Read on Twitter
People operate under the profoundly misguided notion that a Biden administration will simply polish up the rough edges of Trump China policy and away we go. This is simply wrong. This idea starts from a couple of wrong assumptions such as the power of persuasion 1/n
Vis a vis China, the importance of imposing costs to behavior, and the assumptions of how others view the China issue. A piece recently came out which captures this dynamic perfectly. The piece from Brookings (which regular reminder has partnership with Chinese intelligence) 2/n
Captures the problem perfectly. The first 2/3 to 3/4 of the piece I think actually does a fine job of highlighting the issues and problems. Minor quibbles but nothing major. So far so good. However, when we turn to policy solutions and proposals, the whole thing falls apart 3/n
In a flaming apologist wishy washy train wreck. What should be the strategy? Keep access and relationships in Hong Kong to support One Country Two Systems! Play for time. Impose no material consequences and let Beijing derive benefits from its invasion. It actually says that 4/n
Me reading that:
But wait it gets better. Washington should work with allies to present a common front to moderate the scope of the National Security Law. Again, it actually says this! Allow me to introduce Europe and most of Asia and why should moderate be the talking point here?
There are generally a couple of problems with the appeasement/engagement crowd. First, they lack a clear headed reality about the nature of the problem. Saying play for time on Hong Kong is straight up appeasement. I'm all for allies joining the struggle, have you looked
Around the room recently? America may be one one eyed but we are the one eyed giant in a land of blind midgets. Second, there is a lack of willingness to confront the costs of challenging China. Advocating appeasement by playing for time is not a strategy in clear recognition
Of the challenges and potential costs. Personally, I am satisfied with a range of potential policies as long as they generally impose costs and consequences on China for bad behavior. Democracy is messy so I don't always expect my specific preferred policy to prevail but
As long as there is steady continued escalation of costs for continued bad behavior, I am pretty much fine. This is why I say we can debate cost imposition policy A v. cost imposition policy B but there is no debate between cost imposition policy A v. fingers crossed.
The reality is challenging China is going to be a very costly endeavor. The reality is appeasement/engagers simply have no clue what they are doing. Here is a link to the whole piece https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/07/17/why-now-understanding-beijings-new-assertiveness-in-hong-kong/
