Why are we even talking?
On rivalries, "should" statements, and the question underlying the very purpose of a major summit meeting
Anyone who has taken a serious course in the social sciences has most likely encountered an essay question containing some variation on the phrase “Support your argument with evidence”. It’s a mainstay of AP exams and college courses everywhere, based upon the obvious expectation that an argument without evidence is nothing more than empty words.
■ At the start of the summit in Beijing between the Presidents of China and the United States, Xi Jinping declared, “The two countries should be partners, not rivals“, to which his American counterpart replied with praise about the countries’ “fantastic relationship”. The correct response to both claims is: Support your argument with evidence.
■ “Should” statements are tricky things, especially in translation. It would indeed be very nice if two of the world’s most consequential nations could have a pleasant relationship -- but that might only become a “should” upon the condition that both are working in the direction of expanding human liberty, freedom, and opportunity. It’s no good to have a partnership if even one of the “partners” is engaged in domestic oppression and external intimidation.
■ Similarly, a “fantastic relationship” is what the United States has historically shared with counterparts like Canada and the United Kingdom. Two countries don’t have to share every priority for their relationship to be “fantastic”, but it’s hard to achieve “fantastic” without mutual respect and at least some harmonization of values. If we get closer to a world in which political prisoners have been freed and secret police stations have been closed, then there might be some drift in the direction of that harmony. But the evidence just isn’t there yet.
■ It’s hard to say whether there’s any point in having expectations of any summit meeting. Words are easy to spout off, and uncritical media coverage is very good at amplifying phrases that sound nice, rather than providing serious analysis. Diplomacy that advances values will always be important, but nobody needs new platforms for empty platitudes.