It’s fantasy to think that the US can still lay down the law as it attempted to in Alaska. Avoiding a Pacific war will take hard statecraft instead.
America’s new Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, seemed surprised by the tough talk from his Chinese counterparts when they met in Anchorage last week. He shouldn’t have been, because they were responding in an entirely predictable way to his words just moments before.
Blinken had pressed China hard on such sensitive issues as Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, and asserted America’s right to reprimand China on these issues as the leader and guardian of “the rules-based international order”.
No Chinese official could fail to respond stridently to such statements. If Blinken didn’t know this, he has a lot to learn. If he did know it, then he was clearly happy to see this first high-level meeting between the Biden administration and the Chinese government descend into a slanging match that sounded like something out of the old Cold War.
That fits everything we have heard on China from President Joe Biden and his team since the election in November. They have painted China as America’s primary strategic rival and talked up their eagerness to confront and contain it. Biden himself called it “extreme competition”.
He wants to show US voters that he is even tougher on Beijing than Donald Trump, and rally US allies and friends to his side. This seems to be working. Many people in America and around the world – including here in Australia – have cheered Blinken’s conduct at the meeting.
But once two countries start talking to one another this way it is hard to stop, so where does the US-China relationship go from here? It is vital to the whole world – and especially to Australia – that America and China find a way to reverse the spiral of escalating rivalry and find a way to get along, not least because the current trajectory brings an ever-higher risk of war. How do Biden and Blinken imagine that the abuse and name-calling in Anchorage last week help?
They would say, presumably, that it helps by setting out America’s nonnegotiable conditions for an improvement in relations. Once these are clear to the Chinese, they seem to believe, the two countries can move forward to build a new understanding that meets those conditions. All that is required is for China to adapt to the realities as spelt out by Washington.
It would be nice if this could happen because it would undoubtedly make the world a better place. But it won’t happen, because China will never accept these conditions, and America cannot impose them. They will therefore lead, not to a new understanding between Washington and Beijing, but to an even more dangerous escalating rivalry between them.
The Biden team’s vision is for the US-China relationship to return to the way it was when China acknowledged American dominance. But that was back when America’s economy was many times the size of China’s, and its military weight in Asia was incomparably stronger. Now the distribution of wealth and power has shifted fundamentally, and there is no going back to the way things were.
So the idea that America can convince or compel China to conform to its vision of a US-led rules-based order is a fantasy. China is determined to restore its position as a great power, equal to any and subordinate to none. Even with the backing of its Indo-Pacific allies, if that is forthcoming, America would have to commit immense effort and resources to resist it.
It would mean a new cold war with China, just as the atmospherics in Anchorage implied. And it would be a real Cold War, just as demanding and just as dangerous as the last one.
There is no evidence at all that the Biden administration, or the American people, understand the scale of the costs and risks involved, or are willing or able to shoulder them.
And even if they were, there is no reason to assume that a new cold war will end as happily as the old one did. America might well lose this one because China is much stronger in the ways that really matter than the Soviet Union ever was.
The reality is that if America is to remain a significant power in Asia it is going to have to do a deal with Beijing to build a new order that acknowledges the reality of Chinese power and accommodates some of its ambitions. That will be hard and unpleasant, but the alternative of escalating rivalry and the growing risk of a major war is worse.
Negotiating that new order will require real statecraft, combining toughness and resolve with a degree of flexibility and some regard for the other side’s interests and positions. That is a long way from what we heard from the Biden team in Anchorage last week.
If they don’t do better soon they will face a choice between the only two alternatives to negotiating a new order in Asia – going to war with China or withdrawing from the region. Not good outcomes, so Washington needs to change its tone.
This article has been republished from The Australian Financial Review 23 March 2021. Click here to read the original article.
Hugh White is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at Australian National University. He served for many years as a senior defence and intelligence official with the Australian government.
Comments
49 responses to “American overreach in Anchorage points to conflict with China”
Is there any opinion polling among the Australian general public on attitudes to China?
I guess I am more pessimistic than Hugh white. I can see little hope of any change in the USA. This is a county that elected Trump when the choice was between an incompetent narcissist and an American exceptionalist ideologue who still thought it was 1992. This proved disastrous but they then chose an octogenarian who still thinks it is 1970. They had a succession of Secretaries of State who were frankly scary and stupid.
The USA is desperately in need of some intelligent realistic and honest statespeople with leadership ability who can recognize that they world had changed, economically and militarily and technologically. In 2000 The USA ranked No 1 on all three, but now it is definitely second economically, possibly third or lower technologically -China, Russia, Germany and probably Israel I suspect outrank them and militarily it is anyone’s’ guess but stalemate in Afghanistan and Iraq,colliding naval vessels, expensive and delayed overuns in equipment do not inspire confidence.
If any such leadership did exist we might have seen them emerge during the COVID crisis. None did.
“only two alternatives to negotiating a new order in Asia – going to war with China or withdrawing from the region.”
It has been indicated (National Academy of Science, 2020, https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-bring-global-famine/), that even a “limited” nuclear conflict, such as between India and Pakistan, would lead to a “nuclear winter” scenario, namely freezing of large parts of the planet and thereby mass starvation, quite apart from the radiation effects, as below ()
Even a Limited India-Pakistan Nuclear War Would Bring Global Famine, Says Study: Soot From Firestorms Would Reduce Faraway Crop Production for Years (KEVIN KRAJICK |MARCH 16, 2020). “The concept of nuclear winter—a years-long planetary freeze brought on by airborne soot from nuclear bombs—has been around for decades. But the idea has been based largely on back-of-the-envelope calculations involving a total war between Russia and the United States. Now, a new multinational study incorporating the latest models of global climate, crop production and trade examines the potential effects of a lesser but perhaps more likely exchange between two nuclear-armed enemies: India and Pakistan. It suggests that even a limited war between them might cause unprecedented global food shortages and starvation lasting more than a decade. The study appears this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Of an estimated 14,000 nuclear warheads worldwide, close to 95 percent belong to the United States and Russia. India and Pakistan are thought to have about 150 each. The study examines the potential effects if they were to each set off 50 Hiroshima-size bombs—less than 1 percent of the estimated world arsenal.”
The road to what would amount to global suicide is not even strewn with good intentions …
Dear Professor Hugh White,
In view of the real possiblity of hot war between China and the US, why aren’t Australia try to reign in the aggressive and dangerous behaviour of US? US has crossed the red line a long while ago in its trade war against China. It’s no longer just a trade war. It’s US attempt to strangle China. Professor White, what would one do if one is being strangled? One would fight back for survival, right?
Doesn’t Australia care what would happen to our country and people if a hot war is triggered? I must be dumb to fear for the worst consequences for Australia of a nuclear war. Otherwise, every Australian would have been demanding our government to reign in the belligerent behaviour of US.
For the sake of our future Australian government has to reign in the US, not aiding and abetting them. I beg you, Professor White, please pass my message to our government. I am sure they will listen to you. Unlike people like Rupert Murdoch, I, like most Australians cannot afford a nuclear bunker to shelter in when nuclear war starts.
1) “But once two countries start talking to one another this way it is hard to stop, so where does the US-China relationship go from here?”
Will this lead to the Thucydides Trap and WW3 as postulated by Graham Allison? The jury is still out. But if a nuclear war breaks out then no country is safe, not even Australia, when a nuclear winter sets in and there is no sunlight for a year.
2) “America might well lose this one because China is much stronger in the ways that really matter than the Soviet Union ever was.”
This is true. According to the IMF, China’s GDP on a PPP basis surpassed the US GDP in 2014. That was 7 years ago. And if the US starts WW3, then it is possible that China and Russia will destroy the American heartland with nukes. Be warned.
Has Scott Morrison thought about being on the loosing side and having to sign a surrender treaty handing control of Australia over to China
If we succumbed to a Thucydides trap then it would mean we haven’t learned a damn thing in nearly 2,500 years.
Secondarily, if it played out like between Athens and Sparta then the US would lose. China looks much more like Sparta for a number of reasons, and the US looks far more like Athens for a number of reasons too.
Athens lost.
“so washington needs to change its tone” Correct, plus it needs to stop its warmongering and globe trotting devastation and washington needs to bring its soldiers home and apply its wealth to lifting its depleted impoverished nation back up to a civilised, educated, thinking state. FAT chance. Xerxes Biden is looking for yet another lost venture after Ukraine.
“All that is required is for China to adapt to the realities as spelt out by Washington. It would be nice if this could happen because it would undoubtedly make the world a better place.”
Correction, the Anglo world would be a better place. Mr. White still thinks the West = world. That show is coming to a close mate.
I mean the US has already SPELT out why they are targeting China.
“China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system, all the rules, values and relationships that make the world work the way we want it to,” Blinken said.
Hang on I thought it was about human rights, Xinjiang etc. etc.? Oh right its about keeping US NUMBER ONE! And what is China suppose to do? Just lay down and die so Anglos can continue to rule the waves?
Xinjiang is a hot spot because it is the gateway to Europe and enables trade routes via land, which will weaken US’s marine based military influence. Seen this movie before.
Yes it is like it is irrelevant whether China poses a threat to the world, it’s just a mandatory US position to smash down any country that dares reach its economic size and potentially rival its power. Another round of pre-emption based on US paranoia that explains why there is always a need to push a list of phony reasons, and in this case why China must be clobbered.
“Sir, the accused is guilty because he may commit a crime. We haven’t actually ascertained what he may do, or have any evidence that he will do it, but it’s a possibility all the same and so he is guilty and should be punished.”
Just so, George. A brilliant summary of the internal Chinese political system, especially for dangerous dissidents like Christians, and one worth resisting here.
So in the end it is about Christians.
I think you just exposed your real purpose for being here.
Christians certainly matter to me, George. 2.4 billion of them in the world. People like you and Meeple may dismiss them as only half-people, lacking your clarity of insight or strength of purpose or all your other manifest perfections. At least you don’t have the sneering disdain of Meeple who seem to be oblivious to anything beyond his five senses, and is totally ignorant of the philosophical limits of reason; I’ll give you that.
But in fact – and you once avowed this was your purpose too, though lately you can’t move away from it fast enough – I loathe injustice and totalitarianism everywhere, including when carried out by Christians. And when carried out by China. That’s my purpose for being here, or anywhere. I talk about other injustices on other sites that have a broader purpose than pro-China propaganda. But very typical of posters on this site to latch on to a half-truth and use it to dismiss any view but your own. If my purpose were only about protecting Christians, though I claim it is broader, would that be wrong? Why are you looking for a secret agenda that enables you simply to dismiss anything I write? Oh, it’s all about Christians; no need to think any further. Oh, it came from the mainstream media; obviously false, no need to read it.
If it were all about Christians, as indeed it partly is, would that be worse than dedicating all your time to protecting a thuggish and bullying regime intent on remaking the world in its repellent image? I’m not bowing to you on moral grounds, George, I’m afraid.
I think you’ll find most people, including those here who you simplistically categorise e.g. pro-China, anti-Christian, are far more concerned with how religions generally, and Christianity in this instance, are ‘weaponised’ for purposes other than what the teachings of those religions proclaim.
Ergo, Zenz – do you even ‘know’ Zenz? Do you know how he earns a crust? Are you aware of how his ‘beliefs’ have evolved? Are you aware of the prominence he gained, after he was ‘introduced’ to Pompeo, a fellow Pentacostal rapturist?
Have you bothered to understand the role played by ‘Zenzism’ in the demonisation, indeed the calls for the obliteration, of China?
And ripper sophistry, Barnyard.
You write of people here being “totally ignorant of the philosophical limits of reason” (and, couldn’t we just spend the rest of our lives ‘debating’ that!)
But, when you later write; “… dedicating all your time to protecting a thuggish and bullying regime intent on remaking the world in its repellent image?”, it seems to me you’ve set your own limits on reason at roughly zero.
Absolutely I know Zenz. Man Lee asked the same question yesterday. But, as I said to him and have said repeatedly, it is a failure of reason and imagination to reject everything he says because you don’t like the source. I’m not a pre-millenialist, and I don’t agree with Zenz on much of his theology. I find that irrelevant to his comments on the Uighurs, which are true or false or in-between on their own merits – something no one here but me seems capable of grasping. It seems most of you dismiss anything you might disagree with because of the source – no need actually to read it, let alone engage with it. That keeps the echo-chamber safe and secure.
Calls for the obliteration of China – what ludicrous and absurd hyperbole! Another axiom of the pro-China propagandists – America wants to go to war, is simply seeking an excuse, against the peace-loving, democracy-promoting CCP. I just have to pause a moment to vomit.
You are completely entitled to make your own judgment of my capacity to reason. I have no problem with that; I too make such judgments about people sometimes. But your judgment of my capacity is as much a matter of indifference to me as I am sure my judgment of yours (should I make one, which I haven’t yet) is a matter of indifference to you.
I’m happy to discuss philosophical limits to reason with you, if you wish – it was a key part of my uncompleted PhD thesis, but – like the contribution of Christianity with George – not here.
Barney, I find yourself a useful demonstration of propaganda dementia and extreme psychological projection. Nothing you say make any sense or backed up by anything yet you indulge in yourself thinking you are some kind of master of the universe. Please share your unworldly insights with us mere mortals.
“I find that irrelevant to his comments on the Uighurs, which are true or false or in-between on their own merits – something no one here but me seems capable of grasping.”
Lol okay Barney, what’s the merit again? Please I’m all ears. You seems to think it’s true in all your accusations yet now you proclaim it can be true, false or bit of both lol. We know how Zenz came up with the BS numbers, it’s in his paper, let’s talk merits instead of hiding behind weasel words shall we.
As everyone can see, propaganda dementia is often irriversible and can often lead to outright hallucinations. This is why manufacturing concensus works!
“Half truths” lol, can you point these out without bringing your fellow fundamentalist Christian extremist Zenz out? Man you are quite the showman.
What about talking snakes and virgin births? Is that the “whole truth” then or just some tribalistic tales to herd the plebs under a “us vs them” mentality? God this is tiring.
“like you and Meeple may dismiss them as only half-people, lacking your clarity of insight or strength of purpose or all your other manifest perfections.”
No Barney I have never said that in the least, and I challenge you to point out where I have. All of my comments are on my profile, you are welcome to check them. In fact in the past I have said that many of the teachings of (the purported) Jesus for example can be used as secular equivalents, and that it is silly to throw the baby out with the bath water. I did study philosophy, so in a world that appears to be losing any sense of ethics, I’m for ethics. But not necessarily what Religions teach, even Buddhism. I think concepts like hell and heaven are what we can experience here on Earth, so there is no need to wait for an afterlife that is based purely on belief. So I don’t agree on moral teachings based on notions like sin and guilt and that that conditions the reward you might get in some sort of afterlife. Its a belief, you cannot prove it to me. In my personal experience it is a terrible to be inflicted with such ideas as children, because it took me years to get rid of them. I used to call them Christian ghosts in my head, hard things to get rid of if you have been programmed with them. I came to a realisation that the concept of a subjective god, or one that intervenes in peoples lives for good or worse could be removed by Occam’s razor. It is a personal conclusion based on a personal inquiry and research, I don’t expect you to do the same thing. But I also ask that Christians don’t force their views on me, its a Christian habit as we see with government and lobbying here, and I don’t like the propensity of some religions to proselytise.
There is a huge difference between what the essence of a religion actually says and how it is interpreted by its followers too. People can derive any interpretation they want and that includes members of any priesthood or within the hierarchy of a Church, Mosque, Buddhist temple of any other place of worship.
In my view, ‘faith not reason’ as Luther outlined in his thesis that may have been nailed to a Church door proclaimed, is a very dangerous path to follow. In the past it saw witches burn, columns of people self-flagellating themselves around Europe as method considered genuine to avoid getting the plague, and many tongues being torn from victims mouths because they were called heretics. It was the basis of several inquisitions, and a plethora of awful wars in Europe.
In recent years we saw faith not reason practised in Iraq by ISIS who simply followed the same path as Wahhab a century before.
As I have said before, I am not here to protect China, or for any of the reasons you continue to claim. I’m certainly not here to endorse what China does if it is a human rights violation. I am here to to argue that China never gets a right of reply, that people frequently misunderstand the culture, that our response in Australia is absurdly cowered to the US and causing racist reactions, that the government milks those racist reactions for votes, that we are being given fake information on a number of issues, and that the US is a far greater bully than China. That Australia and its government and media are sowing seeds for another war on the US’s behalf – to our enormous detriment. I also think that there is a better way to work with China than hectoring it all of the time, and hoping ongoing sprays of finger pointing vilification is somehow going to work.
“Why are you looking for a secret agenda that enables you simply to dismiss anything I write”
I don’t, I just dismiss what you write because I don’t agree with it.
This is what you said:
“Just so, George. A brilliant summary of the internal Chinese political system, especially for dangerous dissidents like Christians”.
Well that is the first time you have actually said that. I know you are a publicly proclaimed Christian, so it is clearly one of your reasons you might be using for pushing your case against China. How much it is, is what I am trying to ascertain. It is common within US administrations to push for outcomes based on religious right wing Christian views, we have just witnessed that with the claim of genocide in Xinjiang that was corrected later. Even the Australian government voted a few days ago against it being classified as a genocide.
Another point is that you frequently come on the attack against me these days, rather than vice versa and I am often the one to respond in countering it.
“Another point is that you frequently come on the attack against me these
days, rather than vice versa and I am often the one to respond in
countering it.”
That is true, George, and I’m sorry for it. I think we are exasperating each other more than we should. I will try to remember that, and be less exasperated. We’ve agreed that if we sat down over a coffee our worldviews would align in many areas.
I’m sure you realised that “my dangerous dissidents like Christians” was intended to be sarcasm, as they are no threat to the CCP except that they recognise a transcendent authority, a spiritual authority more ultimate than the CCP. I usually conjoin them with Uighurs and Tibetans and Falun Gong and Mongols and democratic dissidents so I think you know, as I claimed, that my concern is not only Christians. But Christians in China are under severe and perpetual attack – not everywhere all the time, but in different places most of the time. Churches are pulled down, house church leaders are jailed, sometimes with large numbers of their congregations, the government is replacing crosses in churches with pictures of Chairman Mao, and demanding total allegiance to the CCP.
Finally, as the proud possessor of a theology degree (first class hons.), I’d like to explain why the notion of Christianity you outlined above is not quite right. Notions of Christianity clearly vary widely, I admit, but there are parameters and canons within which ideas can be discussed and disambiguated.
Barney, very happy to take up a debate with you on the amount of bloodshed caused by ‘Christians’ through history, not only in China but also in Europe and anywhere else. Christianisation by imperialists of most of the colonialist world for a start. That’s the lie they sent back home to endorse their actions. And spare me, America and its exceptionalism is always fuelled with right wing Christian righteousness.
Poor old Moses, he should have written: ‘Thou shalt murder’, ‘Thou shalt steal”, “Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbour”.
It would be far more accurate.
Hi George. One of the irritating things about Disqus is that posts get separated from what they are replying to. This is a reply to your rewritten 10 Commandments:
Well, that would be a good discussion which I am happy to have. But not here.
Just one comment for now: I hope you realise that the values you are using to condemn Christianity
s values are Christian ones. They were not found in the ancient world, and they are not found in much of the contemporary world. They have become so ingrained that people absorb them with the cultural air.
What are you talking about Barney? Buddhism, a variant of Hinduism which contains a far better compilation on range of teachings that resemble the Gospels than Christianity, gained its beginnings in the 6th Century BC when the Buddha was born. Buddhism is a non-violent religion by those teachings by default. The essence is on compassion, empathy, generosity, kindness, altruism, non-violence etc.
Socrates outlined hundreds of moral arguments via the works of Plato and was highly respective of ‘virtue’. Because he used Socratic dialectic you have to read many pages to get what he is talking about in terms of virtue. That was 6th Century BC too. He was executed due to his convictions towards those virtues.
Confucius or Kong zi already said “do unto others as you will have them do unto you” six hundred years before the purported Jesus. He suggested that leaders should be benevolent and be of high moral character otherwise why should anyone follow them.
Some theologists and others that have studied the person known as Jesus have even considered he had gained many of his teachings from the East, as did Pythagoras.
George, I promised myself I wouldn’t discuss it on here – it’s the quintessence of casting pearls before swine.
But Socrates was not 6th century BC but 5th, and Buddhists are no more peaceful than any other people. Violence is inherent in human nature, as the Japanese in World War II, Sri Lanka in the past 30 years and Myanmar now amply demonstrate. Buddhist teaching promotes peace, so does Christian. It’s just that the practitioners very often fail, as do atheist regimes such as Communist China and Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia etc.
May I ask again, what’s wrong with caring about Christians? Possibly up to 100 million in China, though more probably 60-70 million. You’ve implied caring about Christians invalidates my right to argue here, and I’d like you to justify that.
Yes agree, my mistake, thank you for the correction, Socrates was 5th century, but that ‘s peripheral to the argument anyway.
Your claim was “I hope you realise that the values you are using to condemn Christianity’s
values are Christian ones”. They were not found in the ancient world”
Untrue, I think I supplied evidence for that, and that the values are not only found in Christianity.
“Violence is inherent in human nature”, but citing the Japanese only. Not very fair is it. You really need to brush up on the causes of WWII in the Pacific and direct some of your observations to the West.
I would argue that violence is not inherent in human beings, but a condoned way of behaviour, especially for men and the leaders of states. Most of us are not violent, Its world leaders who have no constraints or accountability forced on them that get away with it.
And why didn’t Moses say ” Thou shalt not murder (or kill)” if he really meant ‘thou shalt not murder but hey, its human nature so we can’t do much about it”. Don’t you think he was wanting to modify human behaviour with such a directive so that they would stop killing?
Take the 17th Century in Europe for example it was nothing but wars in Europe all sparked by people who called themselves Christians, staring with the 30 Years War. The Rape of Magdeburg was comparable to the Rape of Nanjing. Catholics and Protestants fighting against each other, and when the protestants won in Holland against the Catholics they started fighting with each other over whether we have free will or not.
So if the teachings so often fail, when is a Christian a Christian, when is a Buddhist a Buddhist, it is not just a label that goes on a can. And since politics and religion are intertwined when is the person acting through their faith and when is it politics?
” You’ve implied caring about Christians invalidates my right to argue here, and I’d like you to justify that.”
No just that you took my criticism about the US being a bully pushing China’s right to trade into a corner through containment and then turned it into your own argument about Christians in China. You may have a valid point, but what did it have to do with what I said?
And please supply me with any references concerning your claims on Christians in China.
Spot on, George. Christianity was just another tool to conquer or divide the natives in the destruction of so many peoples during the last 500 years. Whether it’s the Spanish or Anglos or other Europeans. The Philippines is a ‘lucky’ country indeed- having the misfortune of getting the corruptive influence of both the Spanish and Anglos. It has been a country that seems to be permanently on its knees.
The world would be many times better off without the fairy tales of some Jewish tribes from the Middle East. As it is, we are facing the ‘Rapture’ fantasies of fundamentalist Christians, including the nutter in the office of the PM. If anyone will end our world with a first strike nuclear Armageddon, it will be these mad Christian mullahs!!
Yup it was Japan in the 80s, quite a beating it got too. If you look at computer shows in the 80s, you would find most of the semi conductors were from Japan. All of a sudden US took over in the 90s, I’m sure it was through “free market” lolz like nothing to do with plaza accord or the fact they ordered Japanese government to arrest Toshiba execs. Man this movie is getting a bit old.
A quote from first president George Washington:
“nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
The US does not remember its own history, and resembles nothing of the aspiration of what it once may have been.
Professor White,
For most parts, I agree with your analysis. However, some of your statements reveal a bias that I can’t agree with. When you say, “Many people in America and around the world – including here in Australia – have cheered Blinken’s conduct at the meeting.” It all depends on whose company you keep. I suspect that there are quite a number of smaller “inconsequential” countries highly dependent on the Chinese for their economic well-being that would not be cheering. Perhaps there are many in Australia itself that are not cheering.
The reality that China will no longer be spoken to by the Americans like they did in the past has not yet sunk into the American psyche.
“…..the two countries can move forward to build a new understanding that meets those conditions. All that is required is for China to adapt to the realities as spelt out by Washington.” There is the presumption on the part of the Americans that they call the shots when they deal with other countries; an unequal relationship that the powerful impose on the less empowered. The treatment of the “other” had not been so unequal vis-a-vis the Russians which had enough military strength to elicit some respect from the Americans. Even in the Cuban Missile Crises, the Americans had to compromise by removing their missiles from Turkey and promising not to invade Cuba.
I think the Americans set out on a wrong footing. It seems to me that the Chinese were there hoping to repair a deeply compromised trade relationship and a political hostility involving what they consider to be their internal affairs, which by any definition is indeed their internal affairs. On the other hand, the Americans came with terms and conditions to assure themselves and others of their existential supremacy couched in sanctimonious human rights terms. The problem is that the US is a mature power not realising that it is no longer the supreme one; China is a rising power which has not yet learned to use that power adroitly or subtly. My conclusion is that the US should have known better after all these years of playing the world stage. I cannot resist using the Malay term for such a behaviour. They call it “Wayang”. The word is synonymous with “Theatre” but has a lot more connotations of drama and risibility in it.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
I for one am not cheering. We should all be very fearful. An Empire in decline is dangerous and unpredictable. It has been suggested that China and America may agree to a nuclear war, but not to target each other. How would we sit. Pine Gap and all that.
I think the change we are witnessing in global power configuration from unipolar to multipolar is irreversible.
Leading the change we have Russia and China, both old civilizations each with its own history and historical memories of having won and lost in the power game spanning many centuries. They have now entered into an historical alignment and will not be dissuaded from proceeding into a multipolar and shared global future.
Resisting the change we have the United States, a relative newcomer to global power politics, albeit with a UK mentor, with no historical memory of having lost, adrift in its perceived omnipotence and without any idea of how to adapt to the emerging changes.
The danger, as I see it, is that the U.S. will rely only on its military might, having used this might since its inception to get what it wanted, and which did lead it into a short-lived period of global domination. Is the U.S. even capable of adapting? Can it pull its head in without first reverting to violence?
In short, can it learn to cooperate, and not only confront? I am not overly confident in that. So much depends on the combined skill of the Russians and Chinese to gently, gently bring the U.S. into a more civilized awareness of the world.
One way they are doing that is by slowly but surely creating workarounds to the U.S,’s dominance of global finance. Another way is by building an apparently awesome defensive military ability.
Another way is by making friends, not enemies.
From what we have seen lately, when the topic of multipolarity comes up, it means forming a multipolarity of ‘coalition of the killing’ states on which it sits on top of as a mono-popularity.
The US was tempted more than a few times to do a nuclear strike on both the Chinese (during the Korean war) and the Russians (during the Kennedy years). The USA is the ever-present danger to civilisation, because it is inconceivable that the Russians or Chinese would want to launch a first strike on the US.
As it goes down the slippery slope of real decline, the US will be tempted again to strike. Especially if a military clash against China quickly escalates.
It is in the interest of everyone on the planet that the Russians and Chinese have clear counter-strike nuclear capacity to deter the sometimes clueless guys who have the capacity to destroy everything. Perhaps Russia and China should have a military alliance, including a shared nuclear deterrent capability.
I thought they had!
Russian and China are not a military alliance, but they probably have an unspoken shared nuclear deterrent. But it would be better that it is somehow made very clear to the US Military that a second strike from Russia and China will be launched after an American first strike. That it will be MAD -mutually assured destruction.
Can you say Japan, 1941?
If American policy on China cuts deep into the ordinary American pockets and the economic underclass in the US expands, then the citizens would turn against such wasteful policy when they don’t have fruits on the table. In a long drawn Cold War, the country where their citizens can tolerate hardship better, is the winner. Hence, we do not see any relief in sight until many Americans complain about their dramatic drop in living standards due to a huge pentagon bill.
The long-suffering masses tend to be victims of nationalist demagoguery, talked into blaming some outside country rather than the real cause of their pain. It’s one of the reasons why democratic régimes are so aggressive. Nazism was a profoundly democratic movement that grew in a period of deprivation. Democracy and demagogue share the same Greek root. The notion that the demos are a bunch of heroes, whose sentiments, if allowed to dominate, produce a perfect world, is a lie straight out of the demagogues’ toolbox.
Keeping the peace is a matter of profound expertise acquired through long study. It cannot be expected to come from people who have never had a chance to learn it because the struggle for survival takes up all their time. Those who really love the people are their educators.
It is lamentable that all commentators including professors keep up with the mantra of the US being the leader and the guardian of rules-based international order. It has not been the case since 1945 at least and probably never. Why do people keep repeating something which is factually untrue? Inertia? Ignorance? Reverence? Brain washing? All of the above?
Unfortunately mass bullies like America have no idea they behave as such, they’ve gotten used to pushing their weight around and they are playing as usual with the fates of millions of other people lives. They are currently seriously underestimating China and it has drawn a line. All that the US do is to put together another posse for their wild west justice, another half-baked coalition of the willing to go round up another invented baddy. To do that they go everywhere they can in the world and spread pernicious gossip, and one day that is going to reap a surprising negative reward that bullies never expect. It is the third time I see America do this in my life, and every time it is American aggression,violence, and monumental repetition of lies that push their cart.