US hegemony struggles in the globalization era
Source: Global Times Published: 2018/8/
US impulses to confront and contain China have reached an apex. There were accusations against China's Belt and Road initiative (BRI) during a dinner including CEOs and senior White House staff Wednesday, saying that it was "insulting" and has the potential to disrupt trade worldwide.
Radical statements and actions against China emerge almost every day in the US. Washington initiated a trade war with Beijing and now it is criticizing China's BRI. Why is the US so emotional?
The main reason is that the US' old geopolitical thinking won't help Washington win a trade war which is going against the trend of the times.
Although Washington declares a trade war aims at achieving a trade balance between the two countries, more people believe that its actual purpose is to obstruct China's technological development and counter China's economic model.
However, a trade war can't realize their goals as China's trade surplus with the US further rose in June. In any case, the Chinese people will hold the initiative in technological development and economic reform. It's absurd to start a tariff war with China.
Now the US has lashed out at the BRI. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced $113 million in the Indo-Pacific focused on infrastructure, which was interpreted as countering the BRI by the Western media. Washington wants to eliminate the BRI's geopolitical influence and yet the initiative is not geopolitical.
The BRI opens to the outside world. It is a reciprocal initiative without interfering politically in any countries. The US will only fail by trying to find and eliminate China's "geopolitical influence" from those countries.
US strategic thinking and approaches are falling behind the times, and its purpose is unrealistic and hegemonic. Consequently, Washington's ineffective provocation only harms itself, and it has to boast about its fake victory because of anger and anxiety.
"America First" can at most be an aspiration that encourages the US. However, the current administration regards it as a bottom line for human beings and a common goal worldwide, while Americans only need to vote for the president and enjoy the fruits. It couldn't be more ridiculous.
The trade war can be seen as US hegemony's struggle during globalization. Washington won't accept Beijing's rise, and it's too desperate to address its own problems. China has so far adopted a correct strategy against the cranky US. First, China must firmly stand up to the vehement impact brought on by the trade war and make the US suffer alike. We will continue with the trade fight as needed until Washington realizes it has done wrong.
China will also fight its way out of the trade war but won't act in the insane manner of the US. US public suspicions of Chinese students spying on the country and calls for a witch hunt against Chinese demonstrate that something is seriously wrong with the ideology of the US.
While fighting the trade war, China has been promoting reform and opening-up. While the US creates difficulties for Chinese companies over there, China works to pacify American firms here. It's clear who is more open-minded and capable of handling challenges. China's capacity and calmness will decide where the trade warheads.
Radical statements and actions against China emerge almost every day in the US. Washington initiated a trade war with Beijing and now it is criticizing China's BRI. Why is the US so emotional?
The main reason is that the US' old geopolitical thinking won't help Washington win a trade war which is going against the trend of the times.
Although Washington declares a trade war aims at achieving a trade balance between the two countries, more people believe that its actual purpose is to obstruct China's technological development and counter China's economic model.
However, a trade war can't realize their goals as China's trade surplus with the US further rose in June. In any case, the Chinese people will hold the initiative in technological development and economic reform. It's absurd to start a tariff war with China.
Now the US has lashed out at the BRI. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced $113 million in the Indo-Pacific focused on infrastructure, which was interpreted as countering the BRI by the Western media. Washington wants to eliminate the BRI's geopolitical influence and yet the initiative is not geopolitical.
The BRI opens to the outside world. It is a reciprocal initiative without interfering politically in any countries. The US will only fail by trying to find and eliminate China's "geopolitical influence" from those countries.
US strategic thinking and approaches are falling behind the times, and its purpose is unrealistic and hegemonic. Consequently, Washington's ineffective provocation only harms itself, and it has to boast about its fake victory because of anger and anxiety.
"America First" can at most be an aspiration that encourages the US. However, the current administration regards it as a bottom line for human beings and a common goal worldwide, while Americans only need to vote for the president and enjoy the fruits. It couldn't be more ridiculous.
The trade war can be seen as US hegemony's struggle during globalization. Washington won't accept Beijing's rise, and it's too desperate to address its own problems. China has so far adopted a correct strategy against the cranky US. First, China must firmly stand up to the vehement impact brought on by the trade war and make the US suffer alike. We will continue with the trade fight as needed until Washington realizes it has done wrong.
China will also fight its way out of the trade war but won't act in the insane manner of the US. US public suspicions of Chinese students spying on the country and calls for a witch hunt against Chinese demonstrate that something is seriously wrong with the ideology of the US.
While fighting the trade war, China has been promoting reform and opening-up. While the US creates difficulties for Chinese companies over there, China works to pacify American firms here. It's clear who is more open-minded and capable of handling challenges. China's capacity and calmness will decide where the trade warheads.
Futile US bid to pit Russia against a rising China
By Cui Heng Source: Global Times Published: 2018/8/9
The Helsinki summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump presented the possibility of a thawing Russia-US relationship. After the summit, US media outlets reported that former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger had suggested Trump that the US should work with Russia to contain a rising China.
Then US president Richard Nixon's China visit and the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the US are often cited as the biggest accomplishments of Kissinger during his tenure as secretary of state for Nixon and former president Gerald Ford.
China and the US worked together to curb the global influence of the Soviet Union, thoroughly changing the trilateral relationship formed during the Cold War. Kissinger's reported suggestion of working with Russia to "box in" China is a continuation of the Cold War strategy that structural realists used to tweak the balance of power among major countries.
Now that the US domestic situation, the relationship and the degree of economic interdependence among major powers are different from those during the Cold War, Kissinger's old-fashioned ploys won't work.
To begin with, the US domestic political situation leaves no room for a détente in US-Russia relations. The Trump-Putin meeting had been repeatedly postponed due to US domestic political opposition. the investigation into the "Russiagate" allegations and the uproar over alleged collusion of Trump with the Kremlin to turn the election in his favor is still rife.
Shortly after the Trump-Putin summit, US strengthened sanctions against Russia. The attitude toward Russia has been taken as a measure of political correctness. Though insightful people realize that continuing confrontation with Russia is not conducive to US interests, they cannot publicly call for support for a thaw in ties.
After Trump took office, he has been treading carefully to maintain a balance between reaching out to Russia and avoiding riling the domestic opposition. Holding the summit with Putin was the most Trump could do. Any leeway to Russia will ignite domestic outrage.
Second, European allies of the US won't allow Washington to be easy on Moscow. The biggest obstacle to improving US-Russia relations is the Ukraine and Crimea issues, which are very sensitive for European countries. The Crimea issue challenged the bottom line set by the Helsinki Accords that the territorial integrity of European countries cannot be compromised.
New EU members such as the Baltic States and Eastern European countries are even more sensitive to a US-Russia détente. Those countries are heavily dependent on NATO in defending them against Russia. Washington has to take into account the concerns of its European allies in its relations with Moscow. Seeking a rapprochement with Russia should not lead to a division in the Western world. Although Trump blamed European allies for not contributing enough to their collective defense, the US has never considered giving up the alliance.
Third, given the common strategic interests and close relations between China and Russia, there is no basis for Kissinger's proposal. During the Cold War, both China and the US needed to work together to confront the expansion of the Soviet Union. Had the Sino-Soviet relationship not broken, or the USSR had not deployed massive forces on the border with China, Kissinger's strategy to contain the Soviet Union by working with China would not work.
There is no current strategic conflict between China and Russia. With increasing interdependence and common interests in nation-building and development, bilateral relations have kept improving. Russia will carefully weigh the pros and cons and is unlikely to be influenced by the US.
Kissinger is a practitioner of the "balance of power" theory. The success of his strategy of working with China to contain the Soviet Union has a specific historical background. The same won't work in a changed environment.
The author is an assistant of scientific research at the Research Center for Co-development with Neighboring Countries, East China Normal University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
Then US president Richard Nixon's China visit and the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the US are often cited as the biggest accomplishments of Kissinger during his tenure as secretary of state for Nixon and former president Gerald Ford.
China and the US worked together to curb the global influence of the Soviet Union, thoroughly changing the trilateral relationship formed during the Cold War. Kissinger's reported suggestion of working with Russia to "box in" China is a continuation of the Cold War strategy that structural realists used to tweak the balance of power among major countries.
Now that the US domestic situation, the relationship and the degree of economic interdependence among major powers are different from those during the Cold War, Kissinger's old-fashioned ploys won't work.
To begin with, the US domestic political situation leaves no room for a détente in US-Russia relations. The Trump-Putin meeting had been repeatedly postponed due to US domestic political opposition. the investigation into the "Russiagate" allegations and the uproar over alleged collusion of Trump with the Kremlin to turn the election in his favor is still rife.
Shortly after the Trump-Putin summit, US strengthened sanctions against Russia. The attitude toward Russia has been taken as a measure of political correctness. Though insightful people realize that continuing confrontation with Russia is not conducive to US interests, they cannot publicly call for support for a thaw in ties.
After Trump took office, he has been treading carefully to maintain a balance between reaching out to Russia and avoiding riling the domestic opposition. Holding the summit with Putin was the most Trump could do. Any leeway to Russia will ignite domestic outrage.
Second, European allies of the US won't allow Washington to be easy on Moscow. The biggest obstacle to improving US-Russia relations is the Ukraine and Crimea issues, which are very sensitive for European countries. The Crimea issue challenged the bottom line set by the Helsinki Accords that the territorial integrity of European countries cannot be compromised.
New EU members such as the Baltic States and Eastern European countries are even more sensitive to a US-Russia détente. Those countries are heavily dependent on NATO in defending them against Russia. Washington has to take into account the concerns of its European allies in its relations with Moscow. Seeking a rapprochement with Russia should not lead to a division in the Western world. Although Trump blamed European allies for not contributing enough to their collective defense, the US has never considered giving up the alliance.
Third, given the common strategic interests and close relations between China and Russia, there is no basis for Kissinger's proposal. During the Cold War, both China and the US needed to work together to confront the expansion of the Soviet Union. Had the Sino-Soviet relationship not broken, or the USSR had not deployed massive forces on the border with China, Kissinger's strategy to contain the Soviet Union by working with China would not work.
There is no current strategic conflict between China and Russia. With increasing interdependence and common interests in nation-building and development, bilateral relations have kept improving. Russia will carefully weigh the pros and cons and is unlikely to be influenced by the US.
Kissinger is a practitioner of the "balance of power" theory. The success of his strategy of working with China to contain the Soviet Union has a specific historical background. The same won't work in a changed environment.
The author is an assistant of scientific research at the Research Center for Co-development with Neighboring Countries, East China Normal University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario