A position of neutrality in the name of free economic development and non-interference is of course the ideal one in theory, but in practice the other large power is not playing by that rule at all.
What it means in practice, and it has been the case so far and to this day, is that US has a blank check to sabotage China's trade partners one by one. Countries directly adjacent to China are perhaps easier to defend, but if the pattern of US and its vassals getting unlimited free hits vs countries not directly adjacent to China, then it rather undermines the vision of making bilateral and multilateral partnerships around the world.
In short, I think reality will sooner or later compel PRC to do as the USSR did - with the necessary ideological modifications of course - and actively sponsor "wars of national liberation" from the US-hegemony system.
If Iran goes the way of Libya and Syria, and then Pakistan, and so on and so on, then indeed China will never be considered a "peer" of the US. It's that simple. One can of course point to necessary conditions for active support, to do with the suitability of government in the countries in question. But if one is too picky, there will be no results at all. US is not picky in the slightest when is in the cold-war proxy mode.
the question you need to ask is whether the US has benefited from the proxy mode and its underhanded machinations. A central point in my argument is such seemingly "clever" moves ultimately backfire. If the US hasn't learned that, so much the better because it will be worse off for it. China doesn't want to play this game, period.
in your example with Libya and Syria, I understand the concern Iran or Pakistan may fall due to US sabotage. But why do you assume China wants to be a "peer" with such a hegemon in undermining others? Does winning mean so much that you go as low as the enemy you despise?
I don't think the world wants a new hegemon China to replace the old one. Maybe I sound idealistic but who really wants to hail "the old king is dead. Long live the new king"?
Thanks for your response. To the first question, since becoming a global power in the early 20th century, the US has become involved in other countries with the goal of changing their government to a more subservient one, something on the order of 100 times. The success rate is roughly 40%. Failures are as often as not followed by repeat attempts. Much of this was in the context of the cold war, and the benefit there was that the USSR eventually collapsed. The US too bankrupted itself in the process in a way, and having to end the gold standard and go into permanent money printing mode, especially via the exorbitant MIC spending of the 1960s (peaking at over 8% GDP during theoretical peacetime!). But by making an alliance with PRC, US escaped geopolitical consequences for half a century so far. Post cold war, the goal of the US was to stop the emergence of rival powers - which was ineffective insofar as China is concerned, but was positively effective with the EU and Latin America, and the entire Middle East is fragmented and largely helpless apart from Yemen and maybe Iran - that remains to be seen. ASEAN is on a trajectory toward strategic independence. So it is a mix.
However I am not suggesting China should replicate the crude and self-contradictory approach of the neocons. Nor am I suggesting that China export ideology like the USSR did or US claimed to (but upon inspection US typically just picked proxies who were the most likely to win and remain loyal, which consisted of two patterns: far-right-wing or autocratic governments, and non-gov-groups which were unashamed of violence but loyal by means of corruptible leadership).
Regarding what I think a fundamentally first-class power like China can do, I believe there is a sensible middle ground here, which differs from simply repeating the behavior of the late 20th century hegemon.
China has now graduated to the highest level, where it isn't plausible any more for the US to target China directly, but its global relationships will be targeted constantly.
If one is repeatedly attacked and does nothing, an opponent such as the US will simply escalate - by proxy - until there is no choice but to act. I would say that not all battlegrounds are equally favorable though. The near ones may be easier to defend, but as the battleground tends to get destroyed in the process, the outcome may be more expensive. Case in point, in my opinion, being the choice of facing the US in Iran or doing it in Pakistan, for instance.
During the Korean and Vietnam war, China didn't have to keep an eye on its purse [trade]. when coming to the aide of its neighbors. Imho, today she does, and that might hamper [influence] her actions in/with/during these conflicts.
China's position has a certain nobility to it but is also very perilous and smells of appeasement and is self-isolating which is fundamental to Western strategy. The West is an all-consuming monster that feeds on war and will not stop until its nose is bloodied.
China and Russia must face the reality they are facing off against a West that is crazy with desperation fighting their last gasp battle for global dominance.
The US only respects raw power and China and Russia should consider a preemptive strike of their own.
The US is playing its usual compulsive game of brinkmanship now on a planetary scale and their needs to be a powerful countervail to its insane recklessness.
If Iran falls the war only escalates and becomes more debilitating for all. If the West suffers a decisive defeat in the Iran/Israel war it would check its ability and momentum to proceed further with their insane war agenda.
I completely disagree with your thesis. This is nothing more than emotional venting but will never result in positive outcome. Rational and cool-headed calculation is a must to win such high-stake games. If China or Russia behaves recklessly just like the wild thrashing US hegemon with Israel as a mad dog unleashed, they would do the world no service. If they get defeated due to lack of strategic patience and ill-advised moves, then the world will live in perpetual tyranny. Who do you think will stand up against Israel, the US or the west if China or Russia falls? Like I said in the article, this line of argument is a poison pill and a Trojan horse to bait China, the opposition of your intentions as I assume.
first time I ever heard this quote. Do you know Mao's son was killed by the Americans in the Korea war? I would think it is Russia that is trying to make good with the US now, no?
The quote is from "Lost Chance in China: The World War II Dispatches" by John S. Service, ed. Joseph W. Esherick (New York: Random House, 1974), p. 372–73.
Victor Gao said something quite similar just most recently. Gao sseems to be always a good indicator, what the preponderant thinking re foreign policy in Zhongnanhai is. On the loud and unrestrained side in previous years or as mild as cucumber as here:
Russia's problem is, they have direct borders with the US empire, an empire which has lost even the most casual links with common decency. And it has vulnerable borders.
I don't think China has ever trusted the US. It has put up with it. China will no doubt stand up against US bully, but Iran is simply not a core interest. China is not the world's policeman and never wants to be. Thank goodness China doesn't think like the european whites and their descedents - China doesn't have the "whiteman's burden". Let them fight all over the place. But if they threaten China's redline, we'll see who will be the last man standing. China is toast by whom? if you think the US can take China down, you haven't been paying attention.
One would expect a bit more expressions of solidarity with a fellow member of the with only ten members relatively exclusive BRICS chat group, if it is to attain any meaning.
Antonio d. G. also indicates the Niemoeller problem: "First they came for them, and I did not care, than for those, amd I did not care, and now they are coming for me."
why did you imply China has not expressed solidarity? what constitutes such in your estimate? do you know China is supplying intel, missile guidance satellite signals, and missile parts to Iran covertly? does China need to broadcast everything it does with a megaphone and inform every onlooker what it is doing? are you going to support Israel and the US now that China or Russia may not be doing enough to help Iran in your estimation? what are you doing to help other than suggesting others to fight? is your government doing that?
spare the emotional ranting and empty rhetoric and get a handle on reality.
A position of neutrality in the name of free economic development and non-interference is of course the ideal one in theory, but in practice the other large power is not playing by that rule at all.
What it means in practice, and it has been the case so far and to this day, is that US has a blank check to sabotage China's trade partners one by one. Countries directly adjacent to China are perhaps easier to defend, but if the pattern of US and its vassals getting unlimited free hits vs countries not directly adjacent to China, then it rather undermines the vision of making bilateral and multilateral partnerships around the world.
In short, I think reality will sooner or later compel PRC to do as the USSR did - with the necessary ideological modifications of course - and actively sponsor "wars of national liberation" from the US-hegemony system.
If Iran goes the way of Libya and Syria, and then Pakistan, and so on and so on, then indeed China will never be considered a "peer" of the US. It's that simple. One can of course point to necessary conditions for active support, to do with the suitability of government in the countries in question. But if one is too picky, there will be no results at all. US is not picky in the slightest when is in the cold-war proxy mode.
the question you need to ask is whether the US has benefited from the proxy mode and its underhanded machinations. A central point in my argument is such seemingly "clever" moves ultimately backfire. If the US hasn't learned that, so much the better because it will be worse off for it. China doesn't want to play this game, period.
in your example with Libya and Syria, I understand the concern Iran or Pakistan may fall due to US sabotage. But why do you assume China wants to be a "peer" with such a hegemon in undermining others? Does winning mean so much that you go as low as the enemy you despise?
I don't think the world wants a new hegemon China to replace the old one. Maybe I sound idealistic but who really wants to hail "the old king is dead. Long live the new king"?
Thanks for your response. To the first question, since becoming a global power in the early 20th century, the US has become involved in other countries with the goal of changing their government to a more subservient one, something on the order of 100 times. The success rate is roughly 40%. Failures are as often as not followed by repeat attempts. Much of this was in the context of the cold war, and the benefit there was that the USSR eventually collapsed. The US too bankrupted itself in the process in a way, and having to end the gold standard and go into permanent money printing mode, especially via the exorbitant MIC spending of the 1960s (peaking at over 8% GDP during theoretical peacetime!). But by making an alliance with PRC, US escaped geopolitical consequences for half a century so far. Post cold war, the goal of the US was to stop the emergence of rival powers - which was ineffective insofar as China is concerned, but was positively effective with the EU and Latin America, and the entire Middle East is fragmented and largely helpless apart from Yemen and maybe Iran - that remains to be seen. ASEAN is on a trajectory toward strategic independence. So it is a mix.
However I am not suggesting China should replicate the crude and self-contradictory approach of the neocons. Nor am I suggesting that China export ideology like the USSR did or US claimed to (but upon inspection US typically just picked proxies who were the most likely to win and remain loyal, which consisted of two patterns: far-right-wing or autocratic governments, and non-gov-groups which were unashamed of violence but loyal by means of corruptible leadership).
Regarding what I think a fundamentally first-class power like China can do, I believe there is a sensible middle ground here, which differs from simply repeating the behavior of the late 20th century hegemon.
China has now graduated to the highest level, where it isn't plausible any more for the US to target China directly, but its global relationships will be targeted constantly.
If one is repeatedly attacked and does nothing, an opponent such as the US will simply escalate - by proxy - until there is no choice but to act. I would say that not all battlegrounds are equally favorable though. The near ones may be easier to defend, but as the battleground tends to get destroyed in the process, the outcome may be more expensive. Case in point, in my opinion, being the choice of facing the US in Iran or doing it in Pakistan, for instance.
During the Korean and Vietnam war, China didn't have to keep an eye on its purse [trade]. when coming to the aide of its neighbors. Imho, today she does, and that might hamper [influence] her actions in/with/during these conflicts.
This is an observation, not a judgement.
Od
China's position has a certain nobility to it but is also very perilous and smells of appeasement and is self-isolating which is fundamental to Western strategy. The West is an all-consuming monster that feeds on war and will not stop until its nose is bloodied.
China and Russia must face the reality they are facing off against a West that is crazy with desperation fighting their last gasp battle for global dominance.
The US only respects raw power and China and Russia should consider a preemptive strike of their own.
The US is playing its usual compulsive game of brinkmanship now on a planetary scale and their needs to be a powerful countervail to its insane recklessness.
If Iran falls the war only escalates and becomes more debilitating for all. If the West suffers a decisive defeat in the Iran/Israel war it would check its ability and momentum to proceed further with their insane war agenda.
I completely disagree with your thesis. This is nothing more than emotional venting but will never result in positive outcome. Rational and cool-headed calculation is a must to win such high-stake games. If China or Russia behaves recklessly just like the wild thrashing US hegemon with Israel as a mad dog unleashed, they would do the world no service. If they get defeated due to lack of strategic patience and ill-advised moves, then the world will live in perpetual tyranny. Who do you think will stand up against Israel, the US or the west if China or Russia falls? Like I said in the article, this line of argument is a poison pill and a Trojan horse to bait China, the opposition of your intentions as I assume.
I stand corrected and apologize having read your more recent commentary.
"There must not and cannot be any conflict, estrangement or misunderstanding between the Chinese people and America." —Mao Zedong
This doctrine still seems to be affective, which also has ramifications for the fatual relationship with Russia.
first time I ever heard this quote. Do you know Mao's son was killed by the Americans in the Korea war? I would think it is Russia that is trying to make good with the US now, no?
The quote is from "Lost Chance in China: The World War II Dispatches" by John S. Service, ed. Joseph W. Esherick (New York: Random House, 1974), p. 372–73.
Victor Gao said something quite similar just most recently. Gao sseems to be always a good indicator, what the preponderant thinking re foreign policy in Zhongnanhai is. On the loud and unrestrained side in previous years or as mild as cucumber as here:
https://youtu.be/b_wnVDRLmmc?t=993
Russia's problem is, they have direct borders with the US empire, an empire which has lost even the most casual links with common decency. And it has vulnerable borders.
I disagree......China is toast If does not stand firmly against the US bully......the Disunited States of Evil Zionist America cannot ever be trusted
I don't think China has ever trusted the US. It has put up with it. China will no doubt stand up against US bully, but Iran is simply not a core interest. China is not the world's policeman and never wants to be. Thank goodness China doesn't think like the european whites and their descedents - China doesn't have the "whiteman's burden". Let them fight all over the place. But if they threaten China's redline, we'll see who will be the last man standing. China is toast by whom? if you think the US can take China down, you haven't been paying attention.
One would expect a bit more expressions of solidarity with a fellow member of the with only ten members relatively exclusive BRICS chat group, if it is to attain any meaning.
Antonio d. G. also indicates the Niemoeller problem: "First they came for them, and I did not care, than for those, amd I did not care, and now they are coming for me."
why did you imply China has not expressed solidarity? what constitutes such in your estimate? do you know China is supplying intel, missile guidance satellite signals, and missile parts to Iran covertly? does China need to broadcast everything it does with a megaphone and inform every onlooker what it is doing? are you going to support Israel and the US now that China or Russia may not be doing enough to help Iran in your estimation? what are you doing to help other than suggesting others to fight? is your government doing that?
spare the emotional ranting and empty rhetoric and get a handle on reality.
China achieves no1 position without fighting a war. This is the wisdom of the East.