 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:01:13 |
In a call with European foreign ministers on Thursday, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said he would begin steps to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that was abandoned by the Trump administration. Today’s guest, Tom Josclelyn, thinks a series of upfront concessions to Tehran before the country’s leaders even come to the negotiating table would be an unwise foreign policy move for the Biden administration. “I’ve taken to calling it ‘servile diplomacy’ because it is very much from a submissive position,”Joscelyn tells Sarah and Steve. Tune in to hear our hosts’ take on China’s ongoing genocide against the Uighurs in Xinjiang, and the latest rocket attack on a U.S. airbase in Iraq.
Show Notes:
-“Biden Administration Formally Offers to Restart Nuclear Talks With Iran” by Lara Jakes, Michael Crowley, David E. Sanger and Farnaz Fassihi in the New York Times.
-“Biden dismisses Uighur genocide as part of China’s ‘different norms’” by Emily Jacobs in the New York Post.
-“‘Genocide’ is the wrong word for the horrors of Xinjiang” by the Economist.
-Tom Joscelyn’s Vital Interests newsletter.
| 25 | 37 |
Re Olympics, it’s a replay of 1936, and the best book on 1936 is called Nazi Games. It lays it all out. Same drill, different century.
Let’s keep in mind how bad relations are between Canada and China - and between Sweden and China. Canada has a hostage issue with China. Sweden has many issues with China and is the only country yet to expel Confucius Institutes wholly from their borders. This is the *winter* Olympics, so - Canada and Sweden, and perhaps with them the Nordics more broadly, are a really big deal.
That said, PRC would love to collect some medals in Beijing, so a boycott of geopolitically small- to middle-power countries that tend to hog all the winter medals could be a very positive development for the feelings of the Chinese people.
Re Uighurs, The Economist’s position was not described accurately in the podcast. They stated without any support that the Xinjiang camps are “not slaughtering people”. That’s the problem - if we disagree with them, we would need to focus on that claim. I disagree with them, but would be interested to know why they take the view they’ve taken - they have reported pretty well on the issue. There is evidence of killing. Not enough evidence? Or not enough killing? I can’t tell what they think.
Second, they say that we must keep dealing with China, and if we declare a genocide, then we can’t keep dealing with China. Or we will, and that diminishes the power of the term. Again I disagree with them, but that was their primary argument after assuming away mass killing, and it wasn’t made clear in the show.
The real problem - and again, I’m on board with Ottawa’s move - is that in fact the world clearly *will* continue to deal with China, and that sets the precedent that China can do whatever it wants, up to and including genocide, and expect the world to continue to trade with it, allow PRC to lead UN committees etc.
All of which is a nice setup for their walk onto the beach in Taiwan circa 2035.
I don't know what you're paying Tom Josclelyn but it's not enough.