“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.
“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.