Foxhunt: American exceptionalism and political realism
The DOJ is, at the time I'm writing this, broadcasting information about arrests related to China's Operation Foxhunt. In criticizing China for disregarding rule of law, it's a little Orwellish to see the American flag in background. The US is guided by international norms when it feels like it, but does exactly what China is doing whenever it becomes convenient.
Political realism is a view of political entities that places all events against a backdrop of anarchy. IOW, American exceptionalism shouldn't cause us to gasp, but should be something we expect due to the mechanics of the situation. We would also look at Operation Foxhunt against that same anarchic background. This operation is a clear indication that China is stepping up as a source of law in itself. IOW, it's stepping into the role of a superpower, though it's not yet what political scientists would call a "great power." We would expect that to happen next.
The good news is that political realism foresees political stability in this. Though lots of feather fluffing and grave facial expressions will appear, the opposition between the US and China should be a stable structure.
Political realism is a view of political entities that places all events against a backdrop of anarchy. IOW, American exceptionalism shouldn't cause us to gasp, but should be something we expect due to the mechanics of the situation. We would also look at Operation Foxhunt against that same anarchic background. This operation is a clear indication that China is stepping up as a source of law in itself. IOW, it's stepping into the role of a superpower, though it's not yet what political scientists would call a "great power." We would expect that to happen next.
The good news is that political realism foresees political stability in this. Though lots of feather fluffing and grave facial expressions will appear, the opposition between the US and China should be a stable structure.
Comments (23)
Neorealism would say that if you have the gun, you make the law.
An alternate view (and take this with a grain of salt because I'm trying to get the hang of it) is political constructivism. Here, we might imagine a God who creates and enforces the basis of human law, but we then erase God and replace it with Reason.
So we aren't gorillas, we're civilized humans. We can both see what kind of relationship would benefit the both of us, so we'll naturally be reasonable unless one of us becomes infected with communism or some other social ailment.
When you look out at the international scene, what do you see: gorillas or civilized people?
Quoting tim wood
Not unless you dropped acid an hour ago.
Quoting tim wood
Neorealism's use of "anarchy" refers to the lack of any authority above the great powers of a particular time period.
Anarchy is without rulers, not without rules.
The communists would say it is the rest of the world that has been infected with capitalism.
I think that's actually true. The Bronze age system was similar to socialism. The workers brought their goods into the temple and the priests split it up and distributed it. Markets as we think of them were either a result of collapse of the bronze age system or they were one of the factors that precipitated the collapse.
So when americans condemn China for foxhunt, do you agree that it's kind of insincere?
Socialism is not synonymous with centralized distribution, nor is capitalism synonymous with markets. Socialism vs capitalism is about how ownership of the means of production is divided. Broad or common ownership of the means of production with free trade is market socialism. Narrow private ownership of the means of production with centralized distribution is state capitalism aka corporativism aka fascism.
Yet thanks to the let's say the last functioning remnants of the Republic and it's liberties, the excesses do come to light in the US and are at least publicly debated, unlike in China.
Quoting frank
I'm not sure this is the point of political realism. Yes, political realism sees the political system is anarchic because there is no authority above sovereign states and they all have their own agendas, which happily sometimes coincide. (If that was your point, OK.) Your definition would sound more like simple stagnant conservatism, where change is seen as anarchy.
Quoting frank
China or Xi Jingping? I'm not familiar of this and Xi Jingpings crackdown on "tigers and flies", so I'm open to thoughts here.
You see, the problem with anti-corruption is at which level the purge is stopped and when does it come to be a tool of political power? I think the grotesque "anti-corruption operation" in Saudi Arabia performed by MBS in 2017-2019 is a bona fide example of a clear power grab portrayed as something dealing with anti corruption. How much the anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jingping is a political tool for him, I don't know. Besides, it's likely quite popular among the ordinary Chinese.
Quoting frank
Corruption and bribes ought not to be common and everyday practice. There's also this point that if crimes happen, they do have to be solve and the perpetrators gotten. Crime doesn't go away by turning a blind eye to it. That side shouldn't be forgotten.
I think it's possible to condemn it sincerely, but also think it likely the U.S. itself has intimidated and bullied perceived dissidents at home and abroad. If that's the case, then unless the U.S. has ceased doing so, and can establish that when it did so it was justified in some respect, it risks appearing insincere on the world stage. My guess is both the governments of the U.S. and China are quite aware of this. I also guess that it doesn't matter to either government, and that both governments if given the opportunity will condemn each other on moral or legal grounds.
A political realist wouldn't recognize the US as being inherently different from other nations though and for the realist the correct lenses through which to view the international order is power. The US is just one source (although a large one) of power among many.
By Am exceptionalism, I meant that the US does the things it condemns others for.
The US has global influence, so it stands out as a great power. China isn't yet a great power, but is headed in that direction.
That is merely diplomatic hypocrisy. All very routine and customary. But it is unavoidable. Personally, I'm kind of naive. I'm always shocked when I see politicians behaving hypocritically.
Just because a lot of our wealth once depended on slavery should not prevent us from condemning slavery where it is still carried out. Just because we practiced genocide must not prevent us from condemning it elsewhere. Just because we have some liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels employed in government doesn't mean we can't condemn corruption elsewhere.
What is Important is for citizens is to be honest with themselves about their country's real history. I can not think of a nation that does not have plenty of bad history for which they ought to beg pardon.
Nations are all exceptional and they are all alike and different. Finland and Spain, Japan and Uganda, Russia and India, and so on. Politicians at the Helm of the State pursue what they think the nation's collective interests are. They can be quite mistaken, of course, with disastrous consequences.
Quoting frank
Well... that would be nice.
Not to cast aspersions on gorillas, but the most elegant civilized being still has a primate limbic system humming away, which accounts for a lot of the sturm and drang of human existence. In Trump there is very little sublimation of emotions: his raw emotions just spatter everyone around him. A consummate diplomat (or con man) has his or her emotions under tight control.
Quoting frank
Political Realism understands that exercising power can be a dirty business, but is nonetheless necessary. A realistic politician understand that he will get his or her hands dirty in the process, even when doing good.
This sort makes me want to move to a remote island in Indonesia.
I would say that China is a Great Power, but not a Superpower.
You see, if you say China isn't a great power, then there aren't many great powers other than the US. And historically we have used the term to define a group of countries.
(Things are better now for China...)
Some say it's the opposite: China is a superpower, but hasn't achieved global influence yet. We're in a moment of having a lone great power, which is not a stable situation.
If they are smart, they understand that being a Superpower is a burden that will get you in the end. Far better to be a regional power and not stretch to far. And with China, it may be so.
Just take example the present situation of foreign military bases in Africa. Yes, China is there. With one base in Djibouti. Compare this to others:
Btw, she also told me Obama's father was from a lower caste and never would have advanced to prominence in Africa.
Rumors of this have been circulating since the 1990's. It may be so.
But this might also be an urban myth, because likely a country like the US would have openly accused China of this to worsen the ties of China to African countries. And I did find one article and this study: "Chasing Ghosts: Rumours and Representations of the Export of Chinese Convict Labour to Developing Countries" saying that this isn't the case, which of course, can be Chinese propaganda.
Yet to tell the truth, it does fit very comfortably into a xenophobic discourse. What is obviously true is that China uses Chinese labor and doesn't have any incentive to train local people to do higher task jobs and creates compounds for it's own workforce. This of course breeds anger in the local populace, so the idea of them being convicts, not just cheap labour, is a tempting urban legend.
Of course I can be wrong and your friend is correct, as I've not been to Kenya.
In my opinion, it is often erroneously conflated due to some new 'realists' in academia proclaim that we operate in the realist camp of foreign policy from off-shore influence. This is the idea that the U.S. should remain somewhat isolated and try to influence, contain, and exert power on other nations while remaining 'off-shore.' But many UN memos and policies are usually just aimed at conflating realism and American exceptionalism to justify instituting democratic institutions across the world.
Another quote I loved from your post: Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is exactly right. Power is what determines a realist's course of action. The world is a chessboard, and the nations that are playing the game are concerned with power and power alone. Cheers!
This quote reminds me of The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli. To be a 'good' leader--in the effective sense--one must recognize that power is everything, and that to properly exercise, maintain, and gain power, one must act in certain ways others would not approve of.
That's interesting, what exactly is meant by "off shore?" Do they just mean "soft power?" Do you consider the new realists and the old ones to be on essentially the same page ideologically speaking? It's been a while since I've engaged in this.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
Cheers. This reminds me Kissinger's Diplomacy a bit, which I guess I would consider a realist's bible. It's certainly where my understanding of realism comes from.
From what I remember studying realism in college, ‘off-shore’ foreign policy involvement would be using measures such as diplomacy, drone strikes, sanctions, strategic agreements, using international relations institutions for influencing a certain region. It is ‘off-shore‘ because it is simply directed from leadership offices and agreements, not warfare—on-shore involvement.
To answer your question about whether I think neo-realists and textbook realists are on the same page ideologically, I would say kind of, and that it depends on which country they belong to. I would say China and Russia would be textbook realists. Agreements don’t matter, as long as they are increasing their power and influence in the world, all else is fair game. But, for the U.S., I would say they are more neo-realists who understand the value of agreements, compromise, and using institutions to influence certain areas in the world.