Geopolitics and the Future

China up USA down? No. The simple chatter is getting it wrong about China’s ascent and America’s assumed unstoppable decline. Even more Europe is often misrepresented, though this misrepresentation I find a constructive reminder of the new forces at play and why China wouldn’t simply step in to the role of global hegemon. There are 3 reasons why China won’t simply replace the USA as the indispensable nation.

First, there is the wrong (or at least extremely precarious) assumption of linear growth ahead for China. Despite the fact that the same was thought of the USA ten years ago (prior to sept 11) and that the USA had it made in the shade appearances proved very deceptive.

Second, ideas. They are vitally important and Europe is not sufficiently credited for conceiving of and institutionalising democracy and capitalism (and free trade), along with human rights and international law. Their huge acceptance worldwide and their moral legitimacy, both in the real courts of law around the world and the show trials performed in despotic states attest to their legitimacy. China, compared with Europe or America is barren on the ideas front. The notion of a ‘Beijing consensus is bogus. China has largely done empire and bunch of ideas associated with empire are retired. The Chinese Communist Party is living a charmed life as it continues to survive on a social contract guaranteeing economic growth (and presumably some steadily increasing income for it’s population) for the nation in exchange for their unquestioned rule. This is the arrangement Egypt and Tunisia had, so good luck with that. Capitalism and free trade have been China’s largest success. If China followed suit and became democratic then no one would have a problem with it anyway. It’s current incarnation of authoritarian capitalism is most likely unsustainable as it will need proper rule of law to ensure continued economic growth. There is most likely a reason that authoritarian capitalism has never been done successfully before, and I’m sure history will soon teach us why.

Third, alliances and relations. China may be growing but it has no friends. And I mean none. When the chips are down China doesn’t have enough BRICS to build walls and defend itself against challenges from the world and from Western states. The USA does, its empire by consent and the fact that Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines will always back the USA over China confirms why there won’t be a power shift. This reality will box China in literally, keeping them with unencumbered access to the pacific ocean, and politically, with limited influence as surrounding states remain weary of the Middle Kingdom.

Lastly some notes about the American empire. Sure the global empire is largely, today, controlled with consent. For anything thats not consented to, and control is exercised, it is the job of thinking persons worldwide to condemn the American empire. Remember though, politics is a game of alternatives and for the foreseeable future the USA is the best alternative to China, or to the incredibly volatile and possibly world ending reality of a centre-less world. Lastly, the UN are out of the picture for a few decades at least. Even Zizek said “the United States as a global policeman — why not? The post-cold-war situation effectively called for some global power to fill the void”. Not for a few decades could the realities exist of living in this world with a glorious world government, or escaping to another world, Mars, to live with presumably a happy few (if they had enough wits and the will to get there you’d think the last thing they’d want to be would be to replicate the faults existent on Earth!). For the foreseeable future we will have to make do with imperialism, c’est la vie…

4 Musings

fascinating and interesting then words, language, objectivity feigned, values, etc etc etc. You say ‘interesting’ when you mean ‘i value this’ and sometimes whilst implying ‘and you should too’. The linguistification (huh??), turning into words element is that there aren’t enough words (existent at the moment of epiphany) to describe the phenomena, or the words existent need tweaking.Life force, world as will, will to power, complexity, chaos, emergence, self-organisation. Inadequacy of the words at the time, around the 19th cent. Are they all explained with the new, though?

 

freud, sour grapes, constant disavowal hence still very much under the shadow.

 

How global is/need globalisation be?

 

The internet as manifesto for globalisation. The default is connectivity/ being connected in this internet age. The exception is to be disconnected. T/F?

 

UPDATE FINISH ME!