A great article that "hits the nail on the head". China has the U.S. decision makers and experts chasing their tails trying to identify the next magic bullet technology to focus the U.S. R&D dollars on that will ensure U.S. dominance for generations.
All of these elements are interconnected and contribute to a larger narrative. Historically, the United States has played a significant role in facilitating economic prosperity and promoting democracy in numerous countries - which expressly include China. However, it is important to recognise that the same power can also wield influence to diminish the prosperity it once helped create.
China is currently experiencing the consequences of superfluous positioning as a U.S. adversary, starting with the Central Committee's Document No. 9 in April 2013. It took the United States 5 (five) years to fully comprehend this message, but now they have grasped it clearly, leading to the implementation of a process referred to by the Chinese side as a "containment policy." This process is characterised by bipartisan and multilateral efforts.
No amount of resilience slogans or dogma can mitigate the effects of this ongoing trend. While the United States claims that it does not seek system change in China, it is quite evident that the Chinese government would face severe political and personal repercussions at the highest level if they were to undergo another drastic policy shift akin to the end of the "zero-COVID" policy.
Prof. John Mearsheimer has been posing the question "Can China rise peacefully?" for approximately two decades. Prior to 2013, I would have confidently wagered on the affirmative answer, even though China had already been threatening Taiwan with war since 2005 (Anti-Secession Law of 14 March 2005). However, with China's initiation of decoupling measures in 2013, in combination with unnecessarily aggressive, revisionist and revanchist policies, serious doubts have emerged regarding China's potential for a peaceful rise.
The recent statements made by Liu Jian Chao, who is set to become China's foreign minister, have sparked some optimism that China may adopt a less aggressive stance in its foreign policy. However, even if this were to occur, it might not be enough to repair the harm caused since 2013.
The Chinese government may put forth the argument that they were under threat and compelled to take action in order to safeguard their own interests, national security and all the other lofty concepts. However, this argument can be viewed as implausible. The shift within China began after the Lehman Brothers crisis when it was determined that a semi-capitalist system may be not aligned with China's interests. If China really had been actively threatened by the U.S., it raises the question of why the supposed aggressor, despite being aware of China's official change in position, took five years to acknowledge and act on it.
A great article that "hits the nail on the head". China has the U.S. decision makers and experts chasing their tails trying to identify the next magic bullet technology to focus the U.S. R&D dollars on that will ensure U.S. dominance for generations.
Thanks,
Mike
All of these elements are interconnected and contribute to a larger narrative. Historically, the United States has played a significant role in facilitating economic prosperity and promoting democracy in numerous countries - which expressly include China. However, it is important to recognise that the same power can also wield influence to diminish the prosperity it once helped create.
China is currently experiencing the consequences of superfluous positioning as a U.S. adversary, starting with the Central Committee's Document No. 9 in April 2013. It took the United States 5 (five) years to fully comprehend this message, but now they have grasped it clearly, leading to the implementation of a process referred to by the Chinese side as a "containment policy." This process is characterised by bipartisan and multilateral efforts.
No amount of resilience slogans or dogma can mitigate the effects of this ongoing trend. While the United States claims that it does not seek system change in China, it is quite evident that the Chinese government would face severe political and personal repercussions at the highest level if they were to undergo another drastic policy shift akin to the end of the "zero-COVID" policy.
Prof. John Mearsheimer has been posing the question "Can China rise peacefully?" for approximately two decades. Prior to 2013, I would have confidently wagered on the affirmative answer, even though China had already been threatening Taiwan with war since 2005 (Anti-Secession Law of 14 March 2005). However, with China's initiation of decoupling measures in 2013, in combination with unnecessarily aggressive, revisionist and revanchist policies, serious doubts have emerged regarding China's potential for a peaceful rise.
The recent statements made by Liu Jian Chao, who is set to become China's foreign minister, have sparked some optimism that China may adopt a less aggressive stance in its foreign policy. However, even if this were to occur, it might not be enough to repair the harm caused since 2013.
The Chinese government may put forth the argument that they were under threat and compelled to take action in order to safeguard their own interests, national security and all the other lofty concepts. However, this argument can be viewed as implausible. The shift within China began after the Lehman Brothers crisis when it was determined that a semi-capitalist system may be not aligned with China's interests. If China really had been actively threatened by the U.S., it raises the question of why the supposed aggressor, despite being aware of China's official change in position, took five years to acknowledge and act on it.