Read on Twitter
I second this reply to @thomaswright08's article in @TheAtlantic, where he takes on our arguments in @NYTOpinion. I also add that Wright's Europe story is not, in fact, self-evidently correct. He argues Europe's cooperative stance toward China has failed & shouldn't be emulated. https://twitter.com/stephenwertheim/status/1264568600024809475
But his chronology & causal connections are unclear. He seems to attribute all bad things China has done since the pandemic's start to Europe's allegedly weak strategy, while mentioning not one thing China has done right or how that could have resulted from Europe's strategy.
Some of the bad PRC behaviors he points to are much more obviously responses to America's nonsensically belligerent stance in the crisis. E.g. he refers to how some PRC officials promoted the conspiracy theory that the virus originated from a US Army lab--but this was likely
a response to how prominent US politicians (e.g. @SenTomCotton) & media were suggesting it leaked from a Chinese biosecurity lab. Wright also ignores how PRC tamped down such narratives in late March after US & China agreed diplomatically to deescalate. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/04/03/us-must-recognize-that-china-is-not-a-monolith-covid-19/
More notably, the reality is sometimes foreign countries' strategies have limited effect in shaping outcomes when there's acute domestic pressure in target country outweighing them. CCP leadership is under immense pressure internally in wake of China's greatest crisis in decades.
This is leading the Chinese government to behave in less "responsible" ways internationally than has been their norm and than their grand strategy dictates. See https://twitter.com/baggottcarter/status/1255231690852663300
When the motive for China's bad behavior is domestic insecurity, it's unclear how a confrontational strategy promotes better outcomes. More likely, it will exacerbate the dynamic by heightening internal insecurity & playing into the nationalist propaganda of the party apparatus.
Of course, it's very important to call out the bad behavior, but likely more effective to do so by appealing publicly to China's better angels rather than attacking its demons, coupled with stern private diplomatic signals. See advice from @ryanl_hass: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/19/the-us-and-china-need-to-relearn-how-to-coordinate-in-crises/
Perhaps even more egregiously, Wright ignores any good things China has done, including providing substantial medical aid abroad, participating in multilateral vaccine efforts with Europe and others, and agreeing to a WHO investigation. Many hawks have dismissed these as efforts
by China to deflect attention from its failures in managing the outbreak, neutralize blowback for the pandemic originating there, & bolster PRC soft power. But of course those are their motives! That's why states do what they do: to enhance their power & promote their interests.
The best case outcome in IR is when states seek to promote their power & interests through positive-sum behavior. When China is attacked for being devious for such pro-social behaviors, it makes them feel they can't win, strengthening the hands of the so-called "Wolf Warriors."
In this case, it's plausible that China's positive behaviors--such as cooperating with Europe in vaccine development and agreeing to a WHO investigation--were at least partially caused, or at least facilitated, by Europe’s strategy of engagement with Beijing.
Though even here, I think that's just part of the story. The bigger picture is that China's aspiration to be seen as a responsible global leader is central to its grand strategy. China, authoritarian though it is domestically, is not seeking power through a strategy of autarky.
It is seeking power thru international trade, investment, & diplomacy. China knows it must be seen as legitimate internationally or such a strategy will encounter costly friction & resistance. So although they do not feel it necessary to abide by "Western" norms, and they seek,
as all states do, to revise some norms in ways that promote their interests, they ultimately do want to be seen as upholding basic norms of int'l order & reciprocity. They want to be seen as pro-social members of the int'l community, esp. in this crisis given its origin in China.
This motive is competing w/ CCP's desire to deflect blame & boost domestic morale thru nationalism, producing mixed behavior. Portraying that behavior as more uniformly nefarious than it is impedes crafting of strategy that appeals to PRC's better angels & neutralizes its demons.
