Un-Diplomatic

Un-Diplomatic

Share this post

Un-Diplomatic
Un-Diplomatic
How Primacy Became a Dirty Word
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More

How Primacy Became a Dirty Word

Inside the emerging problem of primacy denialism.

Un-Diplomatic
Oct 11, 2024
∙ Paid
11

Share this post

Un-Diplomatic
Un-Diplomatic
How Primacy Became a Dirty Word
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More
3
3
Share
Destroying Chinese war junks, by E. Duncan (1843)

During the Biden era, Washington policy wonks started reducing the frequency with which they use the word “primacy.” Some even try to pitch their primacist ideas as a contrast with primacy. I suspect they think this rhetorical maneuver makes it a little bit easier to pursue a foreign policy that has no legitimacy.

But let’s back up.

A couple months ago, I was speaking to a friend in Australia who was part of a public debate with Mike Green, a Bush-era political appointee with a track record of venerating old-school naval imperialists. For as long as I’ve been aware of him, Green has always been an advocate of primacy.1 It’s kind of a known thing, which was why my friend debating him was taken aback when Green denied that the US has a primacist approach to the world even though he was explicitly speaking in its language.

Weird to advocate for primacy but deny the label, no?

“Indo-Pacific Strategic Framework,” released Jan. 2021

Then I got to thinking.

This post is for paid subscribers

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Van Jackson
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share

Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More