Will it really be a multilateral future though? Or will it be a Chinese future?
A multilateral future would be great, but multilateral alliances aren’t very stable. Just look at how Orban is disrupting what the EU wants to do, even though Hungary is a relatively small and weak country in Europe. Or, look how toothless European regulations are when Ireland just refuses to enforce things like the GDPR, so the tech companies just declare themselves as Irish.
Meanwhile China seems very unified and their mixture of a command economy and a market economy has been very effective so far. I don’t think the Chinese model is all bad. They’ve been massively effective at doing things like building high speed rail, developing and deploying solar panels, etc. OTOH, the Great Firewall and CCTV state is not how I would like to live.
Without the US, I don’t know how well the rest of the world will be able to resist China. I think Australia might be the canary in the coal mine. I think China considers Australia to be in its sphere of influence and will try to put more and more pressure on it. Australia’s outlook on the world is much more similar to Europe, but it’s geographically really far away.
“Multilateral” may include a very powerful China. The two are not mutually exclusive. China has been very prolific already in exerting its soft power around the world. They probably do stand to gain from the US losing standing. However I very much doubt that the US losing standing will immediately lead to total Chinese dominance around the globe. China has a lot to deal with, surviving its impending demographic apocalypse. There was a time we feared Japan in the same way: nonstop economy, strong culture, they bought a lot of American assets and real estate… soon they’ll take over the world! They’re still here, and very powerful, but the “big bad” fears were overblown. I think similarly, China wants its historic provinces back, and would like to exert the same kind of influence over Asia that it once did, and be a global trade power, but all of that put together is still far less than the imperialism which America has actually achieved and maintained around the world. So yeah, an ascendant China may be one feature of this future but I don’t see the problem with that. I don’t start from a position of hating and fearing China.
the US losing standing will immediately lead to total Chinese dominance around the globe
The US didn’t have total dominance around the globe either. They just had a lot of soft power, a lot more than any other country.
There was a time we feared Japan in the same way
Sure, but Japan was always relatively small. It was a country with a low population and few natural resources. China is a huge country with nearly 10% of the world’s population and is one of the largest countries in the world. There are no guarantees that it will still be a major force in 10 or 20 years, but it’s different from Japan which was a relatively small country that had a temporary niche in manufacturing certain kinds of goods.
The biggest issue with China is that they don’t believe in the right to free speech and free expression. While the US has been more of an outlier in allowing unfettered free speech until recently, free speech and free expression is pretty central to European identity.
US didn’t have total dominance around the globe either. They just had a lot of soft power
The US has military bases, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers stationed around the world. That’s a little more than soft power. And our military spending has always been outsized.
Sure, but Japan was always relatively small. It was a country with a low population and few natural resources.
This stopped being the yardstick for influence around WW1. Japan has the number 4 GDP in the world right now and they were number 2 for a while, very close to the US. China’s landmass and population don’t mean much to the rest of the world if all they represent is impoverished agrarians, which fairly describes a lot of China still.
The biggest issue with China is that they don’t believe in the right to free speech and free expression.
They don’t. They believe in collectivism and order. However I don’t know that they aspire to bring Hanification to me here in California. Their ambitions are more regional. The US definitely reached around the entire globe.
While the US has been more of an outlier in allowing unfettered free speech
For whom though? This is more myth than reality. The US deposed democratically elected leaders all over South America, and has supported dictators around the world if they offer us resources or control. Look at the Middle East. China has a long long way to go before they even begin to be as scary as the US has been for the last 50 years.
free expression is pretty central to European identity.
I’m not sure what “European identity” has to do with this conversation, which has been more about the US and China. I worry that we are veering into vague concepts like “western civilization” that are more myths for white supremacists than actual entities.
This stopped being the yardstick for influence around WW1
And that was a mistake. Population and resources is key to a nation’s power. It’s a large reason why the US is so powerful. Per capita a lot of European countries have similar levels of wealth, but the US has nearly 350 million people, which is only slightly less than all the states in the EU combined. If the EU were more centralized it would be a single state with a power to rival the US. But, as a collection of 27 countries which only surrender some of their power to the EU government, it’s not able to match the US.
I don’t know that they aspire to bring Hanification to me here in California.
Only on a limited basis. They definitely don’t want you to talk about Taiwan and how Taiwan is an independent country. Right now, because the US is strong, you’re free to talk about Taiwan all you like. But, as China gets stronger, they may require that their trade partners have local laws enforcing the one-China policy. They’ve already managed to push that onto the Olympics. And after they get that rule everywhere, what’s next? Maybe laws forbidding people from using Winnie the Pooh to mock their leader?
The US deposed democratically elected leaders all over South America
That’s not really about free speech. That’s about who holds power in various countries.
Will it really be a multilateral future though? Or will it be a Chinese future?
A multilateral future would be great, but multilateral alliances aren’t very stable. Just look at how Orban is disrupting what the EU wants to do, even though Hungary is a relatively small and weak country in Europe. Or, look how toothless European regulations are when Ireland just refuses to enforce things like the GDPR, so the tech companies just declare themselves as Irish.
Meanwhile China seems very unified and their mixture of a command economy and a market economy has been very effective so far. I don’t think the Chinese model is all bad. They’ve been massively effective at doing things like building high speed rail, developing and deploying solar panels, etc. OTOH, the Great Firewall and CCTV state is not how I would like to live.
Without the US, I don’t know how well the rest of the world will be able to resist China. I think Australia might be the canary in the coal mine. I think China considers Australia to be in its sphere of influence and will try to put more and more pressure on it. Australia’s outlook on the world is much more similar to Europe, but it’s geographically really far away.
“Multilateral” may include a very powerful China. The two are not mutually exclusive. China has been very prolific already in exerting its soft power around the world. They probably do stand to gain from the US losing standing. However I very much doubt that the US losing standing will immediately lead to total Chinese dominance around the globe. China has a lot to deal with, surviving its impending demographic apocalypse. There was a time we feared Japan in the same way: nonstop economy, strong culture, they bought a lot of American assets and real estate… soon they’ll take over the world! They’re still here, and very powerful, but the “big bad” fears were overblown. I think similarly, China wants its historic provinces back, and would like to exert the same kind of influence over Asia that it once did, and be a global trade power, but all of that put together is still far less than the imperialism which America has actually achieved and maintained around the world. So yeah, an ascendant China may be one feature of this future but I don’t see the problem with that. I don’t start from a position of hating and fearing China.
The US didn’t have total dominance around the globe either. They just had a lot of soft power, a lot more than any other country.
Sure, but Japan was always relatively small. It was a country with a low population and few natural resources. China is a huge country with nearly 10% of the world’s population and is one of the largest countries in the world. There are no guarantees that it will still be a major force in 10 or 20 years, but it’s different from Japan which was a relatively small country that had a temporary niche in manufacturing certain kinds of goods.
The biggest issue with China is that they don’t believe in the right to free speech and free expression. While the US has been more of an outlier in allowing unfettered free speech until recently, free speech and free expression is pretty central to European identity.
The US has military bases, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers stationed around the world. That’s a little more than soft power. And our military spending has always been outsized.
This stopped being the yardstick for influence around WW1. Japan has the number 4 GDP in the world right now and they were number 2 for a while, very close to the US. China’s landmass and population don’t mean much to the rest of the world if all they represent is impoverished agrarians, which fairly describes a lot of China still.
They don’t. They believe in collectivism and order. However I don’t know that they aspire to bring Hanification to me here in California. Their ambitions are more regional. The US definitely reached around the entire globe.
For whom though? This is more myth than reality. The US deposed democratically elected leaders all over South America, and has supported dictators around the world if they offer us resources or control. Look at the Middle East. China has a long long way to go before they even begin to be as scary as the US has been for the last 50 years.
I’m not sure what “European identity” has to do with this conversation, which has been more about the US and China. I worry that we are veering into vague concepts like “western civilization” that are more myths for white supremacists than actual entities.
It’s soft power until they start using it.
And that was a mistake. Population and resources is key to a nation’s power. It’s a large reason why the US is so powerful. Per capita a lot of European countries have similar levels of wealth, but the US has nearly 350 million people, which is only slightly less than all the states in the EU combined. If the EU were more centralized it would be a single state with a power to rival the US. But, as a collection of 27 countries which only surrender some of their power to the EU government, it’s not able to match the US.
Only on a limited basis. They definitely don’t want you to talk about Taiwan and how Taiwan is an independent country. Right now, because the US is strong, you’re free to talk about Taiwan all you like. But, as China gets stronger, they may require that their trade partners have local laws enforcing the one-China policy. They’ve already managed to push that onto the Olympics. And after they get that rule everywhere, what’s next? Maybe laws forbidding people from using Winnie the Pooh to mock their leader?
That’s not really about free speech. That’s about who holds power in various countries.
And what do you call Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan…
Seriously man if I have to point out the obvious to you like this, the conversation isn’t worth continuing.