"The Future of the Liberal International Order" with John Ikenberry and John Mearsheimer
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2021
- What is the liberal international order, how is it being challenged, how might it be maintained? Two renowned scholars of international relations, G. John Ikenberry, Princeton University, author of 'A World Safe for Democracy: Liberal Internationalism and the Crises of Global Order,' and
John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago, author of 'The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities,' recently joined the Center's Dr. Ed Barrett and midshipman for an engaging and lively exchange.
![The death of ideology | John Mearsheimer [Full Interview]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ClitqYW8HVk/mqdefault.jpg)
Mearsheimer shows every time that realism is powerful and the only way to rise above ego and delusion and the only way to go forward.
Ikenberry's accusation that the Iraq war was the product of Mearsheimer's position is beyond absurd. Mearsheimer was one of the few public figures who stated at the start that the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake and would lead to catastrophe.
is this just jaw jabbering...amazing?!
Did he then? Could you please let me in on the monograph/article/book / interview in which he said that? If he indeed said so, then he was prophetic.
That is true. But Ikkenbery's argument that Bush admin elite "not" being actual liberal internationalists is also quite accurate.
What a pleasure to listen to Prof. Mearsheimer? this man is great.
Excellent presentation By honorable Professor Mearsheimer 👏 👌
I love Prof M. He makes perfect sense
Im soo grateful for CZcams. Y'all realize how awesome it is to have access to these great minds.
Mearsheimer. ..took it..very clear and to the point ☝️
Professor Mearsheimer never disappoints! Great talk on the issue, and I hope the Biden administration consults with him.
I hope to win a billion dollars...
He is biased and with a USA hagemony and screw up others mindset, but the world won’t buy his thinking. Who care about United States hagemony for worldwide order?
@@simony276 you are missing professor Mearsheimer's point. He is not debating if people around the world "like" US hegemony. He is saying that all great powers want to dominate and therefore it is stupid to help built a potential peer competitor.
You must be kidding?
He speaks with the clarity of a mathematician: explicit,precise and concise.
This debate is already a modern classic.
There sure is a major crisis for the liberals: The people will no longer automatically elect the puppet the elite has already chosen to make the decisions they have already made...
This confirms what I felt in university. Half of the professors talk nonsense in sophisticated language. Same goes for the politicians and public health experts. Basically, nobody knows what they are talking about, except for a few independent thinkers like Mearsheimer. The rest just stick with the official line of the herd.
yes!!! well said!!
What university did you go to? McDonalds U? :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 The Best in Canada. Thankfully I majored in the sciences. We hear horror stories from the humanities.
@@lepidoptera9337 Even the STEM students cannot escape the occasional psychology class replete with PC dogma.
@@wanghui562 You majored in the sciences? Cool, kid. Then you can certainly give me a six word description of the second law of thermodynamics. :-)
I found this so informative- I’m watching it again. Thank you so much for posting.
I visited Tanzania 2 years ago, it was wonderful - the view over Ngorongoro is breathtaking, the most beautiful I've seen - my previous favourite was Montmartre in Paris. Everyone I met was vastly friendlier than anyone I encounter in London (although in one village some kids were like "Mzungu - corona!" and ran off when they saw my dad and I). With just a slight boost to infrastructure it's clear that it could be on the level of European countries - England's GDP per capita is 33* that of Tanzania. Our host's daughter was 11, spoke 3 languages and was explaining the country's neoliberal turn in the 80s. It seems that a lot of state revenue is from speeding tickets, our host was pulled over 4 times in the span of an hour - but even with a speed limit of 50mph (polepole), it's still quicker to travel by road than rail. The only country willing to invest at present is China - Uhuru railroad from the 70s (I first read about it in Walter Rodney's book, potentially based on real international working class solidarity) and most of the construction equipment and about half of the construction workers. It's good that it's not coming with military domination but a Nigerian colleague says that it's neocolonialism and the CCP will plan to collect interest 20 years down the line - and Sestak has commented on the military bases popping up in the port cities in East Africa.
Mearsheimer took his glove off.
at minute 1:11:53, this back-&-forth really heats up in a great way, and the perfect sign for this is Ed smiling ever so slightly when John M. asks for a minute to respond to John I.; you can tell there's some champing at the bit going on. That idea of 'engagement' with China was all over UChicago's campus in 2000; indeed, the word "globalization" caused automatic salivation, especially in the Booth School. Ikenberry's "the grandest of illusions" retort at minute 1:15:25 was a real let down; in any seminar room, that's a 'tell' you are desperate to try to one-up your interlocutor by claiming you have somehow achieved Platonic clarity & the "real" deceived one is not you (the desperate interlocutor) but rather the other guy. Notice how that entire back-&-forth hits a tired wall with that retort; it's a sophistic move from Gorgias that sucks the air out of any real discussion. From Ikenberry to A. Blinken we are now trapped in a world of cute abstract words and oneupmanship, when what you really need repeated ad infinitum in the media is Mearsheimer's clear empirical point: that is, the US maintains a huge military, and China will build a huge military, and the latter nation-state is going to turn the former nation-state into the equivalent (relatively speaking) of the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. The US will have ⅓ the economic power vis-a-vis China in the offing. It is a prediction, yes, but it is hardly delusional; it's empirical and what the Midshipmen should repeat to those outside the military (eg, family, friends, etc.) is that basic comparison so as to undermine Blinken & his ilk. Just read Blinken's wiki biography; can we please stop with the quasi-European aristocratic genealogy of the US's upper East coast inheriting the DoS like a birthright? Enough of Henry James, at least when it comes to dealing with China; can we get someone in there who will turn off the "liberal" in him or herself and turn on the realist when thinking about China? Be a liberal at the soccer game with the parents on Saturday, but not when it comes to the lives of those serving in the US military. That giant aircraft carrier called Taiwan, what a nightmare to come.
ikenberry actually raised a good point and i would want to see how the John M responds. his version of realism is so rigid that US has no option other than having a confrontational relationship with such a large and dynamic economy. jonathan kirshner has correctly criticized that and called for the recovery of classical realism.
@@billcook2177 Offensive realism is fairly clear on its prediction: namely, China will want regional hegemony, and that is not -- not -- because the U.S. is being confrontational; rather, it's because of (a) the failure of econ interdependence theory, cum failure of dem peace theory, cum failure of international institutionalism and (b) nation-states as they grow in power seem to want (thinking along structural lines, not -- not -- nietzshean ontological innate will-to-power Junk) regional hegemony to feel secure. Mearsheimer is a Hobbesean on the international stage: and who will be proven correct? Mearsheimer, but the Ikenberry types will say we, the U.S., were confrontational and thus the cause, or, as Ikenberry does in this discussion, default to concepts of "fairness" since China was so poor for so long. When Guam topples into fire along with Diego Garcia, Americans will think Ikenberry a 90s fool.
BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 1, 2022 .... The Pentagon released its yearly report on the People’s Liberation Army this week.
The report states China is expanding its nuclear and conventional forces, with nuclear weapons undergoing a dramatic increase.
China appears focused on the Western Pacific and Taiwan, but for now that seems to be the limit of its immediate ambitions.
It’s painful to listen John Ikenberry, however pleasure to listen to John Mearsheimer. They are different league.
Excellent content.
Knowing little about Dr. Ikenberry, I began with the impression that these two scholars were largely aligned in their views. As the piece went on, the fault lines emerged between their perspectives. But I think both of them have a lot of useful perspective, and, ultimately congruence in terms of where they think we should go. Thanks for posting this. Very informative. I have reposted on Facebook.
They are polar opposites. One is a Liberal other is a Realist.
@@nikhilhooda7234 They both utilize a state-based perspective in IR so they are not as distant as you think they are.There are other schools that are quite dominant that emphasize whole other things than inter-state relations.
Mearsheimer keeps it real. Pun intended..
Exceptionally great debate...
Interesting. Thank you for sharing!
The viewpoints of these two masters of international diplomacy may be similar, but their actual approaches are dramatically different. Halfway through Ikenberry's speech, I was ready to tear my hair out simply waiting for John #2. to temper the overly wordy presentation of the former. I think the strength of Mearsheimer lies in his innate ability to take these same dreadfully complex subjects and somehow turn them into something even a dummy like me can understand. That in itself makes him a genius beyond reasonable compare.
The problem is, M's simplfication is too much. I have watched and read him a lot, he is clueless about the impact of economics and how it evolves. He still looks at the global order as if it is mere state interplay. İkkenberry was quite on point when he said "how can you stop China's growth in the 21st century?". The push for globalization in the 1980s wasn't a mere policy decision of th elite, it was a consequence of the way economy and capital evolved.
@@dogukan127
I think if you simply view Mearsheimer's online resume you'll see that he DOES know what he's talking about. The truth is, you just don't happen to agree with him. I can tell that the kind of "experts" you enjoy listening to are wordy academics like Janet Yellen and Gary Boy Gensler, who all TALK about economic theory, yet know absolutely nothing about operating in the real world. 'Nuff said??
@@tiffsaver I do not completely disagree with him. I simply think his lack of understanding in economics-technology leads him to too much simplification for long-term processes.
M is an IR scholar, he cannot afford to not deal with economics adequately.
Often, it is economic forces and technologies that drive the way global actors from macro to sub levels interact. M always acts like there are states that compete and thats it.
@@dogukan127
It's quite obvious that you enjoy listening to wordy imbeciles who are unable to get to the point, points like the Ukraine War was a US proxy war from the start, and will end in the total destruction of Ukraine and its people, with US failed sanctions against Russia destroying the entire energy infrastructure of Western Europe. Hoorah, NATO, hoorah.
Very good discussion with many great points made on both sides.
Some things are just the opposite of the names they are given. For example, the ancient Greeks feared the Black Sea, so they gave it a pleasing name, the Euxine Sea (hospitable). So it is with "liberal democracy". John Mearsheimer uses the expression very frequently, and it does sound good: liberal, free; democracy, government by consent of the people. What could be better? But that is not what the combination means. It means free, unrestrained capitalism, and democracy, government by the capitalists. The Professor tells us that it means respect for human rights, freedom of expression, a just legal system, but when the countries that are included in "liberal democracy" are examined, we invariably find these virtuous qualities missing, and their opposites are the dominant characteristics. In the case of the United States, the dominant characteristic is militarism and its expression is almost continuous war-making and imperial order, which is called "liberal hegemony". This is the Euxine Sea of US geopolitics, and it has been stormy - to say the least - for over 70 years!
Nice analysis.
I never thought I would come out agreeing with Ikenberry on perhaps the most crucial point of the discussion. That is, excluding China fron free trade agreements is not so keen a strategy. I think that many world citizens, and of course those less given voice, see the strategy against Russia today in Ukraine and think that their exclusion from NATO and the overreaction to their invasion in sequestering Russian finances, is ultimately cowardly, not forthright, and going to backfire. And it appears that many nations'leaders agree with that statement.
Excellent lecture!
As we ponder the insights and wisdom of these three minds, we are reminded that the Pope counseled President George Bush II not to pursue western retaliation, regime change & liberal evangelization in the Middle East after 9/11. Prof. Mearsheimer and Barack Obama were not the only dissenting voices.
It may be that the 2000 year Christian experience of balancing internal Christian state evangelization impulses with external boundary state constraints informs similar impulses of modern liberal states and their neighbors.
exceptional debate this
Why isn’t politicians required to be qualified for office before standing for elections? Seeing that they literally hold our lives in their hands. Isn’t it time that we demand our politicians to hold a PhD in political science etc. A motor mechanic can’t be employed to work on cars without qualification how come presidents and other politicians can get away without this requirement?
Thanks for the clarification on orders. Useful. So...does this apply to the concept of "new world order" somehow? And if so, how? Thanks for your time, expertise, and stellar ability to teach.
Great debate! I usually agree with Mearsheimer, but I must say that Ikenberry made a good point on China. Keeping China contained would have had the same effect as it did on Russia today.
Trying to contain China is one thing. Exporting large parts of our economy to China is quite another.
Everyone talks about China's threat but nobody pointed out which countries has been invaded, attacked, wrecked, occupied by China. Just name one/ones. I could name a country/countries that wrecked, occupied, invaded Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Vietnam, Sudan, Korea just to name a few.. Guess what country/countries that is
It's interesting that two American intellectual heavyweights consider a country lifting a billion people out of poverty and creating a middle class in the 100's of millions to be a mistake! Also, interesting that they keep referring to the US as a liberal democracy, which it is not, at best it's an oligarchy.
Say no more Prof John. America should continue to enjoy its hegemony for now because nothing last forever.
BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 1, 2022 ....
.. The
Pentagon released its yearly report on the People's Liberation Army this week.
The report states China is expanding its nuclear and conventional forces, with nuclear weapons undergoing a dramatic increase.
China appears focused on the Western Pacific and Taiwan, but for now that seems to be the limit of its immediate ambitions.
Very. very interesting. Thank you. Neither spoke much about the future. What do we do now?
50:00 onwards..it hurts to see how uncomfortable Prof. Mearsheimer is :)
ikenberray jas all those books on his shelves and gets it so wrong go mearsheimer awesome as always
I guess saying ''international order'' instead of ''world order'' does make it sound less evil.
It was inevitable that as China grew it's economy to rival the US it would also grow it's military. The Chinese are not stupid enough to believe that if it got bigger economically than the US then the US would not try to dominate them militarily. This is the problem that more and more of the world are facing, the US think they rule the world. Peoples of the world are waking up and are sick and tired of dancing to the American oligarchical tune. The world has changed and the US ought to accept it and try and live in harmony with it.
If international order requires a unipole which is a hegemon, then it will never be a global system. The bounded order = a system. The liberal international system after 1991 expanded by a couple of percentages of the global population but only contains less than 4% of the global population. Thus it is a marginal system. Order means governance. Governance is a function of culture.Culture is emerges locally. The hellenistic states chief objective was to have a balanced system = order on the Greek peninsula. They abhorred a hegemon or unipole. A global order can not be established through a hegemon or unipole. It would be a global dictatorship. Liberal means free. Liberal in the extreme sense is anarchy. So liberalism is an ideology which like any religion cannot be defined and described properly. After the second world war we had three systems. The US led G7 system. Those were the successors of the European colonial system that preceeded the second world war. The system of the Vökerbund between the war periods was an exclusive winners' club which tried to rule the world of those outside the club, which led to WWII. Afetr WWII it was understood that all states, including the Enemy States (66 of them who lost WWII) should be included, not to have WWIII. So the post WWII order was the global UN and UNSC order based on power and especially military/nuclear power. This global UN order based system worked well in as far as it prevented WWIII and become calmer after the USSR and China become fully fledged nuclear powers at the end of the fifties. There were still two big wars, one a colonial one in Vietnam and one a system competition one in Afghanistan. Both were lost by the great powers, the US and the USSR. Apart from that the freed colonies fought many smaller local wars and civil wars which corrected the random colonial boundaries which were mostly drawn without considering ethnicities and local culture. The world was stable because all great powers knew that the alternative would be annihilation. The collapse of the Soviet system led to an expansionist moment of the US system. China, after its century of shame, wanted to become a great power again like in the past and knew it had to do this economically. Of course labour arbitrage as key lever of for profit companies and the globalization of the economies through the internet enabled China and India and many other countries to increase their wealth. It is not that the US enabled China to become wealthy. It is that China found a new mix of governance model which included a market economy where people decided what they needed in terms of products and services. China proved that a market economic model does not require a multi-party democracy of the G7 type. This is what US scholars missed. They thought that market economy requires or automatically brings about multi-party governance. Looking at India, the Chinese model was much more successful. In India a very fragmented governance model slows down progress and creates a hugely inequal society full of internal friction. This is where a proper re-definition of democracy is required. What is it? That people can vote for politicians. You can have that in China. That people can vote for two parties who alternatively rule but keep by and large the same policies. Where primaries are decided by throwing coins? You have that in the US. Or where first past the post means that you only have a choice of two governments: Tory v Labour alternating and each of them is mostly a minority government, with those constituents voting for the 49% candidate have their say discarded, are not represented. Or is it a multi-party proportional governance system like in Germany, where you have 5% hurdles which leads to 10-15% of the votes being discarded. Or you go to the highest democracy level in Switzerland, where people actually vote on initiatives, programs and projects? Democracy means the rule by the people. But there are many models of democracy. And as long as there is the chance for people to change policies it is a democracy. So China has a democracy. You can throw in the right of free speec and demonstrations. All that you can have in most countries of the globe, just in variations. You can see police beating up demonstrators in every country of the world. You can see censorship in every country of the world. You have banned books in every country of the world. This is why democracy is an idea and not a blueprint. It is an idea that has many interpretations and definitions and will constantly evolve. And this is why exporting democracy to other regions of the world no matter by whom is impossible. Democracy is rooted in the will of beings to rule themselves, to be free agents. But to live with other free agents in a confined space there need to be rules to prosper and increase knwoledge and thus wealth. Democracy has many shades and is also a luxory good. Freedom and safety is something expensive and only wealthy societies can afford both. Democracy follows wealth and that means a proper distribution of wealth. If wealth = power becomes concentrated, which is a natural tendency of complex dynamic multi-agent systems then the system drifts away from consensus decisions and becomes minority driven. In the US de-factor money decides who becomes president. This means that people only have the choice between two wealthy individuals who have been selected through a group of wealthy (ad) sponsors and wealthy TV channel owners or social media platform owners. So democracy in the US as anywhere else is constantly changing. A lot of people would argue that the US has a lot less democracy now than in the seventies as the US society is far less agalitarian than in the seventies.
Ikenberry thinks of closed systems. But all systems are open systems. Creating an exclusive minority club would make the 10% of US lead nations isolated. They then needed to cut all ties with the external global system and probably starve intellectually.
Looking at a five century context, we can see that we are still in a world where the colonial powers (G7) are trying to maintain as much control over global ressources as possible. But the 90% of the world's population will rapidly ensure that they get a fair value for the resources, be that labour or raw materials or energy.
The gulf states were the first group of countries that understood this. And they fomed OPEC to ensure that they would be strong enough to counter-balance G7 interests.
BRICS and other institutions are emerging. Obama tried to expand the US led system via TPP and TPN but the scope was already too big. The difference in local needs (including cultural needs) is too big even across the North Atlantic to bind them into a corsett like US led trade system.
The US and the former colonial powers must come to grips with reality. Nature evolves through competition and a hegemonic global system no matter under what hegemon or dictatorship would not be able to evolve. Nature will see to it that a system like that will be the exception and rapidly and violently disintegrates.
Mearsheimer sees this very realistic. However, the US did not create China. China was by far the biggest pwoer on the planet for most of the past 2000 years. The reemergence was unavoidable. Ikenberg is right, how would the US keep the rest of the world poor and enriching itself with only 4% of the global population.
Slowing China down means keeping the country down- that is what an enemy does and this could lead to self-defence. WHo is the US to decide who has a right to become wealthy and happy in their own way.
As long as the US does not grow up and shed its empire identity it will be looking for a crash instead of softer landing like the UK in the last century.
The US will have to give up its messianic attitude to become a peaceful and really productive global player in the 21st century.
The US military will play no role in balancing China. Be realistic, no 4% can control 96%.
The US will eventually have to accept rank 3 in the world order and play along with others nicely if we want to avoid WW3.
There is no shame in being a team player.
🙏🏼🌀🌀💝😎
Excellent assessment
Maybe someone here could point me to a talk with John Mearsheimer in which he discusses the corporate hegemony as there and the liberal hegemony are certainly tied together
A good exchange that illustrates the emptiness and obsolescence of the CFR attitudes exemplified by Ikenberry. Complimenting Blinken as a great choice for SecState has not aged well (I write on March 1, 2022)
Peter Zeihan has a much better take. The postwar order was the U S shouldering all the economic costs of a liberal economic order, in return for others helping it oppose the USSR. after 1989 the purpose was lost, but the US kept subsidizing the world as its own middle and working class were ruined. Trump won in 2016, after 25 years of pointless sacrifice, because he called this out, but it turned out he didn’t have good answers. This makes a lot more sense than Ikenberry does. He seems to get it all backwards. His weak stammering struggle with the first question says a lot.
In the Q&A at around 1:00:00 Ikenberry just misrepresents what happened in the 1990s and up to 2017. The elites really thought trade would make China so liberal it would just defer to us-which was and is not a reasonable bet, but insanity.
progressive liberalism eats itself, domestically through the loss of traditions engendered by the promotion of individualism, and internationally by empowering non-liberal states through free trade, like China.
Really interesting debate. One can only agree with the folly of US endless wars. So much destruction, loss of life, economies upended and mass migration as at exacerbated (I accept climate change and the lure of western wealth are also factors).
What I cannot quite understand is why the US thinks it has an almost divine right to be a hegemon anywhere? Both guests agreed the US must seek to be or maintain hegemon status in East Asia. JM seemed to accept war was a price worth paying to maintain US dominance. Is this what the countries in the area want or must accept, war and more destruction? Mearsheimer is a clever man and his talks are always interesting. He calls himself a realist, but ultimately that realism is still tainted by US arrogance and hubris.
Does anyone understand what Ikenberry said?
yea prof.mearsheimer!! ikenberry is kinda losing i have to say, hope more ppl become disillusioned with the liberal theory of IR
Structural realism FTW!
@@thanpisittadsri2027 do you guys still agree with Mearsheimer?
@@halvardwidere8084 Yes, what is not to agree?
@@thanpisittadsri2027 Mearsheimer was a bit wrong about Russia
@@halvardwidere8084 True, he thought that Putin would be smart enough to not directly invade Ukraine as that will bring Russian own downfall as well. We all know that is not the case now. But he also correctly assessed regarding Ukraine joining EU/NATO, “Putin will wreck it before the West gets it”.
What amazes me is how western people tend to think in such paradigms, all the time AND dualistically. They do it with a lot of things. "Now we finally have the theory of all" in physics - oooops, something was discovered. But with people, living people with cultures, some vastly different from what is in the west - and even IN the west Italian and Spanish culture is NOT like German or Swedish culture and NONE of them are like British, they continue on with their small minds thinking that everyone is the same. These are different people. Trying to eg IMPOSE democracy on people that never naturally evolved into that kind of system, whose innately grown culture is diametrically different from anything in the west, is sheer stupidity. They repeatedly make these REALLY stupid assumptions and carry on with them even when they run smack into things that negate those assumptions.
How could the west NOT know that all the things they were doing against Russia, who was asking for reasonable things based on promises the US made, how could the west NOT know that they are shoving Russia in the arms of China and well, NOW they are tight partners. They no longer care about the STUPID sanctions and are reconsidering the dollars, as are many other nations. Iran too, has now partnered with China. And so it goes. HOW could people in the west be SO STUPID? Or, did they do this on purpose? After all, neocons were doing this since 2001, insane things, destructive things.
How could ANYONE not know that in nations like Europe has, big influxes of foreigners would cause the rise of nationalism?
China seems rational, they DO NOT interfere with internal affairs of other countries or the cultures of those countries. THAT IS WISDOM. The west does not have wisdom.
Things WERE kind of working out OK until the neolibs/neocons rose up and took over. Look into who they were, who they are, WHAT they are. "Biden and Neoconservatism" is a short essay on it, but you can look deeper. That, imo, is where everything went wrong.
Same. I listened in horror of the neoliberal insanity wondering am I insane or they are? I remember thinking they can’t be that stupid, there must be some kind of conspiracy lol. Turns out, they are that stupid. I mean, even the Ivy League profs. Unbelievable.
I would have liked to have heard Mearsheimer's response to Ikenberry's last comment about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al's war in Iraq, because I've always wondered about it. Presumably the architects of the war don't consider themselves Liberal Internationalists, so I wonder what Mearsheimer makes of their self-image and motivations.
There’s a video of a Lecture by him about why leaders lie, there’s some insight about what he thinks Bush was trying to do by lying czcams.com/video/VPe5f5dcrGE/video.html
George Bush explicitly grounded the Iraq War in a quest to spread Wilsonian democracy.
Look up “Condalissa Rice FOX Ukraine”
@@ozzy5146 Mearsheimer also argues that the Israel lobby played a big part in the invasion.
@@StrongbyLee Nope. It's all between the great powers.
What values are we talking about? Torture, aggressive wars, inference in other peoples' and countries' rights to decide what they want to do? Censorship? Enormous inequality? Which values are we defending?
Proff Mershiermer is compelling ….
But why did the US allow the transfer of military i.p to china , I.e ….allowing exchange students / cadets at Westpoint . Etc .
$$$
It's now July 3 2022 and I suppose the red sweater feller should come back
and learn how silly he is! And be so thankful that for some reason he gets
a steady paycheck!
The Law is established and written for those that would break it! Period…not for the people that wouldn’t conceive of unrighteousness against their fellow man…
The order we’re speaking of, is controlled by the law breakers themselves that school us in iniquity by the the actions they conceive and live out….
What is democracy? Let’s explore that word! Demo-cracy!
Demo means demonstration….Cracy means rule. Look it up! So democracy means demonstration of rule!
I’m 62 years old and my Dad always said democracy was shared power and shared respect! 🤷🏼♂️ He went to college at Cal Poly San Luis then went He went to war with the 1st Marine division in Korea fight the Chinese that poured over the Northern border at Chosin reservoir! Look that up for a history lesson…
I’m listening to these scholars and I’m uneducated…yeah, reckon so because I’m just a Carpenter! But Oh my Lord…Modernity is B.S. and the communists do give a rip about that….and they sprinkle college professors on their Cheerios in the morning for breakfast!
A house dived against itself cannot stand and even a layman should know that! China does. Adios American 🇺🇸 buckle up and grow a pair
at 1:09:26 oh man an argument is surfacing and so is Ikenberry's emotions while Mearsheimer keeps cool. I see where this is going.
Anyways, I always find it so fascinating that, after 70ish years of a fighting a communist power, we immediately became buddies with a communist country and thought they'd turn out fine. We could've forced China to become democratic be not allowing anything into their ports or let them trade with anyone. We could've fought them when they were weak and we were the sole superpowers, now we have to fight them when they are strong and in a unipolar world.
Good luck with that phantasy, kid.
@@lepidoptera9337 thank you.
@@sharingforimprovement155 That was a very strong argument. That should win you the presidency of your one man debate club easily. ;-)
"Liberal International order" is just another name for the Global American hegemony. That should clarify it all.
is it just me or this Ikenberry guy looks completely clueless
He is somehow stuck and obsessed with LIO. So he can be as much analytical and clever as his biasses and dogmas let him be so.
I assume that John Mearsheimer is banned from Fox News. He is too focused in reality, regardless of where that focus takes him.
All the corporate owned cable networks ban him
An interesting discussion, but it has a very major flaw: it is highly ethnocentric and, outrageously, it lacks even one Chinese voice. Two American and two Chinese voices would have surely made for an even more realistic discussion. And both professors need to study Chinese history more deeply. Throughout its long history China has never indulged in overseas imperialism, and it officially espouses a win-win approach to foreign relations, as opposed to the win-lose approach generally assumed by the US and most "Western" nations. China is certainly not Godzilla (a Japanese monster), and mutual cooperation is probably the premier theme in Chinese culture. Imposing zero-sum win-lose structures on our relations with China is dangerous for all humankind and will not end well. The US should offer to cooperate with China's progressive Belt and Road plan, which is based on relations between nations that are strikingly more democratic than those offered by the US and the IMF debt trap system. Both professors seem a bit paranoid and naive about China and afraid of cultural differences they don't understand. Except for his jaundiced view of China, Professor Mearsheimer is overall more persuasive. Therefore it is mystifying that he doesn't see that his trenchant and accurate critique of US policy toward Ukraine applies equally to US policy toward Taiwan.
first, civil liberties in china than we can discuss; xi even says china has true democrcy 🤦
end of story
@@thelastofthehitachi972 Hi, I'm not sure what your point is. Could you clarify it?
US capitalism is inherently designed to fail as is. The corporations are designed to make ever increasing profits, when the only way to maximise profit is minimise cost and therefore the labour costs. So, pressure on wages can only ever be in a downward trajectory.
This equally applies to an ever increasingly privatised state sector too.
So, when, following 1971 law changes around boundless political contributions, corporate contributions to politicians means that they are working in their interests as opposed to the public interests. So, things can, by design, only get worse, you can see that today in the redundancies in even the tech sectors.
In China, the state controls the corporations, so they are not destined to the inevitable spiral of decline.
The issue is that the "Rules based international order" is the unipolar Western liberal democracy thing and it is unipolar." TODAY we in fact have a multipolar world and there IS International LAW. The US is going to have to adapt to that or just leave other countries alone. China is Dynastic/Confucist like it always was before. Russia? I'm not sure what they have, Tsarism? Saudi Arabia has a Monarchy and the US has no problem dealing with them.
To too many countries "liberal democracy" means death, destruction and ruination and imperialistic dictatorship. When the US was left the only superpower, they chose the path of Pure Evil - and yes, the NEOCONS ruled at this time.
China in fact has many capitalists there, Eric X Li is a venture capitalist. The difference is that capitalists, rich ones, etc have no POLITICAL power in China. THAT is the difference.
5:00 So Ikenberry advocates for reconstruction of LIO and defends its open-minded pretensions and "enlightenment values," yet 17:00 frames the choice before us as a false dichotomy of 1) cooperate & collaborate or 2) the deliberately ominous-sounding "alternative," which we are no doubt to interpret as war. More likely to my mind, the third way is competition on terms well short of open war and its wanton destruction, but apparently the LIO mindset is not open enough for that, even when such competition is all around us.
Chicago Winner!
The world's 3 super powers must create an institution that will ensure world peace, ensure that any world problems are resolved in their own interests, ensure the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, and use financial resources for the prosperity of the citizens of the world.
In 2021, Ikenberry couldn't admit he was wrong decades ago. I wonder what he'd say now in March 2022.
Still repeating the same globalist crap....that's what Ikenberry is doing..
Fascinating debate. It seemed to hinge on the US inviting China to WTO. If the US hadn't done this, would it have set China back permanently? Could they not have succeeded eventually (e.g. belt and road)?
I would argue they would still develop. They would have to open up themselves internally and allow more privatization serving themselves.
Mr. Meaishimer, you say American create China Godzilla. I agree half, you could ask a bank to lent money to a person or company. The success rate is 50/50. Basically, there are chances it will fail, if it management or vision have issue or problem. China catch up by hardworking people and by permission of US 50 years ago.
The reason US have let China catch up, is because the ppl in power is partially greedy, short sighted, over optimism.
Or another reason is US is the real liberal. It allow China to catch up and wait for them to participant in the new world order peacefully. However some rat think differently.
Innegable el altísimo nivel del Dr. Ikemberry pero suena a bastante utopia cuando verificamos la política internacional de Francia y EE UU en Medio oriente desde el 2015, por ejemplo. NO me quiero remitir al 2002. (The very high level of Dr. Ikemberry is undeniable but it sounds quite utopian when we verify the international policy of France and the United States in the Middle East since 2015, for example. I DO NOT want to refer to 2002).
‘He’ didn’t “hate the international liberal order” - this was a pretext to energize deeply disappointed groups who felt betrayed by it (alluded to by Ikenberry ie there must be a means for coordinating the negative impacts of internationalization (ie structural adjustment mechanisms, per the kind promised during NAFTA negotiations that were largely never implemented ); Ikenberry argues this will become even more important in the future. You cannot sustain support for a liberal democracy with broad support for an international liberal order when the great powers within the western liberal democracy group are built on a house of cards with growing income inequality domestically and exploitation of the developing world internationally (ie new IMF surcharge tax to 14 countries which will amount to half of all IMF operating expenses). How they manage this will be the greatest test each of them faces and will determine if Democracy survives with a stable international order, without which it is unlikely there will be the kind of cooperation needed to address the climate crisis.
The Western response to COVID-19 has given us a vivid proof that democracy doesn't work well without a well educated, rational citizenry. It has become more than obvious that we lack the latter. The question then becomes whether people who are not capable of governing themselves have an actual need to be self-governing. That is not a support of autocracy, of course, it's just a valid question with regards to the future of mankind (which will be short for other reasons, anyway).
I like to see the difference planet international play like that if our gut biom. There are 37 thousand different organisms in it and their balance of power is unique to different areas of the gut they find most hospitable to dwell in. In a healthy gut these are in amicable numbers and cooperation is optimal so long as they stay balanced. If one type say H polory become too numerous in the upper intestines instead of their small number in the lower house of the colon boy does that set of a war. Same with to much lactose bascilic being in small or no less effective numbers. The immune system becomes hyper inflammatory. We need to lear to respect each other and our unique ways and work towards a healthy human community on this body called earth.
"robust containment" and competition is 19 century thinking. This kind of thinking has given us insecurity and wars. Cooperation and building a new international system based on "justice", and "collective security" has to be order of the day. Any World Order short of these, will fail. Why? Because humanity has passed the stage of subjecting itself to law of jungle.
Putin. :-)
_"Because humanity has passed the stage of subjecting itself to law of jungle."_
That seems like wishful thinking, to be honest.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 Who is happy about this situation, except a few?
Can anyone please tell me what the pseudoprofessor from Princeton is saying?
The Tsar and his finest are the first to stand up to the Gay American Empire and IT IS MAGNIFICENT
Poor Americans that every day they simply thinking how to pull others down, than improving g their people’s well being.
Prof. Mearsheimer, any Chinese bounded order will have one member only, basically, due to two orders of factors.
For one, China isn’t culturally endowed to lead the world nor do the Chinese aspire to, in any sense, like world roamers England and the US, or earlier the Portuguese and the Spanish, were (albeit reluctantly when it comes to the US from 1919 to 1941).
Second, possibly emergent from the first, no country in China’s “near abroad” has or will ever have any appetite to emulate a Chinese order or be led by China at all contrary to the position of several Western middle powers vis a vis the US, since at least the 18th Century France and certainly after WWII.
In my view these two differences upend any blueprint from the bounded orders of the Cold War as well as the International order afterwards. The unique qualities of Chinese geography and history will shape the future of bounded world orders in surprising ways yet to be pondered or even enunciated by Western scholars. I don’t think 20th Century Europe will be a useful analogy regarding IR in the next 30 to 40 years or so.
4-2-1-0. You are welcome.
Great debate guys, it was illuminating. (I have to admit, I enjoyed seeing Mearsheimer dunk on the liberals, after being sidelined for a couple of decades during the "end of history".) Unfortunately, it shed light on a massive flaw in much IR scholarship: we're not living in the 20th century anymore, and we face an existential threat today that is not a hostile state. Until IR scholars focus intently on the ecological crisis, of which climate change is a major component, none of them are "realists" - they're a weird form of utopians, whose "utopia" is the dog-eat-dog global system of the past several centuries. A response to this debate here:
czcams.com/video/wAtaMfbxvoc/video.html
That's an interesting point, but I believe IR scholarship explains this phenomenon already. I think actually, you can view climate change in similar ways as the problem facing nuclear disarmament, in that they are both a form of the prisoner's dilemma. They are the result of what happens when a challenge requires great power cooperation under conditions of anarchy.
Climate change is an existential threat, but the problem for states is that this is an existential threat for the future. Now, that future for some might already be now, or tomorrow, or in five years, or in 20 years, but part of the problem is that states evaluate this threat differently and cannot agree upon when this threat becomes truly existential, which means they are hindered in combatting it. Today, the states are still trapped in a security dilemma and it is difficult to combat climate change, because measures to do so will result in a decrease in economic growth. This is a problem for the USA, because China has been growing faster than the USA already, so it can't afford to lose economic growth.
So, both China and USA know that climate change will be a problem in the future, but they don't know whether it will be tomorrow or five years. What they are both certain of, is that both are a problem for each other now, today. They are both trapped in the prisoner's dilemma.
@@DarkNog The amount of scholarship that treats seriously the broader ecological crisis, or even just its climate change component, is miniscule in my experience. Absolutely, your framework is the one that would be used in IR, but beyond pointing out the difficulties, I would wish creative thinkers in the field would focus their brainpower on coming up with myriad proposed solutions. Instead I see a lot more attention to short-term conflicts that are irrelevant in the long term, and laughable in relation to the ecological threat.
@@josephuspeterfranks6988 Look, IR theory is not there as a code of principles for States to go Green ok? Neolib has mentioned about climate factor, but IR theory helps you understand the relationship between states in the world, why cooperate? Why compete? Why conflict? Why war? Why peace? Its not there just to support the Paris Agreement.
VEI 8 eruption of any of the super volcanoes, or the asteroid that will not miss, begs the question has Greta "Garbo" Thunberg really done her homework regarding climate crisis. Oh, she has not - too busy being angry at the adoring adults at the UN, who also have no clue and no plan. The world will not be saved.
Who gives AF about a teenage activist!? This Greta derangement syndrome is baffling. And weird. I'm also in Asia, and the libs have no idea of what the ecological crisis is, what it entails, and what is required to solve it. The Pentagon has done solid research on it, read *All Hell Breaking Loose* by Klare and *Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case* by Lieven.
Mearsheimer never said his plan would keep China down forever, not that he wanted to! Just slow it down, and not by direct intervention, but by less engagement. The other John very disingenuously represents what Mearsheimer is saying to argue his own point.
I wonder whether Mearsheimer has an explanation for the overwhelmingly majority of US public opinion and elites supporting the strategic engagement of China.
It’s not clear how much a strategic advantage in east Asia that it worths a war with China. Forget about the costs on both sides engaging in a war, post war US would lose Asia to India, Indonesia or even Japan if it were badly wounded unless it could defeat China soundly.
Most of the world is in Asia.
Western advantage in Asia is that the countries there are at significant odds with each other. So they do not want each other become powerful and would love to ally themselves with West to ensure they do not lose to anothe regional rising power.
When Nixon went to China didn't he promise them unlimited wealth if they joined America in its probable military confrontation against Russia in the 21st century?
seems people here think JM represents "the" realism. but as people like jonathan kirshner has written about, his version of realism is so rigid compared to classical realism.
Rigid?? JM does not represent the outdated Classical realism, JM is best known for Neorealism, specifically offensive neorealism. Look it up.
@@thanpisittadsri2027 like your comments. Which of JMs books should I suggest son, 22, with history BA to read? JM just surfaced in last 4 days to speak about Ukraine crisis. I think was on Mark Steiner show on Real News Network. JM is visionary aka rooted in reality but but heavy on China. Giving son Roxanne Dunbar Zortiz book Not a Nation of Immigrants on settler colonizers breeded imperialism.
@@eileenmc4746 The Tragedy of Great Power Politics will be a great start to the definition of States in the international system and the Balance of Power concept through historical comparisons based on offensive realism. Other prominent neorealist would be Waltz for defensive realism.
19:13 laughing in all the horrors, blood shed and recourse theft and carnage AmeriKKKa have committed just for the past 50 years lol this guy smoked some wild shit😂
'Hey look everyone I got so many books behind me, in the background. That means I am smart, okay.''
The liberal project years have reflected the very complex and controversial cultural views and opinions of people like Ikenberry. In the real world, it is much more simple. From the government I want: No forced to change my views and affordable living for working class. The rest is the arena of the monied class and their rule. Imho
I support John Ikenberry!!!!
No human wants handouts just level playing field
you are kidding yourself. a large amount of the democratic order revolves around buying votes with freebies.
The order has failed because it’s aligned for benefits to those that put it together it’s called gaming the system
The WTO is wrong anyway?
The irony of cancelling a talk about human rights because of covid shut downs is hilarious
ALL future is dead . period
Bro forgot all the wars since 1945
China wants Singapore democracy Wich is open minded, enlighten ,pay attention to opinion pool ... governance
Today China has so many problems internally. Military wise, economic and socially. It will collapse
Who set up this fight between a real, deep thinker and a typical PC politician?
I'm 26 minutes in, does this guy ever let anyone else talk?
Realism seems to make more sense in terms of how politics are ACTUALLY playing out
In hindsight, one realizes that Ikenberry is a better scholar, even though Mearheimer's "against the tide"-entitlement makes him interesting to watch.
Oh John please don’t be such a scary cat. If you know a thing or two about Chinese thinking remember this. In 5 thousand yearns of its existence and Silk Road of ancient time there is no place out of the Chinese continent that was ever controlled or invaded. Anglophile world nations in 8 hundred years of power can’t say the same.
My God. Professor at Princeton 🤪
Thought process like his got us in this mess Eastern Europe.
Pushed Russia into Chinese arms. Energy/Food supply for 2 generation's 😣
Sooner US goes back to Dec 6 1941 foreign policy the better
This fella is the epitome of what is wrong with America's academia...he has earned his professorship by espousing word salad...he made no sense and only parroted all the talking points from politicians..
put some AI !!!!
These famous professors and pundits always leave God out of the equation, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The Bible says that "God changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings." Daniel 2:21.
John Mearsheimer (a very German sounding name) thinks that the religion wars between Catholics and Protestants in the UK brought the governing liberal order into being. I am much more convinced that it was the influence of Puritans and later Methodists who strongly advocated the right for each person to hold on to their beliefs and thereby brought the liberal order into society.
Mearsheimer is obsessed with China, which may or may not be a good idea. But because Mearsheimer has argued that the US needs to pull its resources out of the middle East and focus on the East, Trump initiated and Biden completed the withdrawal from Afghanistan. So, now the people of Afghanistan are starving and the Chinese influence is being built up in that country which is rich in natural resources.
The US will continue to be a declining superpower, unless its people will head the admonition that says: "If My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves, pray, seek, crave, and require of necessity My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land". 2 Chronicles 7:14
Half of the UK population is atheist, already. Soon over half of the American population will be. :-)
other atheists include Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin & chairman Mao. It is not necessarily a good thing to have a nation ruled atheists.
@@Kalldalen Sounds good, except that Marx was not an actual atheist. He was simply opposed to organized religion, which he saw as a political tool of suppression. Beyond that he seems to have been quite spiritual. Stalin on the other hand attended the seminary and almost made priest. Post WW II Mao thought of himself as a god and demanded to be venerated. That is the very opposite view of atheism which does not even tolerate the veneration of deities, let alone men. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 If you were to merely look at body count, the three atheistic regimes of the twentieth century (Hitler in Nazi Germany, Stalin in Russia, and Mao in China) are responsible for more than 100 million deaths
@@Kalldalen Hitler was a Catholic to the end, Stalin almost became a priest and Mao had himself venerated as a god. Where do you see atheists? :-)
Didn't age well 😂
Chinese youth are giving up on life….
Who is the local hegemon that the IRAQ war was supposed to remove again? Wasn't Saddam. Russia wasn't there. In fact, their historic enemy was Iran, supported by Russia. Aren't they are on our side by default. Don't get it.
I also don't get how Israel wanted this, beyond knocking off the most exposed anti-Saudi local player in the game of extending Israeli security, somehow.
Ikenberry seems absorbed with the illusion that US EU Japan Canada are the world.
Also uses too much amorphous phrases like in some sense, kind of, which makes his argument vague and confusing.