Fukuyama vs Kagan

I don't know if you often have an hour to spend in intellectual conversation (as a spectator, that is), but if you do check out bloggingheads.tv. Each day they have two pundits/columnists/intellectuals participate in a one on conversation. The one I'm linking to is a match-up of two heavyweights, Francis Fukuyama, of End of History fame, and Robert Kagan, chief intellectual of the neo-con set. They discuss how China and Russia fit into the world order. The link is here.

Some quick thoughts and observations of this blog-isode:

*(Personal thought) Would territorial wars return if the US wasn't the world's policeman?

*Kagan is a rock-solid nation-statist

*Kagan seems to want US-China confrontation

*Fukuyama sees an existent social contract in China based mostly on economic performance

*I think Fukuyama is smarter and more nuanced, sorry Bob :)

*Is Kagan's great power historical paradigm correct?

*Kagan doesn't like Zakaria's view of world affairs... Boo!

*Fukuyama doesn't want to make China the new USSR.

*(Personal thought) How do you create a world system that guides or ties international actors, mainly states, into good behavior?

*I think Kagan is right about Russia having no legitimate stake in Kosovar independence. Fukuyama wanted to postpone indefinitely as a bargaining chip.

*Fukuyama makes an interesting point about Kosovar independence and the Basques and Scots.

*(Personal thought) The US support of torture was wrong, because now we don't have the moral authority to tell others they can't do it. Doing it because you can is never a legitimate reason.