his empire. Nevertheless, he is still in NATO (!!!).

  42. Gravatar of H_WASSHOI (Maekawa Miku-nyan lover) H_WASSHOI (Maekawa Miku-nyan lover)
    15. December 2018 at 15:44

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a-strategic-alliance-for-japan-and-india-by-shinzo-abe?barrier=accesspaylog

  43. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    15. December 2018 at 19:22

    Scott,

    to me at least you make complete sense (most of the time). People just read a particular line of argument and assume a whole lot of things behind it that you never said.

    Christian List,

    the US blunders boosted both Russia’s and China’s power beyond their expectations. It was possible because as the superpower incumbent, the US was, and still is, so strong that it can make a lot of power-eroding mistakes before the severity of the situation becomes apparent. Just like with companies – it took a lot of blunders before Kodak finally went bankrupt, the company that invented the digital camera (CCD sensor, developed 1977).

    The US is now a bit in the cartoon-roadrunner situation where it already ran off a cliff but isn’t falling yet. As for China I well recall pre-Iraq II, there was strong sentiment in the US about “engaging China” and controlling its ascent. When Iraq II started, my first thought was, as terrible as this is, there is one positive to it: the Middle East wars will keep the US busy for so many years that they’ll forget China for long enough that it becomes strong and can stand on its own feet. And that the US can’t just snuff it out easily anymore. This not because I think Chinese politics are so great but for the sake of humanity and development, China has a right to develop and the US has no right to prevent it from doing so for the sake of its own geopolitical ambitions.

    Houellebecq btw is just a creep, and if you follow the themes of his novels, he’s another one simply following the zeitgeist. Not a visionary. In the 90’s he was just a sexual creep. Now he’s become a nationalist creep, parrotting Marine. Of course.

    The problem I have with Nationalists isn’t that they like a particular culture more than another, it’s that they want to imprison their neighbors in it too: by coercing everyone to some “national” standards of behavior, coercing people to use a single “national” language, preventing people from freedom of movement by erecting “national” borders, i.e. actual imprisonment, preventing freedom of trade except with the “national” economy, and of course, forcing everyone to fight and possibly die for their “nation”, i.e. lines drawn on a map. Nationalists are fundamentally freedom-hating. They’re all about coercion of behavior. All the more ironic that many nationalist right wingers today, especially in the US, are converted ex-“libertarians” or Tea Party – one more proof that people just run after the zeitgeist without ever properly understanding their own current and ever changing ideologies.

  44. Gravatar of Benny Lava Benny Lava
    16. December 2018 at 06:22

    “But polls do show that Americans are happier than Europeans, and suicide rates do keep soaring to new highs. I don’t see the problem. Was I wrong?”

    Looks like you’re the one with the reading comprehension problem. Read what I wrote again and tell me where I claimed contrary. Dumbass.

  45. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    16. December 2018 at 14:13

    Part of my day job is updating OFAC sanction lists in a program. It should be automatic, but well that’s another story.

    The best foreign policy tool may be hardening the OFAC lists and in general enforcing beneficial ownership requirements on any country with correspondent accounts. That includes beneficial ownership of US states as well as offshore.

    The US, UK, Eurozone and Japan has pretty much all the power over this tool. China has no functional power since foreign leaders are less likely to trust China with money. OTOH, honest enforcement will make for difficult conversations in NYC and London. Both their finance and property makrets benefit from opaque ownership structures.

  46. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    16. December 2018 at 14:20

    Harding, You said:

    “Because its only possible purpose is to be so.”

    You have quite a sense of humor.

    Christian, I’m not sure there’s any point in me responding, as it’s so difficult trying to figure out what you are saying.

    I said:

    “A better argument for sanctions is as a deterrent to countries that engage in dangerous military behavior. Thus sanctions on Russia were appropriate after they conquered part of the Ukraine, and sanctions on China would be appropriate if they attacked Taiwan without provocation. Perhaps sanctions are appropriate on North Korea; I think that’s a close call.”

    And then you said:

    “And let’s not do anything anywhere ever. No military interventions, no sanctions. So we will never make mistakes.

    Scott, what is your alternative to sanctions again????”

    Of course Benny would say that my statement was just too confusing. It’s not at all clear that I favor sanctions in some cases.

    Todd, It’s a moot point. Japan will not be attacked precisely because the world understands that I am correct; our troops would fight back.

    On suicide, the rate is higher than in 1986, but I didn’t have data from 1950, so perhaps I overstated things. In any case, there was no logical inconsistency between my two claims.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

    Benny, You said:

    “So your thesis is that Americans are increasingly unhappy but you stupidly make the argument that Americans are happy. You see how this is poor writing, poorly thought out, with examples that undermine your own half baked thesis. Americans are unhappy when it suits you but happy when it doesn’t? Which is it?”

    I said Americans are increasingly unhappy, and (elsewhere) that they are happier than Europeans. Some people understand that both can be true, others do not see how that can be the case. I guess we are in different camps.

    As far as you saying “read what I wrote again”, you were clearly claiming that I contradicted myself, and in fact I did not. Sorry, wrong again. Maybe you can find another example, I’m sure they exist.

  47. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    16. December 2018 at 15:26

    Scott,

    I asked what your alternatives to sanctions might be. Now you’re repeating the very few cases in which you seem to favor sanctions. I got that part, and I think I got it the first time, and it surprised me positively (the first time) but it wasn’t really my question.

    My question was: Scott, what is your alternative to sanctions again????

    This is not really a stupid question because you made it very clear that you are very sceptical of sanctions (except for very few cases). It seems you didn’t answer the question because you don’t have an alternative???

    You seem to be a bit the „Obama-type“ of guy that lifts the sanctions against countries like Iran and is then wondering why the Middle East is going up in flames. It’s indeed a mystery.

    But to end on a positive note: I was very pleasantly surprised that you see Chomsky for what he is: an idiot. I give you this point. My guess would have been that you admire Chomsky a bit, in some really creepy way, but I was wrong. Good! Very good.

    Todd, It’s a moot point. Japan will not be attacked precisely because the world understands that I am correct; our troops would fight back.

    Why would anyone attack mainlaind Japan? Japan doesn’t need a pact for that. The conflict would be about some rocks/islands/sea routes somewhere in the Pacific, most likely with China. And in this respect, deterrence has long ceased to be particularly effective. The Chinese will become more and more aggressive in this regard because they smell the chance.

    mbka,

    China has a right to develop and the US has no right to prevent it from doing so for the sake of its own geopolitical ambitions.

    This is not about China’s internal development. They can develop their nation as much as they want to. But as I wrote a 100th times before: China is fostering the worst regimes all over the world. So there must be an answer – or the US is losing more and more credibility (and therefore power).

    China and Russia are the two main reason why the world is becoming more and more illiberal. This development is causing ugly chain reactions and must be stopped.

    The US is still the hegemon in most parts of the world but they are not enforcing it. That makes things worse, and China and Russia will smell their chances over and over again, until they are stopped – or even worse until the US loses its hegemonic status.

  48. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    16. December 2018 at 16:10

    China and Russia are the two main reason why the world is becoming more and more illiberal.

    This is incredibly dumb. Illiberalism is soaring in areas that have nothing to do with CN and RU. Turkey, France, Germany, Britain, the US, Japan, etc. have all become more illiberal over the past ten years.

  49. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    16. December 2018 at 16:13

    “You seem to be a bit the „Obama-type“ of guy that lifts the sanctions against countries like Iran and is then wondering why the Middle East is going up in flames.”

    This is also incredibly dumb. Middle Eastern chaos has nothing to do with Iran, and hasn’t had anything to do with Iran since the 1980s. At latest, 2006.

    Chomsky is mediocre.

    Good point re: mainland Japan, Christian.

    The death of American imperialism will be a great thing.

  50. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    17. December 2018 at 02:49

    speaking of foreign policy

    Germany to tighten foreign acquisition rules

    Germany is tightening rules to make it harder for non-European companies to buy stakes in local firms without its approval.
    The country is set to lower to 10% (from 25%) the threshold at which it can launch national security probes of foreign stake purchases involved in defense, tech or media deals.
    It also signals growing concern in Berlin about China’s push to acquire valuable know-how and key technology.”

    —30—

    On mutual defense pacts:

    Are they good for the US? Like the old joke, ask me again in 500 years and I will tell you. Too soon to know.

    Mutual defense pacts do seem to run against the idea of “avoiding foreign entanglements.”

    Would anyone in the US really like to get nuked to stand up for South Korea?

  51. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    17. December 2018 at 06:16

    Christian List,

    China is remarkably regime-agnostic. I don’t see it purposely fostering bad regimes abroad. It seems to deal with any regime, the kind of thing that Trump said he’ll do, and increasingly does. You are right that the US is losing credibility, but there is more to power than credibility.

    As I wrote before somewhere in these pages, I see geopolitical power and influence as a result of positive externalities provided to others, fringe benefits if you will. The US, in the pursuit of its power, provided many extra benefits, sometimes on purpose, and sometimes as an accidental benefit, to third parties (an externality), example, enforcement of norms, international treaties, innovation that benefits everyone, etc. Basically, the US did much good, and at a time saw itself as the “indispensible country”, maybe a bit euphorically. It also has the world’s largest consumer market and so, anyone has to kowtow to the US in order to get access to US markets, US banking systems, etc.

    China with Belt and Road and its increasing commercial power, and increasing consumer market, also provides real positive externalities to the world. Did you notice how everything industrial in the world got so much cheaper since it is made in China now? This is because China provided labor, grit, and economies of scale, that the world previously didn’t have. So this is what increased China’s power viz the US, in real terms – not some morality tale.

    As a Chinese (!) politician once said (citation needed…), no great power worthy of this name has any friends. There is, however, mutual interest in international treaties and in enforcement of good behavior. The US used to provide this service, and this provided it with “friends”. If this stops now, following Trump, then US power is indeed greatly diminished.

    Side note, Russia provides no fringe benefits I can think of to anyone. This is not to be confused with direct help to strategic allies, e.g. Assad of Syria and the like. Russia therefore truly has no friends other than its client states. Its strategy now (as then in cold war times) seems to be to directly support political movements abroad, but there are no positive externalities to that. So Russia only has “friends” it pays off, it doesn’t get friends from providing positive externalities.

    Benjamin Cole,

    it seems obvious to me that US mutual defense pacts are to preserve the US footprint and influence in a region, and NOT to provide sweet living care for the local population, or to get some much needed help in case the US gets attacked. They’re a self interested thing. Why did the US defend the South Vietnamese regime at the time? Hardly for the love of the Vietnamese people. So, to take your example, the US wouldn’t stand up for South Korea, it would stand up for itself, but in South Korea.

  52. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    17. December 2018 at 22:42

    Fed refusing to give trump his rates, has 100% GUARANTEED Trump will embrace massive Trade War with China.

    Hypo: tomorrow China ends over and offers 50% of US demands.

    Trump knows Fed will just raise rates on any rally, does he take China’s deal or play hardball, continuing to favor his base’s local Economy.

    It’s amazing how hard it is to get Econos who consider themselves game players to think about the basic incentives Fed is handing Trump.

    https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/xi-addresses-china-and-trump-no-one-can-dictate-to-china-Sh4Km–W1ECzFkMn_QXGjA/

  53. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    18. December 2018 at 05:27

    Very interesting thread, thanks to everyone involved. I generally come down on the dovish/noninterventionist side for the same reasons as Scott, but one thing I would add to the World War II example is that everyone puts themselves in Chamberlain’s spot (that is, we always assume that we are in the right, and the only question is whether we should be stronger or weaker about it). However, I don’t think that assumption is justified. Frequently countries believe they are intervening or acting in self-defense when really they are aggressing. I once visited a memorial in the UK that described China as the aggressor in the Opium Wars, even though the UK invaded China. Or, if you want to talk World War II, many Japanese saw their aggression as a justified intervention against Western colonialism and self-defense against China’s escalation of a routine border incident and attack on Japanese forces in Shanghai. Therefore, I think a strong international norm against military intervention is desirable even if it leads to specific interventions being foregone that would have been good. It is too easy for potential Hitlers to pretend they are Chamberlains and cite Chamberlain to justify their aggression.

  54. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. December 2018 at 11:58

    Christian, The alternative to sanctions is non-sanctions. What’s your point? Are you saying we should put sanctions in place for every outrage in a foreign country, or only in extreme cases (which is my view)?

    Again, my views are hardly an outlier, as both Democrats and Republicans tend not to favor sanctions for at least 95% of the horrible outrages conducted by foreign countries. Did Obama call for sanctions on China for Xinjiang? How about Trump? How about sanctions on Vietnam? The sanctions that continue (say Cuba) are widely understood to be completely counterproductive, and are in place solely to please Florida voters.

  55. Gravatar of nate nate
    4. January 2019 at 09:39

    I’m curious about this:

    “I like mutual defense treaties among countries that have their act together. AFAIK, it’s the only “foreign policy” that seems to consistently work. They are one of humanity’s greatest achievements.”

    I’m not an expert, but weren’t all the mutual defense pacts a major reason the run up to WWI escalated in the way it did?

    Genuinely curious for your thoughts on this, because the idea that there is any foreign policy that consistently works is appealing. I think the easy answer would be to say, “those countries didn’t have their act together”, but that seems sort of a cop out. I just read Austrian writer Stefon Zweig’s “The World of Yesterday” and got the impression from that that pre-war Austria basically did have its act together.

Leave a Reply