Friday 08 Oct 2021 | 12:26 | SYDNEY
Friday 08 Oct 2021 | 12:26 | SYDNEY

Why conservatives should learn to stop worrying and love the United Nations


Sam Roggeveen


18 March 2011 08:53

Cross-posted from James Fallows' blog at The Atlantic, where I am guest blogging this week.

Andrew Sullivan's reply to my previous post provides a neat segue into the point I wanted to make next. As Andrew points out, it is unusual to make an explicitly conservative case for negotiating America's decline as a world power.

'Straussian conservatism', as Andrew calls it, is much stronger on the American right than the Oakeshottian conservatism we both identify with. So there isn't a terribly receptive audience for the argument that, because America will almost certainly lose its preeminent strategic position in the world, the smart thing to do is not to resist this change but to make the transition as smooth and peaceful as possible.

But as unpalatable as that view might be, it's difficult to see that America has any other choice.

Here I want to introduce The Atlantic audience to the work of one of my colleagues at the Lowy Institute, Professor Hugh White, Australia's most prominent strategic commentator. Last year White wrote a major essay making the highly controversial argument that America should voluntarily relinquish its hegemonic status in the Asia Pacific in favour of a 19th-century, Europe-style 'concert of powers' arrangement with China and Asia's other big powers. Here's how White presents the problem:

As China grows, America faces a choice of Euclidean clarity. If it will not withdraw from Asia, and if it will not share power with China, America must contest China's challenge to its leadership. That choice carries great costs -- much greater, I think, than most Americans yet realise.

China is going to demand strategic and diplomatic status commensurate with its economic might, and that is incompatible with American regional supremacy. So Washington must either resist Beijing, or accommodate it. The Straussians would insist that continued primacy is the only status consistent with America's sense of itself as an exceptional nation. But that stance carries potentially huge risks, up to and including nuclear war.

(By the way, last year we staged a major debate about Professor White's essay on the Lowy Institute's blog, The Interpreter — you can read the whole thing in chronological order here. I'm not aware of any other think tank using blogs to stage debates among experts and the public in quite such an intensive and in-depth way. It's one of the reasons the Lowy Institute was recently ranked among the top ten think tanks in the world for engaging with the public online.)

So my argument is that America's best option is to accommodate the rise of China and other developing countries, and that the transition to multipolarity will be much smoother and safer if the US recognizances the meliorative effect of an international society. But for the American right to recognize the necessity of such a shift in US foreign policy would require a presently unthinkable cultural shift. American conservatives are used to looking on international institutions, particularly the UN, with great suspicion...Read the rest of this post here.

Photo, of the main entrance to the UN General Assembly, New York, by Flickr user UN Photo.