r/geopolitics • u/WilliamWyattD • 25d ago
Could a liberal democratic China co-exist with the United States in a revamped Liberal International Order? Question
Is there any reason that a liberal and democratic China could not co-exist and even co-lead a revamped liberal international order in partnership with the United States? Perhaps the more ambitious aims of the order could be trimmed away like excess fat, leaving the core security, trade, and public goods functions. Why couldn't China and the US eventually cooperate in providing public goods such as securing the oceans and being the global policemen together? (Though perhaps the global nightwatchman function would be reserved for only the most existential cases.) Within the framework of the order, they could compete economically as other nations do in the order.
Or is the order just a patina for a raw US desire for pre-emminence, a desire that China now shares? And thus their goals are incompatible.
207
u/Champagne_Padre 25d ago
The real question is why does China have to be liberal or democratic for this to happen??? Why do we need a revamped liberal international order??? what do those words even mean???
80
u/wut_eva_bish 24d ago
Yeah, the question sounded reasonable at first read, but then started to fall apart for me as well. Now it's just a head-scratcher.
24
32
u/[deleted] 24d ago
[deleted]
-5
u/Intern11 24d ago
Being a strong authoritarian state with no workers protection is what got China to where it is now. Neo-liberalism just means exporting west’s dirty work to the 3rd world.
→ More replies40
u/Irichcrusader 24d ago
Exactly my thoughts. Would the U.S. be willing to tolerate and cooperate with a China that is still Communist and authoritarian, but has at least cut down on the belligerence and saber-rattling? Essentially, finding a way to cooperate by making some concessions*. Now, I'm not very hopeful at all that the PRC would ever cut down on the saber-rattling, but I think this is a conversation worth having for many Americans. It takes two to tango and the U.S. will not escape all blame if they drag the world into another great war without making all the efforts they can to preserve peace.
*Just so we're clear, I don't mean concessions as in, let the PRC have Taiwan, but something more along the lines of allowing for a multi-polar world of great powers with spheres of influence.
52
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
U.S. will not escape all blame if they drag the world into another great war
That is close to the least likely scenario.
At worst China may invade Taiwan. This would spark a regional war. But the US and Chinese have nowhere to actually fight. Its not like there are shock armies lined up along the Fulda Gap.
Currently the democracies of the west are rallying to an anti Chinese position and SE Asia seems to be also taking sides. China is a powerful land army but cannot hope to push beyond the South China Sea to conduct any hostile actions. It cannot invade India over the mountains and central Asia is a vast load of nothing.
You need access to the world to have a world war.
15
u/BrilliantRat 24d ago
shock armies lined up along the Fulda Gap.
ships and planes lined up along the island chain?
22
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
Thats not a world war. It would be a naval clash. I have mentioned they can clash over Taiwan, a regional and local one.
But in those circumstance the US has access to the rest of the world and would dictate how much China could import and export. That includes oil.
Even then the US would dictate the location and pacing other than an invasion of Taiwan. What would China gain from a clash there?
12
u/cellocollin 24d ago
While we may not view it as such, the world wr shared this fact. Germany and Italy could not leave europe/the mediteranian. Only Japan gained brief naval superiority
→ More replies4
u/Anonymou2Anonymous 24d ago edited 23d ago
What if the U.S decides to blockade the Malacca straits? I know Russia is growing closer to China, but Russia cannot replace all the fuel and minerals China gets from Indian Ocean sea routes. A few months and China's lights would go out. Would China try something in that region to try and reopen resource supply.
Also would India capitalise on the situation by pushing into China while China is dealing with the U.S? Would China's response be to encourage Pakistan to distract India?
Also would Russia capitalise on the situation by invading Ukraine while the U.S is occupied with China?
I think that with the current alliances China has a war over Taiwan could easily develop into a very large war.
8
u/Irichcrusader 24d ago
Naturally. I don't foresee any massive land campaigns or ambitious invasions of India or South-East Asia by the PRC. But there will be navel engagements and certainly island battles. Both sides would also face the problem of how to resolve the war and the effects of the fighting would have grave consequences for the world economy. Much will depend on the PRC's ability to challenge U.S. dominance of the sea. I think the full effects of a war, even a regional one, would be very hard to predict, even by those in power in their respective countries.
-1
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
For the foreseeable future, political will and diplomacy are the key factors in a US / China clash, rather than purely military considerations.
China would likely be defeated badly by just the US alone should there be an all-out conventional military conflict. China has no military answer to the US navy choking China's access to resources and trade. China's deterrence here depends on making such extreme moves too costly to the US diplomatically, and thus economically.
→ More replies9
u/grapesie 24d ago
Clarify what you mean by China would be defeated badly by the us. Sts anti ship missles are cheap and the us navy would be stretched thin along the thousands of miles of chinese coast. China is also building up infrastructure in pakistan as part of the belt and road initiative, including developing the port of Gwadar, so china would still have access for trade, unless the US wants to go to war with Pakistan as well, and any other country participating in the belt and road initiative. Given the development of loitering munitions and other cheap drone its easy to see an overstretched US navy have many ships sink beneath the waves. There’s also no way i can imagine a US land invasion of china go anything but poorly. Like it or not, even if the pra isn’t a match for the us army, the population in china is broadly supportive of the cpc, and partisan activity would be immense in any territory held by the US.
I can’t imagine this kind of conventional war going anything but poorly, and i can imagine a frustrated US president and military going nuclear when the conventional methods fail.
→ More replies4
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
I meant that the US could simply sit at a distance and use its navy and air force to blockade China for as long as it took.
China currently has no military defense against such a strategy applied with vigor and the will to maintain it indefinitely.
However, maintaining the will to take the pain, economic and diplomatic, that such a strategy might incur on the US would be very hard, which was my point.
→ More replies12
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
navel engagements
Sums up most of r/geopolitics
Much will depend on the PRC's ability to challenge U.S. dominance of the sea.
I cannot imagine a scenario in the next couple of decades where they break beyond the South China Sea.
Given there well known demographic problems coming up, I think beyond invading Taiwan and maybe getting into a shooting war over their islands they built, there is little to no place for them to confront.
Add the other factors around the US being able to switch of their oil, coal and iron imports, I dont see much beyond chest beating or their home waters.
0
u/codydodd 24d ago
I used to agree, but the position of the South China Sea military infrastructure implies the PLA would try to cut off all traffic through the region, and to do that, they've positioned themselves within steps of the Straights of Malacca. My guess is an invasion/occupation of Singapore/Malaysia by the PLA is not an impossibility in the event of a regional war. These would not be 'invited'. Meanwhile, the Quad counter attack would be invited by these countries. One would be seen as an aggressive invader, and the other as defenders. Both sides are militaristic sabre-rattlers, but no nation wants to be invaded.
→ More replies4
u/JanewaDidNuthinWrong 24d ago
At worst China may invade Taiwan. This would spark a regional war. But the US and Chinese have nowhere to actually fight. Its not like there are shock armies lined up along the Fulda Gap.
A maximum Taiwan war could involve US troops fighting in Taiwan and/or massive air/fleet battles in the region. So yeah probably not a massive land war.
8
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Not having classic spheres of influence is a fundamental aspect of the liberal world order.
What you envision would be some other type of bi-polar superpower equilibrium.
→ More replies15
u/Irichcrusader 24d ago
The problem is that the PRC is currently challenging this liberal world order, which, from China's standpoint, they see as western-dominated. Should the west hold to this view of international relations that has existed since the end of WW2 or find a new approach to preserve peace?
4
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Well, what the PRC says and what it truly believes are two different things. I believe that the core truth the PRC understand is that the success of liberal democratic governments, much less an order of them, corrodes PRC legitimacy over time. So liberal democracy must be maintained.
The material and security benefits of the post-WW II order have been enormous. I believe that the US and its allies should be looking for any way to maintain them. This may mean pairing back some of the more ambitious goals of the LIO, such as intervening in areas that are not essential to the world balance of power, etc. But that may be desirable in its own right.
I do believe that these benefits and the fundamentals of the LIO can be maintained for at least another generation or two, provided sufficient will exists. China can be contained until it changes behavior. And the war risks are acceptable. But if the US and its allies decide this will does not exist, then we would be in an entirely new paradigm and I'd have entirely different opinions about what the US should do.
14
u/accidentaljurist 24d ago
I‘d propose even a slight modification of this part of your statement:
corrodes PRC legitimacy over time
I think that it corrodes not the PRC’s but the CCP’s legitimacy over time. There is a difference between the extant political regime and authority and the country it governs, even if one could argue that the CCP played an instrumental role in the founding of the People’s Republic of China, after the Civil War, in 1949.
7
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Sorry. Sloppy writing. What you wrote is exactly what I meant to say.
Back in Europe, when republics started to emerge, it was understood that republicanism and monarchy eroded one anothers legitimacy, suddenly creating a new axis for international relations and conflict beyond the specific interests of individual states. Perhaps the reformation did too, with protestantism vs. Catholicism.
1
u/accidentaljurist 24d ago edited 24d ago
Not an issue at all! I think what you’ve said does make sense, read in that context. Of course, this discussion is entirely hypothetical in nature too because it seems quite unlikely that either (a) the CCP is losing legitimacy any time soon or (b) the Xi leadership will allow such a “backsliding” to occur.
2
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Yeah. Well I suppose it remains hypothetical because it cannot be tested. However, every nation's opinion on this is essential. It determines how they see the narrative. Is this a classic case of a hegemon battling with a rising power, or is this the liberal international order trying to protect itself and the benefits it provides to the world.
Also, this would affect how one sees the EU project. If the EU were to find sufficient unity and even federalize, would the US then seek to undermine them?
6
u/accidentaljurist 24d ago edited 24d ago
Yes, in the near future, it is an untestable hypothesis because the political conditions in China do not seem to even permit of such a possible scenario to be contemplated.
Is this a classic case of a hegemon battling with a rising power, or is this the liberal international order trying to protect itself and the benefits it provides to the world.
My own view is that it is the latter. There are many fans of the Thucydides’ Trap argument both in diplomatic academia and practice. But I don’t think the situation today necessarily suggests that hostile, kinetic conflict is “inevitable” (to use the term that TT advocates employ).
However, this is not to say that recent trends do not give me cause to rethink my views. For example, one may reasonably speculate or wonder if the recent regulatory actions taken by China against tech firms operating in various or across different sectors signals a de-coupling of both the digital and commercial space between America + Europe and China.
Also, this would affect how one sees the EU project. If the EU were to find sufficient unity and even federalize, would the US then seek to undermine them?
On this issue, I think that there are cracks within the EU post-Brexit which take quite a bit of time and diplomatic will to amend. The EU was never really meant to be a supra-national federalist international institution and I do not really see them moving in that direction. And yet, there were signs that under an American administration that desires discrete bilateralism as opposed to multilateralism, one could see the US viewing them as a threat and seek to undermine them. But if the US turns against its allies, then will they really remain a hegemon? I’m not too sure about that.
7
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
The problem is that the PRC is currently challenging this liberal world order
They are not "challenging" the world order, they are trying to carve out more influence in it. They are acting in a nationalistic fashion not an ideological one.
They do not want to "replace" the current "world order" they want to use it to get rich and feel powerful.
Should the west hold to this view of international relations that has existed since the end of WW2
WW2 with Soviet expansionism into eastern Europe and a period of declonialisation. We live in a very different world Especially post 1991.
The waffling about "liberal democracy" is because these are the richest countries in the world. They represent the purchasing power for goods, the military power, the intellectual capital and most other metrics.
They have a broadly shared ideological outlook that allows them to cooperate often with a willingness to work with each other in ways virtually unthinkable to most countries in the rest of the world or through history. (For example they will allow each other into the heart of their intelligence systems, sharing assets and allowing each others militaries to be stations on their soil)
China is bridling that this thwarts its desires.
The questions is to try to set up that its somehow illegitimate or something else for China not to be allowed freedom of action.
Its just sour grapes.
17
u/JohnSith 24d ago
Would the U.S. be willing to tolerate and cooperate with a China that is still Communist and authoritarian, but has at least cut down on the belligerence and saber-rattling?
That was basically the US-China relationship from Nixon (though it was because they had a common enemy win the USSR), then even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, from the '90s until 2012-15 or so.
-3
u/Riven_Dante 24d ago
The problem is, it doesn't seem like China will settle for less than dominating America and then the world if they have the upper hand. Meanwhile, America had all this time to try and dominate China and Russia after the Soviet collapse... Instead they elected to let them into the WTO and instead of cooperating or reciprocating they've abused their positions to try and leverage Australia out of the Western sphere of influence in order to weaken it and turn Australia into a vassal, with serious repercussions to it's independence and it's values of freedom and personal liberty. China is leveraging their positions in order to create a worldwide power struggle, needlessly threatening world peace.
19
u/[deleted] 24d ago
[removed]
-11
23
u/grapesie 24d ago
Agreed. China is obviously wanting to restore itself as the premier power in asia, and to become the economic engine of most of the world, but literally dominating America seems far-fetched, and mostly projection given that the topic of this thread is changing chinas government to a liberal democracy.
→ More replies0
u/FizzletitsBoof 24d ago
This is the fundamental difference between the U.S, China, and Russia, and why the U.S. are the good guys. They developed nuclear weapons first with a clear path towards conquering the entire world and instead they spent billions repairing the world economy. I don't think there is a single person here naive enough to think that Russia or China wouldn't have conquered the entire world if they discovered nuclear weapons first.
→ More replies→ More replies-3
u/rockeye13 24d ago
China's elites do not believe in win-win scenarios. They are philosophically zero-sum.
→ More replies1
u/Environmental-Cold24 24d ago
As a liberal democracy you are always a step behind on communist authoritariant (or state capitalist) government. You simply cant accept that without all kind of economic measures like tariffs and embargo's and whatsoever because the state capitalist side would always be a step ahead of you. Its not a fair level playing field, doesnt mean you have to go at war with each other, but you cant be partners either.
→ More replies11
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Because I believe that there is a recognition that the liberal democratic types of governments cannot really exist in equilibrium to the authoritarian. The success and status of governments of one type always corrodes the legitimacy of the other. This was seen in Europe during the emergence of republican governments when the monarchies feared and worked to suppress them.
Without getting lost in definitions, I do believe there is room within the liberal democratic model for some variety in approach. And the aims of the liberal international order can be tweaked as well. But making the world safe for democracy, or the expansion of liberal democracy, is a core function of the LIO. However, how quickly and aggressively this expansion is pursued can (and in my opinion should) be scaled back to reasonable levels.
→ More replies19
u/Irichcrusader 24d ago
Without getting lost in definitions, I do believe there is room within the liberal democratic model for some variety in approach. And the aims of the liberal international order can be tweaked as well. But making the world safe for democracy, or the expansion of liberal democracy, is a core function of the LIO. However, how quickly and aggressively this expansion is pursued can (and in my opinion should) be scaled back to reasonable levels.
Perhaps our views are not so different. I actually mostly agree with this. What I'm not convinced on is this view that democratic countries necessarily need to expand their views on human governance to other countries. I would like to hope that one day every nation could live under a free and democratic system that protects the rights of man. But as we saw with the recent American adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can't impose this view on a country from outside. It has to come from inside in order to be seen as legitimate.
→ More replies8
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Yes, but there is also an understanding that authoritarian and liberal governments erode the legitimacy of one another in such a small world. What can be tolerated in small countries cannot necessarily be tolerated in larger ones with more influence on global standards. This is why the US could support some of the worst regimes possible during the Cold War when necessary as part of a wider strategy to contain and change the Soviet Union.
There are simply different rules for bigger countries.
→ More replies5
u/Irichcrusader 24d ago
I concede on that, good points. You've honestly given me a lot to think about here on this topic. Up till now, my main view of the current China-U.S. rivalry is to see it as just another great power struggle when a rising power begins to challenge an established power. Not too dissimilar from how Imperial Germany began to compete with the British Empire's hegemony in the lead up to WW1. However, I haven't given near enough thought to the ideological component that is also driving this rivalry.
1
u/paparassss 24d ago
There are 3 ways of thinking to preserve peace Realism, liberalism and marxism. Basically all three find reasons for why conflict exist. To get more specific liberalism believs that there is conflict because not every country has the same system of goverment and thus if everyone has the same political system no conflict would exist.
The USA is a firm believer of this principle. That is why it has supported failing democracies all around the world in the 21st century. So to have a China that is not a democracy goes against US beliefs
→ More replies3
u/Champagne_Padre 24d ago
There's your answer and I think it applies to both questions. OP answered his question too. At the end of the day, it takes two to tango I believe
→ More replies-5
u/aRationalMoose 24d ago
Because open societies pose an inherent risk to authoritarian regimes
→ More replies22
u/Champagne_Padre 24d ago
That's the popular narrative but very rarely the case. At the end of the day it all depends on whether your interests are compatible
-3
50
u/devansh_-_ 25d ago
They could but both would have to substantially change the way they perceive geopolitical relations.
When the US makes an alliance it sees itself as a superior power or atleast the first among equals. China dies respect power, but considers itself superior to other. Power sharing will definitely be tough between the two, especially considering that at the same developmental level, China would be overwhelmingly more powerful than US (1.4 billion people vs 330 million). So this seems really unlikely.
1
u/wut_eva_bish 24d ago
The U.S. has made several alliances where it is not superior in the relevant traded good or service and/or geographical position. This is part of the reason that the U.S. partners with these nations.
32
→ More replies17
3
u/Irichcrusader 24d ago
Do you think it's possible for the world to return to a multi-polar system of great powers? I'm aware that this might present problems of its own but it might at least forestall another great war if we can get both sides to make concessions to each other. Unfortunately, I'm highly skeptical that either the PRC or the U.S. would be willing to swallow their pride and find a way to co-exist together. Especially for the PRC, who have made it abundantly clear in recent years that they don't accept the current western-dominated world system. It would also be very difficult for them to back down now from the warpath that they seem deadset on, without appearing weak to their citizens.
→ More replies9
u/devansh_-_ 24d ago edited 24d ago
Well most analysts say that we would have a multipolar world order at the end of this century. But it would highly depend on if the European powers are willing to forego pacifism and on India to really step up it's game.
India is actually the more important global player, as it can be the perfect balance to the PRC. India is a democracy, with a billion+ people and has good geography, if they industrialize as quick as China did ut could truly change the game. Chinese people might realise that they don't have to give up their freedoms to be grow economically. But it would require a strong political will and acceptance to major reforms in the Indian economy which is lacking.
Europe for the most part is under the American sphere and only exerts influence over former colonies. It has the economy, the skill and the population to become a powerhouse (especially if they unite as EU). But the European people are really pacifist and wouldn't support the exertion of power. Also there is still considerable tensions on the economic front between Germany and the rest of the EU.
There are a few other countries that can become regional players like Turkey, Iran and Brazil, but their future seems much more uncertain.
Also a multipolar world wouldn't necessarily prevent another war as it would be a complex system of geopolitical alliances and who knows when the assassination of let's say a Saudi prince could light the powder keg.
8
u/TheRedHand7 24d ago
especially considering that at the same developmental level, China would be overwhelmingly more powerful than US (1.4 billion people vs 330 million).
Sure but this assumes that China is capable of boosting all of its people to that level without dramatic changes which I would say is a fairly dubious assumption.
15
u/devansh_-_ 24d ago
Well the post is based on a fairly dubious assumption of China being a liberal democracy......
-4
u/TheRedHand7 24d ago
Yes and it is acknowledged as being farfetched for a specific purpose. You didn't seem to acknowledge yourself engaging in even more extreme flights of fancy.
1
u/devansh_-_ 24d ago
Well, I agree with you I should've explained it more.
It depends when China transitions into a democracy and from which system (Communist or Nationalist). If the one child policy is implemented or not. Actually, Now that I am writing and thinking about it, I don't even know what/how China would've transitioned into a democracy. IMHO, it could've been followed by yet another bloody civil war. So to assume China's development level we would've to assume more things.
Also do you think China can transition into a democracy anytime in the near future for real?
4
u/TheRedHand7 24d ago
Also do you think China can transition into a democracy anytime in the near future for real?
I mean it is technically possible but no I don't think that it has any real chance of happening short of as you said a bloody civil war. And frankly I don't see where the impetus for that would come from as the average middle class Chinese person seems quite happy with the CCP.
-1
u/devansh_-_ 24d ago
Well the CCP especially under Xi is trying to inculcate parts of legalism into their overall policies. The Chinese people despise legalism. This coupled with a period no economic growth (which can happen due to the demographics and Housing market bubble) can cause an uprising in China.
→ More replies
104
u/randomguy0101001 25d ago
I think the issue for 'co-exist' is even an authoritarian China could co-exist with the US.
The China post-Tiananmen Square is arguably worse than China today, it is more authoritarian more autocratic, and spends a higher % of its GDP as military budget. Yet, the China of 1989 can co-exist with the US.
So the issue of 'co-exist' has little to do with whether China is liberal or democratic.
Then, we can look at the liberal order of the 50s & 60s, where the US and UK could be arguably said the #1 & #2 in the liberal world order. But did the US co-lead the order with the UK? I would argue no, the US in fact push for the dismantling of UK power and prestige.
So long as China is interested in Taiwan and the South China Sea, and I would say China would be interested in these whether China is a monarchy, a dictatorship, a theocracy, a democracy, or an aristocratic oligarchy, there is always the potential for conflict. Although there is a slight chance in which the US would accept a Chinese preeminence in EA if China was a democratic state, how likely do people believe in that? When Japan was basically part of the American system in the 70s and 80s, where Japanese security depends totally on the US, there was still anti-Japanese politics in the US because Japan was rising in prominence, what can we say of an equal when the US would still feel insecure from a subordinate?
So could there be co-existence? I would say yes regardless of what China is. There is no reason for either state to destroy each other even if they are opposite on the political spectrum as long as neither's core territory is threatened, and thankfully due to the distance, there is a lot of wiggle room in the 'not destroying earth' bit.
But a co-leadership?
-13
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
As I have stated in another reply, I believe that both China and the US understand that certain forms of government cannot co-exist with a perfectly stable equilibrium in today's smaller world. Without getting lost in semantics, authoritarianism and democratic liberalism erode one another's legitimacy over time. I personally know several members of the CCP who have told me this is the fundamental problem. In their view, if incorrect foreign ideas about liberal democracy were not in constant danger of seducing Chinese citizens there would be far less need for the more draconian controls on the Chinese people. Some version of the opposite dynamic exists from the perspective of the liberal democracies.
So if China remains as it is under the PRC, some type of co-existence and equilibrium might be found, but it will be inherently unstable on both sides.
The other issue you raise involves two related, but distinct, questions. One, does a functional LIO require some degree of unipolarity in order for decision making to be functional. Indeed, is unipolarity needed for the order to function for even other reasons. Two, assuming point one is not the case, does the US really believe its rhetoric, or is it just cover for the universal drive for power and status that the US (and China) could never put aside? Could the US accept being number two to any country no matter what type of government they had or how they behaved? At least to some degree, an answer to this question may depend on (or at least be informed by) trying to figure out exactly how the benefits and costs of the current order and its structure tally up. Is there some secret way that the current order net benefits the US in some significant way? Many in the US actually think it costs the US more than it benefits it; or at the least, that it benefits many of the US allies more than the US. It is a complex dynamic to figure out.
34
u/puthtipong 24d ago
I think a lot of the ideological conflicts you mention hinges on a belief in universalism i.e. all societies must eventually converge on democratic liberalism/technocratic authoritarianism because it is the best system. As we've seen in the pandemic, Chinese style governance, while with it's merits would probably only really work in societies with high social conformity (East Asia uniformly did pretty well despite proximity to the virus) and vice versa. A typical authoritarian dictatorship trying to copy the Chinese would probably fail because of sheer corruption that society hasn't worked out yet.
Essentially, coexistence would be more likely if people accepted all societies are not on the path to the same endpoint (or that one endpoint is inherently superior for all), thus one superpower's success wouldn't necessarily erode the legitimacy of groups of countries with entirely different societal values. They would have to be tolerant of and non-hostile to societies with competing values. (But I myself admit this is probably a bit too idealistic; we'd have world peace by now if countries were that accepting)
→ More replies34
u/50centspercomment 24d ago
Without getting lost in semantics, authoritarianism and democratic liberalism erode one another's legitimacy over time
I think that 'liberal democracy' has done quite well in eroding its own legitimacy if the past few years are any measure to go by.
I think that your comments about the 'liberal international order' and 'liberal democracy' rest on presumptions that I fundamentally do not agree with. Freedom (liberal) and democracy are often used interchangeably in various political discussions yet these two ideas could not be further apart.
Liberalism is above all else the ideology of freedom, of freedom of expression, of freedom of religion, of freedom of speech etc. And the ideology of freedom is above all else an ideology which seeks 'the protection of the minority'. Freedom of religion does not exist to protect the religious majority, but the religious minority, and freedom of speech does not exist to protect speech that the majority would agree with, but rather that speech which would incite the most disagreement. However in liberal society one minority's protections is enshrined above all else, not a racial, sexual, nor religious minority, but rather a bourgeoise class minority through 'freedom of market'.
In contrast, democracy is referred to sometimes explicitly so in very authoritarian terms. Whether that be the 'tyranny of the majority' , the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or the 'rule of the people', there are fundamental contradictions at play within liberal democratic societies between the 'tyranny of the majority' and the appropriate level of protections which should be afforded to respective minorities.
It is therefore no surprise that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are both referred to as 'populists', for one wishes to erode the protections of the bourgeoise minority, and the other wishes to erode the protections afforded to all the rest. Both of them have taken up 'populist' or 'democratic' platforms that are the very antithesis of liberalism, so the grouping of these two individuals together, despite them being tremendously ideologically opposed, is understandable.
To me, the falling legitimacy of 'liberal democracies' and the 'liberal international order' is a product of the fact liberalism and democracy cannot coexist, in other words, they had no legitimacy in the first place.
5
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
There's no question that there can be a fundamental tension between 'democracy' and 'liberalism'. This is pretty much why the US founding fathers detested democracy and aspired to a 'republic'. The issue is that power tends to flow, like water, ineluctably in the direction it is tilted toward, ultimately overcoming any barriers put in its way. Look how the US constitution has slowly been changed to remove most of the republican barriers to absolute rule by the majority. They are by no means all gone, but slowly they are being eroded.
But I do not believe this tension is irreconcilable. At some point we can get lost in semantics, which do matter, but are not ultimately decisive. There is room for tweaking the structure of liberal democracies (or whatever name you want). The real goal is to provide order, consistency and freedom (liberalism). The democracy part is there as an imperfect insurance policy against true tyranny, so that the interests of the state never become completely unaligned with the broad desires of the populace. The second function is to change the ultimate field of political battle from armed conflict to manipulation and/or persuasion of the electorate. This is what democracy does that nothing else can do. It is an imperfect solution, but thus far has been better than the alternative.
However, as democracy becomes increasingly worshiped as an end in and of itself, rather than the imperfect solution to a problem that it is, the harder it is to maintain republican safeguards. The more threatened liberty is. And the worse governance in general becomes, possibly to the point where some other system might actually be preferable, even if it does involve more violent conflict from time to time and even periods of tyranny.
Still, I do believe that with the right cultural understanding of democracy's purpose, liberal democracy (republicanism) can be constructed in such a way that the tensions in it are sustainable, and that the system does live up to Churchill's belief that it is the least bad of all alternatives.
35
u/TheLSales 24d ago
When Japan was basically part of the American system in the 70s and 80s, where Japanese security depends totally on the US, there was still anti-Japanese politics in the US because Japan was rising in prominence
Exactly. I think people severely overlook what happened to Japan when they ask if the US would be okay with a multipolar world.
27
u/ferrel_hadley 25d ago
US Chinese relations were on a pretty solid footing until the early 2010s. That was when it was authoritarian and Marxist.
However a liberal democratic China seems so far in the future that the question is sort of moot.
→ More replies5
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
In the 20s the big global war scare was the UK vs US. They negotiated treaties like the Washington and London Naval treaties in order to reduce risks of an arms race and worked with each other to prevent hostilities.
This is a model of handover of world hegemon between democratic states. They can work with each other to manage the transition. Its been done before.
This is not too relevant here as I said getting China to being a democracy is going to be a long project. But the kind of "red in tooth and claw" approach that many feel is inevitable is not pre-ordained.
7
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
The US and China were on a more solid footing earlier because China was smaller and there was hope that China would change before its power got close to the point where it had to be contained or would be past a point of no return.
→ More replies6
u/Fodedor_de_Rabos 24d ago
The US and the UK were negotiating naval treaties because they were both weary of potential third-parties posing an even bigger threat, specially the UK.
This isn't exactly the case with the US and China.
-12
u/[deleted] 24d ago
[removed]
27
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
Due to Han’s aspiration to build a leading nation
Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all majority Han and until recently varying shades of democracy. There is nothing inherently "Han" that makes them anti democratic.
1
-1
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Not to speak for nonswad, but these are actually two separate issues. Being a liberal democracy does not necessarily mean one wants to play by the rules of the liberal democratic order. The LIO constrains the advantages of more powerful nations in many ways. Even a liberal democratic China may have a wish to exercise its power in an entirely different manner than the LIO would allow.
2
u/kazares2651 24d ago
I think in those countries' case, they have been humbled. I mean the people in there don't really think that they are the greatest and should lead because their countries are small and tiny. In China's case though, the people could still connect to the country's past of being superior and leading. I know they are all Han Chinese so the people in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan could still connect with China's history and past but the people in these countries don't really view themselves as Chinese anymore (in a sense), but view themselves as new people connected to their own place and country with their own history. And with their nations being small, they're not gonna have aspirations of being superior since they know their limits while the Chinese people in China think that it is possible to do that and that they have the power to do that.
9
u/nonswad 24d ago
Agree with you. Those countries are much more westernized and have gone through a largely different circumstances in the last 80 years.
When it comes to China, satisfaction with the central government in China has risen from 86% in 2003 to 93% in 2016, while satisfaction with a township government has gone from 44% to 70% in the same period. [1]
With these numbers it is highly unlikely to see any form of a change in social and political organization.
First step to a democracy changes definitely has to be the rising dissatisfaction with the government. I cannot see anything apart from politically-economic disaster of Chine as a cause of that.
2
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Yes. I can see that as a possibility. Strictly speaking, a liberal democratic China could become number 1 under the LIO, and it not be a draw. But the other points you made would still apply. Furthermore, China may wish to be able to leverage its power in ways that the LIO would make impossible.
2
u/Erisagi 24d ago edited 24d ago
What kind of defeat are you looking for? Have they not been defeated or humbled in the last century?
There have also been numerous cases throughout Chinese history where the Han Chinese empires have been defeated or conquered, yet we're still in this position. What could be different this next time?
-1
u/nonswad 24d ago
There has to be a mentality change. Germany had lost the WW 1 and been humiliated, which hasn’t made them not to start the WW 2. I would discuss that current politics built on an ending of “a century of a humiliation” creates greater resentment and gathers the people around the collective identity built on the idea of territorial and cultural expansion of the Chinese nation.
So, would it be a good thing for China and the world to see them become liberal democracy? - I think so, but who knows. Is it possible to see that change with rising Chinese power and influence? - I highly doubt.
→ More replies
2
u/Algaean 24d ago
Completely unlikely. For starters, the United States isn't at all liberal.
→ More replies3
-1
u/wut_eva_bish 24d ago
Or is the order just a patina for a raw US desire for pre-emminence that China now shares? And thus their goals are incompatible.
China has preeminence?
Preeminence
NOUN
the fact of surpassing all others; superiority.
"the region has never regained the economic preeminence that it once enjoyed"
synonyms:
superiority · supremacy · greatness · excellence · distinction · prominence · predominance · eminence · peerlessness · transcendence · importance · prestige · stature · fame · renown · celebrity · supereminence
GDP does not equal eminence. On all other fronts I'd say China has a way to go before the U.S. would be sharing their position in the world with them.
As far as the rest of your question goes... The U.S. doesn't have the desire to dominate. It has the desire to suppress non-liberal forms of government from dominating their regions. Even though the U.S. will do business with non-liberal governments (like the U.S. does with China now.) Now that I think more about the premise of your question, it doesn't fully make sense.
0
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Sorry. Sloppy writing. I edited it to:
"Or is the order just a patina for a raw US desire for pre-emminence, a desire that China now shares? And thus their goals are incompatible."
I agree that China is not currently equal to the US.
I also agree that overall the US would be amenable to sharing the leadership burden with China and/or the EU. The US does not have an overwhelming desire for 1st rank in status or power. However, the one issue here would be if US hegemony and the current structure of the LIO somehow advantage the US in some massive and essential way that is hard to see. Personally, I do not see this. But there are many that suggest this is true. Most who do point to the dollar as being the vehicle through which all these benefits flow to the US. Others point to more subtle things such as getting to structure the economic rules of the world in a way that plays to fundamental US strengths and proclivities.
46
u/shorelined 24d ago
Why would the Chinese government want to become liberal and democratic when the current way of doing things works just fine for them?
→ More replies-20
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
Democracies tend to be stable. When people are irritated and angered by the government they get to change them.
The current political model in China works when people believe they and their children will live better lives because of it. But when frustrations build up there is no outlet. Its prone to break hard. Its strong but brittle while democracies are malleable.
China believes it has a form of democracy. It would not be too hard to see them nominating some regions to begin to have more voting for CCP candidates at local government level to see what works and what does not and slowly create more of a franchise over 20-30 years.
28
u/shorelined 24d ago
No, economically successful countries tend to be stable. As long as people in China see their general prosperity improving, there will be a reduced appetite for change. The Warsaw pact countries were relatively stable while things were going well, and plenty of people still have a nostalgia for that time, then it all collapsed once it didn't work anymore. China now has a fuly-fledged consumer economy and the Chinese government is happy to let people have that freedom in return for its citizens not questioning how the country is actually run. I definitely agree that if the Chinese government believes that increased democracy will benefit them then it will happen, but at the moment I can't see why they would get to that position. Of course the saying goes that things change first gradually and then suddenly, so I'm more than willing to be proven wrong on a long enough timeline.
3
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
The Warsaw pact countries were relatively stable while things were going well,
Hungary 1956
Prague Spring 1968
Polish Protests 1976
Solidarity 1980
By stable you mean oppressive police states backed up by the threat of Soviet invasion.
18
u/shorelined 24d ago
Yes that's exactly what I mean, the system worked relatively well in that everybody got a house and food. I'm not saying it's right or good but there was prosperity for many people, at a price. I've just finished reading a few Svetlana Alexeivich books and the amount of nostalgia people have for such a controlling system is mystifying to me, although I've never had to live under it.
During the same time period you refer to the USA had massive Vietnam War protests, a president assassinated, a host of international military interventions, widespread suppression of civil rights and COINTELPRO. The country I grew up in had the military on the streets of one part of the country for 30 years as well as internment without trial and massive collusion and state-sponsoring of paramilitary organisations.
I'm not arguing for one system over another, only that governments will change when it is expedient for them to do so, whether the citizens want it or not. If the wishes of the government and the public intertwine then it is a happy coincidence. A democratic government of course makes the public's wishes much more likely to occur, but it is by no means certain.
As for the original of topic, I think every government would obviously benefit from increased democratic influence, but the Chinese government is doing perfectly fine if viewed solely from the perspective of a government that wants to maintain power. It is delivering security and prosperity to its citizens, albeit on terms dictated by the government itself. The price it pays is minimal, and at present it is difficult to tell whether the public views it that way. The Chinese people certainly seem happy in the media coverage I see, but then I'd say I was happy if the world's most comprehensive surveillance system was operating in my hometown.
Again I don't think the Chinese government will prevent all democratisation and liberalisation, indeed there has already been plenty of both economically, but it will happen strictly on the CCP's terms. If some mass uprising occurs then that's brilliant, after all it is estimated that up to a third of East German citizens were informers of some variety, and a revolution still happened there. But the CCP holds all of the cards right now, and the way they are dealing with problems in Hong Kong, Tibet and the Uighur AR, as well as expanding their military and economic presence globally, doesn't suggest they will have many structural or institutional difficulties any time soon. Again, change occurs gradually then suddenly so I hope to be proven wrong in time.
-3
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
I think that is a huge presumption. I'm not saying that most PRC members do not actually believe in their system. However, there is a strong incentive for them to do so, and for them to maintain the PRC even if they secretly decided that liberal democracy would be better. It's hard to give up power.
-6
u/shorelined 24d ago
Exactly, it seems to be ruling by fear, and it's nearly impossible to get a good handle on it without any sort of free press or freedom of speech. The OP is right that this doesn't work out in the long term but the Chinese political system would unfortunately seem to be incredibly dominant right now.
1
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
The question of whether China should or would become a liberal democracy is related, but ultimately distinct.
The real question being posed here is just how important is being #1 to China and the US? If we got rid of the ideological problems, is it still essential to America for the US to be the most powerful nation? Is this essential to China?
Ultimately, this starts to get at how one sees the motivations for nations. Is status, for example, a critical motivator for nations they cannot get past? Some would say that European powers have managed to be willing to give up status ambitions for security and material prosperity. Others argue that the real point of the EU is precisely as a mechanism for European powers to, by working collectively, get back their #1 position; and that this secret long term ambition actually explains many of Europe's actions that are otherwise quite hard to explain.
4
u/shorelined 24d ago
I think China's military expansion, the Belt and Road initiative, its space programme and the pushing of technological dominance all display its desire to be number one. The extreme cynic in me thinks that most Americans don't realise the vast benefits they get from being the top dog. I think you are pretty much right about the EU, and the two sides of the argument are played out in pretty much every internal dispute within it.
2
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Well, I think the benefits the US gets as leader of the LIO are in fact very questionable. However, that doesn't necessarily mean being #1 is bad, but could rather mean that the US has leveraged its hegemony in a way that no longer works for it and just needs to use it another way. It is all very hard to say.
A part of me feels that modern IR theory has become too blinded by reason and materialism. Perhaps we have all forgotten psychology and the tenets of very old school IR theory, which state that power IS its own reward. That as people and as nations we simply want to be #1 because it FEELS great. Because it is great to go out in a world that has to reflect our preferences. Because telling other people what to do feels way better than being told what to do. And that all of this feeling often trumps any consideration of absolute material benefits.
It is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
9
u/AristocracyFTW 24d ago
Democracies are not that stable, otherwise we wouldn't be witnessing their global decline for the past 20 years.
→ More replies→ More replies20
u/H4xolotl 24d ago
Democracies tend to be stable
Per who? Many empires and dynasties have lasted hundreds of years in human history. The Democratic USA is barely 233 years old
-8
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
Many empires and dynasties have lasted hundreds of years
Most did not. Most were consumed by regular civil wars and dynastic strife. Look at Rome\Byzantium.
The longer a state is a democracy the less likely it is to have internal armed conflicts.
The Democratic USA is barely 233 years old
Without a single violent change of government. A couple of buffoons wandering round the capital with no clue what they are doing is by a long way the closest any came to trying. Only one serious large armed succession attempt.
→ More replies
15
u/yontonhaswonton 24d ago
As others have answered, it depends on whether or not the US even wants a multipolar world. And this argument also relies on a Collectivist society and an Authoritarian(Formerly Communist) state turning western overnight which is pretty unrealistic. The last time a country "turned" western, it was a process that required 2 of the deadliest weapons mankind has ever devised after the biggest in Himan history, then decades of funding.
2
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Well, this is obviously a longer term question. So China would have time.
The question of whether the US could accept a multipolar world is very tough to figure out. It hinges on whether a bipolar (and eventually multipolar) LIO could function. And then there is the question of whether US hegemony really benefits it now or not, and if so, how much? And how much does it benefit allies? Figuring out the relative benefits and costs of US hegemony within the current order structure is pretty tricky. Even inside the US there is a lot of debate.
1
u/yontonhaswonton 24d ago
True, true. But I guess these questions are for an another discussion/post.
2
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Personally, I think that topic is well within the purview of this thread and topic as it could be essential to coming to a conclusion.
For example, say that the status of the US dollar has become essential to the US maintaining its standard of living and servicing its debt. And say that US hegemony, rather than just its economic size and quality of its markets, is key in the long term to maintaining the status of the US dollar. Finally, assume that those in the know in the US actually understand this and can exert sufficient influence, despite being unable to articulate this reality publicly. Well in such a case, the US would perhaps never be willing to do anything to preserve its hegemony.
I don't buy this argument, but it has been made. Other similar arguments might also exist.
-9
u/BaldSandokan 24d ago
The US coexists and cooperates with literally every liberal democratic country that exists today on earth. Therefore the current tension globally is not betveen America and China, or americans vs. chinese, but democratic vs. autocratic (or dictatoric, or whatever you prefer) regimes.
5
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Yes, that is how I see it, too. But there is a question as to whether the US only supports a LIO when the US is the hegemon. Would the US be willing to support a LIO where it became #2 is the question.
0
→ More replies24
u/bighand1 24d ago
The US coexists and cooperates with literally every liberal democratic country that exists today on earth
See 1980 US anxieties over trade issues with Japan. US is fine with co-existing with others as long as it doesn't threaten them economically or military.
→ More replies-13
u/Wheynweed 24d ago
I mean Japan had fundamentally unfair advantages in trade. All the US did was equalise things, after Japan got wealthy I may add.
2
u/IHateAnimus 24d ago
If the space frontier opens up new avenues for resource gathering, the competition could turn friendly. As long as we are within Earth and with Climate disasters looming, it looks to be tending towards a zero sum game in the near future.
38
u/BerserkerMagi 24d ago
No and probably would make the US even more suspicious of China. If China was part of the "liberal order" it would be a real contender to replace the US at the top of said order/alliance. There is no way the US would react well to that or even allow that possibility to begin with. On the flip side, there is also no way even a democratic China would be ok with being the US's little side kick like Europe and Japan are right now. So there would be points of conflict from both sides. Right now both sides keep a safe distance which a avoids direct confrontation, although this is getting worse by the day.
You have a very naive view of the world if you think that were we all to be democracies that all conflict would end. Resources are limited and influence over areas of the globe even more so. Changing the way a nation chooses its leaders and policies has nothing to do with the geopolitical interests of said nation. No matter the system, China will always be interested in the South China sea or the belt&road initiative. They might be less militaristic about it but you just change the playground into back room political maneuvering and similar types of methods that sometimes bring even more problems.
→ More replies1
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
So your contention is that for the US, being #1 is the primary motivation. The LIO and it's benefits are secondary. Above all, both the US and China strive for dominance and ideology and world orders are secondary?
→ More replies
27
14
u/ShotFish 24d ago
If the international order were a deal cut between China and the US, it would not be a Democratic arrangement, since it would reduce the power of, for example, France. In any China has no intention of mimicking the West. The idea is as foolish as expecting Saudi Arabia to reform Islam.
The US has allowed educational standards to slip badly. It cannot be an equal partner or world leader if chaos reigns.
1
u/TheLSales 24d ago
it would not be a Democratic arrangement, since it would reduce the power of, for example, France
Could you elaborate?
→ More replies
6
u/Steelyarseface 24d ago
Idk if China would necessarily have to be anything different than it is now. It's obvious that they can continue to operate as the global producers of manufactured goods with little scrutiny abroad. I would almost expect cooperation between the two nations, despite their differences, to be necessary for maintaining the balance of power. Here's one of Kraut's videos I actually rewatched last night. https://youtu.be/hhMAt3BluAU Don't let the video title fool you. About ~90% of its content focuses on China and its geopolitical past and ambition for the future.
6
u/7086945 24d ago
I don't think so. In the case of regime succession, no matter the difference in ideology, political system or economical structure, any "new" country that inherits the old one's geographical and ethnographical borders also inherits its geo-political interests and conflicts.
For a liberal and democratic China, suppose it somehow exists, as long as it has the same or similar border and demographical composition, the only conflict that might be gone is the ideological one, but comptetion in economy, diplomacy, power projection, cultral supremacy or even nationalist fanatism will persist, and they all make good reasons for conflicts or even war, like history has showed us.
1
u/Environmental-Cold24 24d ago
That would require a significant political change on the Chinese side and before that happens, or that China is kind of stable, I expect them to go through some heavy economic shifts as well looking at their current economic model. Before that is all settled you are probably at least 10 years in the future, 10 years wherein China was more focusing on adapting than on development, cooperation would at that moment be possible but from a very different position than you might expect today.
6
u/MemphisCanadians 24d ago
A lot has to happen for even a democratic China to co-exist with the US. But as much as I want see that, there are several concerns.
Conflicting geopolitical ambitions will not go away even when China transitions to a democracy
Difficult to predict because we have never seen a democracy with both the population size and the economic weight of China (India is still far off) The US has never had to share role of "world police" with a fellow democracy post WWII.
Decades of animosity among the populations of both countries might not go away just because China democratized. I'm talking about racism, prejudice etc...
I've always believed a liberal and democratic China can bring plenty good to Chinese people, but I am not optimistic that it would make much difference to improve China's relations with the US (and by extension other western democracies) as long as core international interests are in the way.
-4
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Well, if the rhetoric of the liberal international order is to be believed, the whole point is that everybody gives up their geopolitical ambitions. Nobody can conquer territory. Nobody has a classic sphere of influence. There are extreme limits to which powerful countries can leverage their power to influence smaller countries.
The US and other powers only use their influence to protect the order itself. It's never naked self-interest. Competition is relegated to the economic and cultural spheres, and even economically there are constraints (WTO) to how much you can bully smaller countries.
The question then becomes, with respect to China, would a liberal democratic China be willing to live with such constraints? Or would it have another conception of world order, perhaps one where it got more mileage for its power.
12
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
Well, if the rhetoric of the liberal international order is to be believed, the whole point is that everybody gives up their geopolitical ambitions.
Citation please.
Nobody can conquer territory.
That is the UN charter. That was agreed with the input of the USSR.
Nobody has a classic sphere of influence.
This sounds like Russia Today having a moan rather than a serious discussion on current geopolitical interactions. You also seem to be confusing the US using its hegemonic power to curtail non allies from achieving spheres of influence with some kind of "liberal international order" agreement.
4
u/MemphisCanadians 24d ago
You answered better than how I'd done, indeed there isn't much that suggest USA will act any different towards a liberal power than an autocratic one, and the liberal international order itself is also up to different interpretations.
But I'd also add that as long as "nation-state" exist as we know it, it is very difficult to put aside national interests for "the good of the world".
-8
u/mrs_bungle 24d ago
A democratic and liberal China? Jesus. Would anyone have an issue with that?
→ More replies
-6
u/TruePolarWanderer 24d ago
It really would not matter what the internal politics of china was or it's general human rights record internally if it was planning on attacking our allies.
You are literally describing the goal of us foreign policy towards china from 1970' to 2015.
In 2015 we realized China was not interested in peaceful coexistence and was building an army to take Taiwan by force. We are trying to re evaluate now.
4
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
Perhaps this was the goal, but perhaps the US never anticipated that China could become this strong. The question here is not so much whether China could or would become liberal democratic, it's whether the US would ever let another state or political entity become its superior regardless of what government type that country had.
I live in China, and many there have always believed that while making China into a democracy was a US goal, the primary US rule was that nobody could ever become more powerful than the US. The US envisioned a liberal democratic China that either split into competing and balancing states, or got stuck at a low enough GDP per capita level that it could not outpace the US.
Above all, the belief was that if China or any other entity got with striking distance of US power, the US would find some way to prevent that, whatever the rhetoric about ideology. And many say what is playing out now is proving them right. Any political or even territorial (Taiwan) differences in opinion are window dressing. The issue is that China has become too powerful and now the US is finding a way to knock it down to size. If it isn't done one way, it will be done another.
-3
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
I live in China, and many there have always believed that while making China into a democracy was a US goal, the primary US rule was that nobody could ever become more powerful than the US. The US envisioned a liberal democratic China that either split into competing and balancing states, or got stuck at a low enough GDP per capita level that it could not outpace the US.
This is conspiracy theory level thinking.
Above all, the belief was that if China or any other entity got with striking distance of US power, the US would find some way to prevent that,
US policy on China was reset by the 2016 election. That was mostly driven by trade concerns of voters in the "rust belt". US public sentiment drove the trade relations deterioration. Anyone trying to describe the current set of circumstances and not actively reflecting that is simply peddling fables.
ny political or even territorial (Taiwan) differences in opinion are window dressing.
The US had been guarantor of Taiwanese independence for about 70 years. Trying to wrap that into somehow being about the change in US China relations is nonsense. A quick look at the kind so called wolf warrior diplomacy, clashes on the India border, its aggression in the South China Sea would suggest that there is just ever so slightly more to this the US inventing a reason to have a spat.
I really have no more time for this than the MAGA world view.
-6
u/ferrel_hadley 24d ago
This whole thread is nothing but thinly veiled Chinese nationalist conspiracy theories about the "LIO" blocking their "legitimate" geopolitical ambitions.
→ More replies
17
u/houinator 24d ago
An uncomfortable truth is that most of the things the US dislikes about CCP run China would also be true in a democratic China. Things like Chinas territorial claims in the South China Sea, Taiwan reunification, even their repression of Uighers to an extent, are broadly popular, and would likely continue if China had a real democracy.
→ More replies
0
u/HarryPFlashman 24d ago
Chinas goals are fundamentally at odds with the US and the west in general. What makes it more incompatible is it’s closed single party political system, with a complete lack of transparency.
If the CCP was overthrown and China became a Korean or Taiwanese type democracy, it is likely the US and western stance would soften but there would still be so many areas of conflict that a co- leadership type system wouldn’t happen, more like what the world was like pre World wars.
1
u/Chicago_Synth_Nerd_ 24d ago
Sure, that would be great, but it's not realistic because the situation is incredibly complicated.
The United States maintains a global presence to secure international commerce and security for our allies (and ourselves).
While our economy is heavily dependent on trade and investment with China, the rhetoric and actions of our government speaks otherwise (and many times it justifiable, such as their encroachment in the South China Sea, human rights abuses, their tacit support of terrorism, etc.). There is ample evidence to suggest that China infiltrates and steals US intellectual property and they engage in economic espionage. What is strange is that despite this, big business seemingly clamors to give money and do business with China while the US Govt both defends these businesses and while posturing against China and it wouldn't surprise me if China and other adversaries use this as a wedge issue to create further discord in the US. It's kind of like when Trump was campaigning on bringing jobs back while his MAGA hats were manufactured in the countries he was denigrating.
I don't know if the US targets China in the same ways that we are targeted... China doesn't report on it. Over the last two years, there have been numerous reports of adversarial nations (and groups supported by adversarial nations) that have targeted hospitals and critical infrastructure, which seems to be a line that the US wouldn't cross. Ordinary citizens should not be affected by the actions of their governments and I feel that should be a universal ideal.
The US public is so dependent on cheap goods and our labor rights in this country are incredibly poor comparative to other Western nations and because of that, domestic manufacturing isn't coming back because it's not profitable within the current business climate.
On a global scale, there are a lot of countries that like to blame the United States for all of their problems, and in some cases, there's probably legitimate cause. The truth is a bit more complex; the vestiges of colonialism and fascism have impacted a lot of impoverished countries in terrible ways and the west are used as bogeymen. Adversaries of the US recognize this and take advantage of any misdeed done by the US (real or perceived) as a way to demonstrate to these countries that the US are the baddies, but it's not done out of a sense of altruism, it's a method to exert control.
I don't think that the oceans or being global police is something that either country is interested in collaborating on, but climate change is something that will effect everyone on this planet, regardless of their wealth or citizenship. Unfortunately, climate change has been politicized in the nations most able to enact effective change. But yeah, it would be great if the US and China would get along and be able to effectively collaborate on important issues. A path towards peace is always more prosperous for everyone than a path towards conflict.
16
u/Brassmoose 24d ago
Liberal interventionism was a mistake
-5
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
I would say that the hubris level can be dialed up too high, and respect for difficulties too low.
That doesn't mean there aren't times for it, if done the right way. If the LIO had to replay Rwanda with what it now knows, that doesn't mean you do nothing.
1
u/accidentaljurist 24d ago
This is a pretty fair take. I think it is worth unpacking the meaning of a “LIO” too. The former Ambassador-at-Large of Singapore, Prof Tommy Koh, provides a decent description of this when he wrote, recently in an opinion piece (here), that
Politically, the US has championed the post-World War II, rules-based international order and multilateralism.
No one is suggesting that any international institution or intervention is perfect. Far from it, in fact. We have to acknowledge that there are serious shortfalls, blind spots, and large cracks in the existing system.
And saying that the existing system is better than the previous one is quite different from downplaying the real challenges that many countries face today which existing institutions and measures either have not resolved or, worse, caused.
Having said that, I think that the new international order is not perfect, but it is a stop-gap measure for allowing different groups of nations to address and negotiate common interests without resorting immediately to forceful economic or military measures. Again, this is not to say that such measures ought not to be used or that the existing system has successfully prevented all unwarranted use of such measures. What it does provide for is some platform for nations to negotiate and discuss these difficult issues.
→ More replies7
u/osaru-yo 24d ago edited 24d ago
If the LIO had to replay Rwanda with what it now knows, that doesn't mean you do nothing.
The problem of the genocide wasn't so much that the liberal order did nothing but that prior to it it did too much for the wrong reasons. For instance the aggressive democratization.
After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, Mitterrand called for the creation of multi-party democracies in Africa, and linked French economic assistance to progress toward democratization, as reflected in his address to the Franco-African summit at Le Baule in June 1990. The documents show that he urged Habyarimana to negotiate a compromise deal with political opponents inside the country (largely Hutus, based in the south of the country), as well as the armed opposition outside the country (the Rwandan Patriotic Front). [https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB461/](http://[1])
To many Rwandans of that time it wasn't appreciated as Rwanda had historically had its own style of governance it wished to modernize. It also points to the reality that powerful liberal state can still push for national interest as (note: Habyarimana only agreed for favors and support. It should also be noted how hypocritical and contradictiveit is to impose a system of governance that is supposed to grant choice to the people).
The arrogance of Mitterrand’s neocolonial engagement in Rwanda was to pursue French geopolitical interests with indifference to the consequences for Tutsi in Rwanda.”
The authors add: “For French policy in Rwanda, the overriding issue was not a coming genocide; it was preventing the RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front] from establishing what Mitterrand referred to in June 1994 as a ‘Tutsiland’.”[2]
Or by off-loading the political and economic burden onto the international community:
Unwilling to bear the political and economic burden of shoring up a key African ally all by herself, France sought to internationalize a growing political and military crisis in Rwanda by pushing responsibility onto the United Nations in the period leading up to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. At the same time, French president Francois Mitterrand remained deeply suspicious of Tutsi-led rebels who invaded Rwanda from Uganda, with what an aide described as "the benevolent complicity of the Anglo-Saxon world."[1]
Reality is that if it had a do over it would still make half the mistakes as the hubris is baked into the assumptions of the liberal order. That and the liberal order didn't solve the security dilemma or the underlying need for states to pursue national interests first and foremost under the guise of intervention. It is flawed no matter how you "dial " it up or down.
I would appreciate if some of you would stop name dropping Rwanda to make this superficial examples. It is getting old.
-1
u/WilliamWyattD 24d ago
It's unclear to me what standards for intervention would be the threshold for 'interventionism'. What standards are desirable would be a thread of its own. The point is simply that the ideal standard is not 'never and and in no situation'.
→ More replies
-7
u/NineteenEighty9 24d ago edited 24d ago
As someone who began following China closely in the early 2000s when Hu & Wen were in charge I was very optimistic about the path China was on. The party was liberalizing (very very slowly) but moving generally on the right path.
What’s poorly understood by many imo is the development path that worked for China in the past has a half-life, and it’s reaching its end. The days of easy growth and a growing workforce are gone. There are big and serious reforms that are needed (and soon) if the country is to continue to grow and prosper. Then Xi came to power and completely reversed course, the Chinese economy is too large and too complex today to be effectively state driven. Championing SOEs over the much more productive and innovative private sector will be the downfall of Xi tech ambitions. The challenge with these reforms is they would require the party to relinquish control over certain mechanisms that help It monopolize power and oppress the populace.
The party (and Xi) actions have proven that they put the survival and power of the party ahead of China and the Chinese people’s prosperity.
China is facing a demographic crises on the scale (if not worse) than Japans but with 1/6 the per capita wealth. As it stands today the central governments underfunded pension system already eats up 10%+ of its annual budget, with 100s of millions more expected to draw from it in the coming decades (and less workers contributing). The central government quite literally doesn’t have the resources to sustain this system or support its enormous elderly population in the future. Add a declining workforce to this and its a recipe for massive instability going forward.
Without serious market reforms (currently Xi is reversing Dengs policies that made China prosper) China faces the real possibility of the middle income trap and perpetual stagnation. As it stands today the economy can’t achieve more than 2-3% of good quality growth, to grow 6% + means increasing debt to pour money into projects that show up in GDP but aren’t economically viable. The high speed rail network is a prime example, it’s hemorrhaging money and is unable to make the payments on its massive debts without support from state owned banks. This is an inherit issue with GDP targets, it tells you nothing about the long term availability of the project. You can build a bridge, knock it down, build it again and it shows up x2 toward GDP.
20
u/MrPonikkara 24d ago
The question Itself is very poor. OP wants USA to continue working as the police man of the world...Nobody excepts US and its allies want that.. You people destabilised countless countries in Asia and Africa...The public reason being bringing stability and democracy..but..You guys actually want to serve your military and business interests...If you actually cared about democracy...You guys wouldnt have been supporting Saudi Arabia...which itself has a bad record even among the other monarchies
You people came to blockade India with your aircraft carrier strike group..because india fought for the actual indipendence of Bangladesh from Pakistans rule of terror...
You people invaded vietnam and fought a bloody war because you feared the rise of communism in vietnam...But according to your own ideology...They should have the freedom to decide for themselves what kind of governance they wanted...
The korean war was the result of 2 superpowers trying to play global police...and it all finally resulted in the creation of 2 countries who is going to fight for eternity...
Playing global police always stems from a superiority complex...Britain played it... It was called colonialism at that time ..but the reasons were all the same...The public reason was to "civilise" the "barbarians"..But the real reason was to make their fat asses even fatter.....They created India Pakistan...made the bitter rivals we are now...Created afghanistan out of thin air...Seperated all the major tribes in afghan region to afghanistan and pakistan so that no major tribe would be present in one country and become a power... The US is following now....Only their interests are a lot more visible ..they no longer want to "civilise"...They just destroy and leave
If at all the US wants to believe that they are doing good...They should atleast stop their hypocrisy of selectively bringing in democracy... Otherwise you are not global police...just another global bully who happened to be twice as tall and broad as all the other kids
→ More replies
1
2
u/Nick18000 24d ago
The USA tried to use a strategy of creating economic dependence and grassroot-influence towards democracy in China in the last 20-30 years but it did not work. If it had worked I could see co-existing but at the current point the future looks grim.
-4
u/Ours_isthe_Fury 24d ago
The problem is that China's power all sits atop a house of cards. The parts of it's society that are incompatible with ours are the only reason the CCP is able to maintain the control it has. Liberalizing it/democratization will cause their government to come crashing down.
My personal opinion is that China will likely crumble within before a large conventional war due to domestic issues.
Their biggest concern is too keep their population isolated from information and "maintain harmony" at all costs. Even if the costs are horrifying. This directly contradicts with a more liberal china.
Many people seem concerned about going to war with China, but with China's aggressive economic policies they are gaining power and influence without using their military. The nature of war has completely changed.
This is a challenge for our form of capitalism because it's much harder to keep pace and they have no reason to slow down, so they won't. This is another reason they will not liberalize further. Their biggest advantage is that so few people are making the decisions. Liberalizing it would make them just like us and slow them down.
2
u/ICLazeru 24d ago
It would require one or both sides giving up on some of their national interests, a level of trust that is exceeding difficult to come by in international politics. Nations usually only do that when they know they have little chance of success anyway.
-1
u/erykwelde 24d ago
I mean, all that has to happen is for Taiwan to take over the mainland politically
→ More replies
16
u/RealScottMorrison 24d ago
It’s interesting and unfortunate that in a geopolitics forum you’re getting very few answers informed by the dominant school of thought in international relations and political science.
To give a very simplified typical structural realist perspective, absolutely not. China’s threat to the US isn’t because it opposes it ideologically, it’s because it aims to become a regional hegemon which threatens US global hegemony. Realists dismiss the relevance of ideology; threats always emerge on a state level defined by shifts in the balance of power. Allowing a regional power to become a regional hegemon undermines the US’s unipolar position and allows the opposing power to grow in power further through unopposed domination in its own region, much as the US has in the Western Hemisphere. This is very easily interpretable as an existential threat on US security within the context of its global hegemony.
China isn’t going to simply stop wanting to expand its power just because it has a different ideology, and an expansive China is a threat to the US in any circumstances.
→ More replies
0
u/Gringoboi17 24d ago
I honestly believe that if China liberalized to the point of the US Europe and Japan they would dominate the world based solely on the economic and cultural weight of their population.
-3
u/Andreas_Bruticus 24d ago
Well I would argue that China has to stop trying to genocide Uighers before any cooperation can happen. They’re like Nazi Germany, they’re just better at hiding it. Or not, since so many people know about it. It’s sad to me that we aren’t… doing anything about it. If these people were Jewish or Christian I feel like the world would’ve been a lot quicker to at least condemn China for it, but so far, it seems like their genocide will go on unabated, at least for a few more years, and by then it will probably be too late.
0
10
u/idealatry 24d ago
There is a basic assumption that underlies this question — that the theory of democratic peace theory holds. In other words, it is assumed that no democratic country can go to war against another.
I don’t think there’s much evidence to support this theory. In every case we’ve seen of democratic countries working mutually in one another’s favor has been in a post-WWII scenario. That means these countries have been forced to work against a non-democratic country (USSR) or forced to work with the sole superpower (US). We haven’t really had a situation where the balance of power has been multi-polar among democratic countries, but I suspect it would result in countries competing in the way that countries traditionally compete (with violence).
So whether China is liberal democratic or not, I think there will be conflicts. It’s not a question of a state’s internal ideology, it’s a question of the balance of power between states.
That doesn’t mean, however, that internal propaganda wouldn’t be heavily utilized to paint opposing countries as not true (insert country’s preferred ideology), if war were close.
4
u/HEV_tux 24d ago
Why couldn't China and the US eventually cooperate in providing public goods such as securing the oceans and being the global policemen together
I don't see this likely primarily because China has no interest in doing so, nor is it necessary.
The USA has such an enormous lead when it comes to military (particularly blue water navy) that nobody else has even tried, or thought about trying to catch up for the past 4 decades. The role of "world police" is pretty locked down by the USA at this point and I don't see it changing this century.
As far as the rest of your question, I think it's what is currently happening and might continue to happen, and I don't think China has to "liberalize" for it to happen.
If there is one positive in this new cold war it's that China has no interest in dominating the globe or exporting their culture the same way the soviet union did. China wants China to do well, the belt and road and all of their trade deals are being done entirely out of their own interest. The only things they want to "conquer" are Taiwan and the South China Sea, because these places have historical and cultural relevance, as well as some economic.
TLDR China doesn't want to become a world hegemon, they want their own country and countrymen to thrive, and sometimes that involves regional conflicts.
1
u/capitanmanizade 24d ago
If this new china becomes US’s lapdog sure. If not I don’t see it happening.
336
u/Kronoskickschildren 25d ago
I just want to believe in a future like this