Foreign Policy Realism | Robert Wright & Emma Ashford [The Wright Show]

0:00 Defining foreign policy realism
14:56 Emma fears that China will disrupt global trade and energy flows
25:37 Is there a role for idealism within realism?
31:47 Does economic engagement promote democratization?
35:26 A realist take on Russia’s annexation of Crimea
42:51 Emma doubts a major power would willingly bind itself to international law
58:45 What Emma wishes America hadn’t done over the past 30 years

Recorded July 23, 2020

[psinno]

Bob should interview someone who identifies as a delusionist.

[bofbob]

Interesting stuff. Re: the possibility of binding oneself to international law, I would've figured that now is one of those times when it would make sense for the main actors to do such a thing. Namely, because at this point there's a fairly even balance between the big 3 (at least in raw economic terms). It won't last long, but you'd think that's exactly the kind of window of opportunity you would want for that kind of thing. Once there's one single hegemon, like the US in the later half of the 20th century, then fat chance they'll want to bind themselves to anything.

Which leads to a question that I would've liked to hear her cover: does she see any realistic scenario in which the US does not become a secondary power compared to China in the decades to come? Personally, I don't see any scenario like that at all. I couldn't see one ten years ago, and even less so now. It's a forgone conclusion to me that US influence will continue to wane. That's why, to my mind at least, it would've made strategic sense for the US to go all in with the current multilateral system, instead of doing what they're doing now and trying to withdraw from it or minimize its role in international affairs. I figure they would have a much better chance at retaining their influence that way then they'll ever have if it's all based on bilateral relations.

In any event, as a European (not saying my views represent anybody else's, just saying that's where I'm from! ^^), at this point in time when I try to think of which would be better, the US as a hegemon as we've had in the past, or China, honestly it's a toss. If it were a matter of domestic policy, then I would choose the US hands down. But foreign policy... yeah it's not clear at all to me which of the two would be better for us. Perhaps our best bet, albeit a cynical one, is to hope that those two powers will sort of cancel each other out.

[glimmrgirl]

This was very interesting. Lots to think about. Thanks!

[PMFtheman]

The JCPOA was not binding; it was a political agreement.

[dashrirprock]

She was great. Shame Emma lost a lot of credibility when it was shown she does not replace the batteries in her smoke detector yearly. The military industrial complex will claim she's too cavalier when it comes to withdrawing forces, playing games with American safety.

[oaktowndaddyg]

wrong! bob kagan is an hawk . john mearshimer is the realist

[kdundid]

have a socialist on to talk about US foreign policy in latin america please