Summary
Peter Bainart wrote an interesting essay for today’s (August 31st) edition of the New York Times, entitled “Republicans Are Neither Internationalist nor Isolationist. They’re Asia First,” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/opinion/republican-candidates-china-russia.html. The basic contention of the article is that Trump’s foreign policy, rather than an isolationist retrenchment, represents a radical pivot of US foreign policy, that would henceforth majorly focus on China, the only true adversary of the country on the world stage. That same interpretation of American international priorities could be observed, according to the author, among all participants in the recent Republican presidential debate.
Beinart identifies the origins of this word view in the 19th century, drawing from the book “Asia First: China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism,” by the historian Joyce Mao. According to Mao, American conservatives, especially after China’s communist revolution, view “China as a civilizational pupil turned civilizational threat”. This world view would help explain way so many conservatives downplay the threat represented by Christian Russia, and highlight the dangers posed by communist (and atheist) China and the reason behind Trump’s dismissal of NATO – a perspective that is pervaded by racial undertones.
I do not think this interpretation fully explains Tump’s, or the other Republican candidates’, foreign policy positions. But, then again, I do not believe in simple or single-issue explanations for complex foreign policy decisions. Bainart’s essay offers, however, another lens through which we can interpret Trump’s foreign policy and its enduring appeal to conservative voters. It might also help explain, to some extent, China’s positions vis-à-vis the US (for this same kind of interpretation of US policy might be adopted by Chinese policy makers).
Peter Bainart wrote an interesting essay for today’s (August 31st) edition of the New York Times, entitled “Republicans Are Neither Internationalist nor Isolationist. They’re Asia First,” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/opinion/republican-candidates-china-russia.html. The basic contention of the article is that Trump’s foreign policy, rather than an isolationist retrenchment, represents a radical pivot of US foreign policy, that would henceforth majorly focus on China, the only true adversary of the country on the world stage. That same interpretation of American international priorities could be observed, according to the author, among all participants in the recent Republican presidential debate.
Beinart identifies the origins of this word view in the 19th century, drawing from the book “Asia First: China and the Making of Modern American Conservatism,” by the historian Joyce Mao. According to Mao, American conservatives, especially after China’s communist revolution, view “China as a civilizational pupil turned civilizational threat”. This world view would help explain way so many conservatives downplay the threat represented by Christian Russia, and highlight the dangers posed by communist (and atheist) China and the reason behind Trump’s dismissal of NATO – a perspective that is pervaded by racial undertones.
I do not think this interpretation fully explains Tump’s, or the other Republican candidates’, foreign policy positions. But, then again, I do not believe in simple or single-issue explanations for complex foreign policy decisions. Bainart’s essay offers, however, another lens through which we can interpret Trump’s foreign policy and its enduring appeal to conservative voters. It might also help explain, to some extent, China’s positions vis-à-vis the US (for this same kind of interpretation of US policy might be adopted by Chinese policy makers).
3 replies on “Week #2 Murilo”
The U.S. sees both Russia and China as a threat. The difference is the U.S. sanctions Russia to the fullest extent like no other country in the world and China is not sanctioned by the U.S. If the U.S. didn’t see Russia as a threat it would most likely not sanction Russia and not keep trying to change their policies and so forth. This is an example of the U.S. using its own convenience and interests in a unilateral manner while making every other country who is an ally of the U.S. to follow in sanctions in a multilateral/plurilateral manner. The U.S. doesn’t like communism it says, but it uses China who is communist as its largest trading partner and dislikes now that China is moving ahead all these years because of its success. Now it says China is a threat. When prior to China having a good economy, the U.S. knew China is a communist nation and still did business and trading with it. Who is responsible for that success? The U.S. helped China become successful and now dislikes the results of that help. So in response now the U.S. is stating China is a threat the past few years and currently in multiple aspects to the U.S., including trade, emerging power into more hegemony in the world, economically, diplomatically, and militarily. This is a way the U.S. dismisses the international institutions/multilateralism for the sake of its unilateral decisions and interests since it doesn’t want other countries doing business with China and with Russia too.
Murilo, interesting post and thoughts. “…many conservatives downplay the threat represented by Christian Russia, and highlight the dangers posed by communist (and atheist) China…”
I agree that there is no “one-size-fits-all” explanation or observation, but this angle is intriguing. The religious angle (held at least by a small, but powerful number of U.S. politicians, as well as certain voting blocks) and its impact on U.S. foreign policy is something under-reported and worth exploring further. Although an immediate question that comes to mind is whether they realize the differences between their Christian U.S vs (the Russian version of) Eastern Orthodox Christianity?
Murilo,
You make a number of interesting points in your blog post. Russia has, of course, been the principal US adversary since the start of the Cold War (and some would argue even before), but its power was greatly diminished with the break-up of the Soviet Union. China, on the other hand, is widely viewed as the rising global hegemonic power. At this point in time, I don’t think that the US has the “luxury” of neglecting the threat posed by either potential adversary, albeit for different reasons. Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine underscored this point (if it was ever in doubt) both for the US and for the other NATO countries. He is clearly committed to doing whatever is possible to restore much of the old Soviet empire–and possibly to enlarge it back into Eastern Europe, even though this would almost certainly mean the start of WWIII.
Given the former President’s widely reported ignorance of history and US foreign policy, I think that he deserves little credit for a conscious pivot to Asia. Indeed, given his eagerness to stay in the good graces of Vladimir Putin, I am inclined to accept the arguments of those who see Trump as totally compromised by the Russians. After all, what US President would stand at the press conference in Helsinki summit meeting (where NO notes were taken of what was said) and state that he believes Putin’s statements on non-interference in the US presidential elections rather than the findings of his own Intelligence community? –Professor Wallerstein