"A Dissident Among Foreign Policy Intellectuals"

I recently sat down with Current Affairs magazine to talk about Asia (and plug my book). I've read them pretty regularly since 2018 or so, and they have uniquely good aesthetic style for a magazine. Seriously, an award-winning look. The interview appeared in written form (as a salty transcript), and as a podcast.

The show's host, Nathan Robinson—founder of the zine—is kind of hilarious, and we had a great time. I'm known for my candor, but I don't think I've ever just let it all hang out like I did in this talk. Also, just a heads up for context—it’s a lefty magazine so the convo has that valence…but it also has a lot in it for anyone trying to make sense of China, US foreign policy, and the unacknowledged dangers of our current trajectory.

The thing that jumped out to me in the magazine’s preamble introducing me was their description: I’m a "a dissident among foreign policy intellectuals," they say. I need to get a t-shirt made that says that. I wish I’d thought to describe myself that way.

Obviously, I wish my views were the mainstream rather than the dissident perspective. But as long as I insist on thinking for myself, this is how it’s gotta be. I *hope* this is something you, dear subscribers, appreciate about this newsletter.

A couple nuggets from the interview worth emphasizing.

On Peace Versus Primacy:

the requirements of peace and primacy are deeply at odds with each other. Peace requires a certain degree of economic interdependence, regional cohesion, inclusivity in various ways, and above all, military restraint. Primacy requires the opposite of all of that. It requires the formation of rivalry and geoeconomic blocs. It requires containment against your rising rival, arms racing, and weapons proliferation…by pursuing primacy, we’re making ourselves the enemy of what remains of the Asian peace.

On American Exceptionalism as the Politics of Deflection:

if you believe in American Exceptionalism, then you have to make sure America is blameless. They’re not thinking ecologically, relationally, or structurally, and don’t give two shits about the interactivity that’s inherent in international relations. They care about making sure America is blameless. That’s their starting point and ending point, and that makes it hard to have an actual conversation about the analytics.

On China as an Alternative to Introspection:

for the foreign policy mandarins in DC, having external threats and being able to externalize America’s problems onto another is psychologically the salve and the psychic wage that prevents us from having to deal with our own problems…China is a godsend to the foreign policy establishment because it means that they don’t have to take a hard look at the American surveillance state, the de facto policing of Black communities, or the deep economic precarity of the majority of the population. They don’t have to face the threat of the far-right militias, or the way that politics is post-democratic in many senses, with the oligarchic political economy that we run…