Ever since the White House announced its “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance” in March and Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered his first foreign policy speech in office, the Biden administration’s foreign policy has received widespread attention. Unlike the Trump administration’s “principled realism” diplomacy, Biden’s coming to power may mean a return to idealistic diplomacy to some extent. As two “opposing” diplomatic thoughts and traditions, realism and idealism have run through US foreign policy and diplomatic practice since the day the US was founded, and jointly shaped American diplomatic style. The workshop mainly focused on the meaning, roots, interrelationship, and historical performance of idealism and realism, and their possible influences on current and future US foreign policy.

The participating scholars opined that idealism was rooted in the national characteristics, cultural tradition and domestic society of the US. That’s why it is persistent and will appear repeatedly. Although other countries also have idealistic elements in their diplomacy, it is generally believed that the typical idealistic foreign policies and behaviors in history were mainly proposed and promoted by the US. What’s more, the US has held the flag of idealism since it was founded and was a weak power. So, it is different from other countries, they said.

Idealism is, in some cases, a ruse used by policymakers and politicians to claim legitimacy for their policies and a disguise to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But, in some cases, it comes from the pressure of civil organizations and interest groups, and is supported by public opinion. In that case, it has a sincere side and is not wholly a ruse or disguise, they said.

The scholars also pointed out that US foreign policy often features an intertwining and competing merger between realism and idealism. When moral goals harm real national interests, idealism will give way to realism, which leads to double standards and hypocrisy in American diplomacy, they said.

Unbiased and sensible criticism or condemnation of the defects and limitations of US human rights and democracy should be based on an understanding of the internal logic of American idealism and realist diplomacy. Only in this way will the conclusions drawn by us be persuasive for foreigners, they concluded.