Let me begin by stating that it is a great honor to share a debate with Joseph Nye. That said, I am unpersuaded by his arguments, though they are, as expected, richly thoughtful and historically informed.
He writes: “Withdrawal from the Paris climate accords or the World Health Organization is not a sign of realism.” It surely is. The Paris climate pact was not even a cooperative agreement in the true sense of the term. There was no mutual adjustment of policies. Instead, the parties pledged to do whatever they want to do, however and whenever they decide to do it. You and I can sign such an agreement about the future of our lives right now. It was a failure to agree. Yet, Al Gore and his compatriots cried with joy as if something monumental had been achieved. How many liberals who decry Trump’s withdrawal from the pact could tell you what precisely he withdrew from? How many know that China was designated a “developing country,” to which the United States pledged to provide funding and technical support to assist with emissions reductions? How many know that China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions and has suffered no repercussions? How many know that U.S. greenhouse emissions have dropped under Trump in 2019? Precious few. Yet, these same “environmentalists”—with their post-modern, cosmopolitan views of borders, patriotic nationalism, and other traditional loyalties as expendable social constructs—express outrage, “Shame on you, Orange Man.”
As for withdrawing from WHO, the U.S. contributed approximately $450 million a year (the most of any country), while China pays approximately $50 million a year. What did U.S. taxpayers receive in exchange for their investment? WHO officials praised Chinese “transparency,” ignored warnings about the virus from Taiwan, repeated Chinese claims that COVID-19 could not be spread from person-to-person, and opposed the U.S. decision to place a travel ban on China in the initial days of the crisis. If realists are correct that great powers create international institutions primarily to serve their national, rather than international, interests, why is it “un-realist” for the U.S. to withdraw from an organization that seeks to do the bidding of its near-peer competitor?
As for John Bolton, he is no realist of any flavor. He and his fellow neo-conservatives believe that regime types (whether a state is democratic or nondemocratic), not the international structure of anarchy, determine state interests and behaviors. Like Woodrow Wilson but unlike realists, Bolton classifies states as “good” and “bad.” In contrast, realists treat states as billiard balls of different weights depending on their relative capabilities. Consequently, no realist would decide to shed national blood and treasure in a foolish attempt to democratize the Middle East. What is truly mind-boggling is that Trump would hire Bolton as his national security adviser. Indeed, most of the people that Trump has placed in positions of authority have been cold warriors, who represent everything that Trump and his supporters despise. This is the President’s greatest failing to date.