From: allin
The discussion on US-China relations features two prominent thinkers on foreign policy: Professor John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Professor Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University [00:00:53]. Their perspectives, while sometimes converging on outcomes, diverge significantly on the underlying motivations and proposed solutions for US-China relations.
The “Deep State” and US Foreign Policy
Both Mearsheimer and Sachs describe a consistent, entrenched approach to US foreign policy across administrations, which they refer to as the “deep state” [00:01:32].
Jeffrey Sachs suggests there is “one deep State party” that includes figures like Dick Cheney, Kamala Harris, and Victoria Nuland [00:01:32]. He highlights Victoria Nuland’s presence in multiple administrations over 30 years, influencing policies toward Russia and orchestrating a coup in Ukraine in 2014 [00:01:48]. John Mearsheimer refers to Republicans and Democrats as “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum,” seeing little difference in their foreign policy [00:02:55]. He notes that Donald Trump attempted to challenge this “deep state” but largely failed [00:03:12].
Mearsheimer defines the “deep state” as the administrative state, comprising high-level bureaucrats in institutions like the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community, who have a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy favored by both major parties [00:04:19]. This state grew powerful after World War II due to the United States’ global involvement [00:04:45].
Jeffrey Sachs concurs, likening it to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s experience with “men in dark suits” who explain “the way the world really is” to new presidents [00:05:55]. He asserts that this deeply entrenched foreign policy has been consistently in place for 30 years, regardless of who is president [00:06:42].
Underlying Logic: Maximizing Power and Liberal Hegemony
Both experts agree that the primary objective of American foreign policy is to maximize global power, seeking to be a global hegemon [00:08:00]. John Mearsheimer adds that the United States, as a “fundamentally liberal country,” believes it has the “right, responsibility, and power to run around the world and remake the world in America’s image” [00:09:22]. This liberal impulse, combined with power, has largely motivated US foreign policy since the Cold War ended [00:09:42].
However, Mearsheimer argues that imposing liberal democracy on other countries often backfires (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) and erodes liberalism domestically by building a “deep state” [00:11:06]. Sachs, on the other hand, believes the US government does not genuinely care about promoting liberal democracy in other places; rather, it seeks military bases and support for its own interests, especially NATO enlargement [00:11:52]. He cites instances of US-backed coups and cynical justifications for interventions, such as the bombing of Libya [00:17:02].
US-China Relations: Threat or Opportunity?
The discussion specifically pivots to US-China relations and the concept of containment.
Mearsheimer’s View: Containment is Necessary
John Mearsheimer advocates for containing China [00:20:07]. He believes China is a “peer competitor” and the “most serious threat” to the United States [00:20:45]. He distinguishes containment from regime change, stating he is “not interested in trying to turn China into a democracy” [00:20:12].
Mearsheimer’s realist perspective prioritizes “security or survival” of the state [00:24:17]. In an “anarchic system” without a higher authority, states must be powerful to survive [00:24:50]. The US, as a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere, does not tolerate other regional hegemons [00:25:53]. China’s economic might is being translated into military power, and it aims to dominate Asia and push the US out of the region [00:25:21]. Preventing China from becoming a regional hegemon is crucial to prevent it from “roaming” the world like the US [00:33:17]. This leads to intense security competition across all domains, including high-tech [00:26:28].
Sachs’s View: China is Not a Threat, Current Policy is Misguided
Jeffrey Sachs strongly disagrees with the notion that China is a threat [00:21:49]. He describes China as a “market” with “great food, great culture, wonderful people, a civilization 10 times older than ours” [00:21:54]. From an economic perspective, a cold or hot conflict with China would “wreck California” and destroy the economy that has benefited significantly from China’s rise [00:22:13].
Sachs believes the perception of conflict with China is due to the US pursuit of global hegemony [00:23:13]. He argues that China is not a threat to US security due to geographical distance and nuclear deterrents [00:28:13]. He contends that the US should avoid provoking World War III over issues like Taiwan [00:31:24], which he calls the “stupidest thing for my grandchildren to die for imaginable” [00:31:29].
Economic Interdependence vs. Security Competition
The core difference between their views on US-China relations lies in prioritizing prosperity versus security [00:24:20]. Sachs, as an economist, believes that economics is not a zero-sum game [00:32:11]. He asserts that allowing China into the WTO enriched the US and the world [00:31:57]. He argues that US policy to “decouple” from China is a deliberate strategy to contain China, which is not smart and will not solve American manufacturing problems [00:41:17].
Mearsheimer, a realist, prioritizes security and survival in an anarchic international system [00:24:47]. He believes that states must maximize power for their own survival, leading to an “intense security competition” [00:26:28].
Risks of Containment and Regional Flashpoints
Sachs warns that the US approach, aiming for global hegemony, is “likely to get us all blown up” [00:28:07], especially in the nuclear age. He highlights the current “direct war with Russia” as an “imbecilic” policy resulting from US meddling [00:43:42]. He believes the same will happen if the US continues its confrontational stance with China [00:44:13].
Mearsheimer identifies three main flashpoints in East Asia for US-China conflict: Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the East China Sea [00:34:37]. He states that conflict is “most likely today” in the South China Sea, not Taiwan [00:34:46]. He agrees that nuclear war is a risk but believes security competition is “inevitable,” though war can be avoided [00:46:07].
Sachs suggests China’s development of a Blue Water Navy is a reaction to US strategy of “choke points” against China in the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Indian Ocean [00:38:01].
India’s Role
Regarding India, Mearsheimer views it as an ally against China, part of the Quad alliance (Australia, Japan, US, India) [00:36:34]. India’s primary concern is China, especially on their shared border in the Himalayas and in the Indian Ocean, where China is developing power projection capabilities [00:37:05].
Sachs, however, states that India is a “superpower” with its own distinctive interests and will not be an ally of the United States against China [00:39:03].
Economic Decoupling
The shift of iPhone production to India and Japan’s funding for companies leaving China to Vietnam and India are seen as part of the “decoupling” from China [00:39:55]. Jeffrey Sachs clarifies that these are “United States deliberate policy to stop you from selling things to China and to stop China buying things from you” [00:40:55], not self-inflicted wounds by China. He believes this strategy is “not smart” and will not solve American manufacturing jobs, only making things less efficient [00:41:43].
Conclusion: Inevitable Tragedy or Prudence?
John Mearsheimer concludes that he is “in an iron cage” [00:45:43], believing that the dynamics of International politics make security competition “inevitable” due to the anarchic system and states’ pursuit of power for survival [00:45:50]. While war can be avoided, as seen during the Cold War, he cannot guarantee it for the US-China competition [00:46:19]. He describes this as a “tragic aspect of the world” [00:46:38].
Jeffrey Sachs’s counter-argument is that while Mearsheimer accurately describes current US foreign policy, this “profoundly misguided approach” is likely to lead to nuclear war [00:42:55]. He advocates for “prudence” and understanding other states’ perspectives to de-conflict and avoid catastrophic war [00:28:53].