The simple answer is that there is much more evidence of the US being warlike than China, especially when we consider the short history of the US. Just think of the genocide if indigenous peoples not just in the US itself but elsewhere (in Latin America and now Palestine) which the US supported directly through the CIA or indirectly through proxies.
Of course China is not perfect. But China is certainly and unequivocally less warlike than the US!
The problem with all of this (quite illuminating!) history is that Xi in particular seems to think that he’s a “Man of Destiny”. He’s the most powerful figure since Mao, and he may indeed get it into his head that he can avoid “imperial overstretch” by simply economically subjugating the West.
But the West, and America in particular, are too accustomed to running the global economic hegemony. For various reasons — some quite ugly, some even somewhat noble — we certainly wouldn’t just lie down and accept whatever Xi thinks is historically “fair”.
Which ultimately means conflict. It’s vanishingly little consolation that China is “bad at expansion” or Xi “only wants Taiwan” when the obvious arrow points in the direction of him using Taiwan to challenge the liberal democratic capitalist hegemony. Even if he’s destined to fail at anything past Taiwan, the attempts themselves can EASILY prove deadly and dangerous in their outcomes.
The thing that I think goes WOEFULLY underexamined in all these considerations of any putative conflict, is that one or both sides may possess crippling cyber capabilities that pose an incredibly dangerous escalation risk that neither side’s leaders are prepared for, as illuminated in the book “2034” — read it if you haven’t already! And while I can’t speak for China, I can pretty confidently say that the West would not take any cyber defeat lying down; not when we’re the ones who invented the computer and the internet.
And that illustrates that the greatest risk of underestimation is that Xi may get it into his head that the West can somehow be cowed or kept at bay. This seems to be the fundamental error that Chinese emperors have always committed in their border conflicts with those “harder peoples” you mention.
Of course, none of this takes into account the risk of capitulation under a spineless criminal like Trump. But however unpredictable he may be, the thing about the West is that our leaders are always changing. We’re just one Big Mac away from another Churchill or FDR.
Well, i actually think “bad at expansion” and Xi “only wants Taiwan” are great consolation. If the US doesn’t provoke China into a wider conflict, then China has no appetite. But if it’s true that as you suggest, the US IS looking for a war, then god help us. (I don’t believe it. There could be chance for peace)
Your thinking about unintended consequences of cyber warfare is something I haven’t thought about. But at least for now, there doesnt seem to have evidence to suggest that China is looking to wage cyber war, other than the evidence that China is getting ready to make it enough of deterrent.
I don’t think my intended takeaway was “the US is looking for war”; but rather, that the US is too prideful to go down without a fight.
Just to lay my own biases on the table, I think that given our current facts on the ground, regrettable and odious as I find them, the best case for my side is that Trump forfeits outright conflict in Round 1 of Cold War II (prob over TW), and unwittingly sets the stage for our next president to rebuild our military industrial complex to catch up to China’s — particularly in drone capabilities and missile interceptors.
But RE cyberwar… the core danger is, there’s basically very little difference between each side’s “deterrent” weapons and offensive ones. The 2034 book illustrates how either side could fail to make this distinction in the fog of conflict, especially given that these weapons have never truly been deployed at scale. An infrastructure attack that Chinese leadership sees as limited and surgical, for instance, could easily cause knock-on damage outside of what was initially intended.
Also, because it could potentially be so devastating for either side on the battlefield, the opening cybershots could dramatically alter the balance of forces in either direction. It’s just highly unpredictable! Either side could see entire battle fleets wiped out in MINUTES.
One point about the cowing… it’s something that may have worked on countless generations of peasants in China, but Americans especially are extremely resistant to it. You see what’s going on with Rednote, right? Don’t mistake it for some great peaceful overture, however heartening the cultural exchange might be. We as a people have an incurable case of Oppositional Defiant Disorder; our idiot teens and twentysomethings are just doing what comes naturally and rebelling against someone telling them what to do. They’ll fall out of love with Rednote as soon as they run up against its very real censorship limitations.
But it also means that we are CRAZY. You know that video of Kendrick Lamar exercising in a park wearing jeans in the middle of an LA summer? You don’t mess with that guy. You don’t even look in his direction too long, and heaven forbid you make eye contact. He is not stable.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with us. We are NUTS. Disturbed. It’s why we elected Trump — we got bored with not having done anything self-destructive in a while.
What scares me the most about Xi is that I don’t think he truly understands this. Most emperors don’t. We are the barbarians — perhaps the Mongols are the best reference point. Xi can make the most well-calibrated calculations in world history, and they will all be wrong if he doesn’t understand that we are dangerously unpredictable in all of our stupid and ignorant glory.
To your point, just then what can be done to manage the US and by extension the West? If indeed US culture is "CRAZY" and "NUTS", in the longer term, regardless of who you elect, the trend will be towards destruction and colonisation of everyone else. So, how to protect ourselves here in the Global South against that? Your beliefs lead to only one conclusion.
That’s a very valid question, which I won’t dismiss out of hand.
The reason for my comment isn’t to pose it as a threat or a quandary. It’s to point out that a catastrophic escalation could result from Xi not really understanding how self-destructive and un-cow-able America is.
The smart play is to (1) keep building up a navy and drone capacity, and (2) escape the middle-income trap by establishing a strong domestic consumer demand economy. Not because it would kowtow to Western sensibilities and aggression, but because it would represent the next step in building on China’s current advantages and strengths.
A war over, say, Taiwan, any time in the current phase of China’s rise would most likely backfire and empower India.
But staying the course of growing their domestic economy, escaping the doldrums, and building a powerful navy… THAT would be the smarter long term play. China is already much of the way towards establishing not merely manufacturing superiority, but outright dominance. They’ve already dramatically weakened and divided the West. The current strategy is working, to the detriment of the side I myself am openly biased towards! But they’re simply not ready to go toe-to-toe.
Xi probably thinks his “window” — on Taiwan, and on achieving global dominance/hegemony overall — is closing. It’s not! He’s just got to ride out the current difficulties and swallow his personal pride enough to realize he isn’t the Man of Destiny he fantasizes about being. If he doesn’t start a disastrous war, he will have an even more successful legacy of setting the stage for a future leader to lead an even greater era of dominance.
Sadly, I don’t think that one achieves the great heights that Xi has, without simply being too prideful to make such a sacrifice. Which, again, scares me.
Thanks for the comment. I have seen similar ideas about XJP's personality being made by other Western commentators and so it piqued my curiosity as to how PRC citizens see their leader, and I have posed a query to Robert and the China Translated community accordingly.
I’d just add that my declarations of America being “CRAZY” and “NUTS” are not intended as humblebrags. They’re fundamental problems that I despise about the country I love. Like, sure, there’s always going to be some cheeky satisfaction and pride in it, but I’d rather be slightly more boring and avoid a potential authoritarian nightmare than have to deal with *waves arms* ALL THIS BULLSHIT.
To your newly added point on the resource curse, can I add the curse of the loess plateau that both contributed to the fertility of and also destroyed the arable lands? The border wars you refer to as point 2 were mostly from the north/north-west. This made it necessary to occupy the Ordoss plain as a buffer zone to prevent incursions into the fertile lands. The need to occupy the Ordoss plain led to soil erosion in its very friable soil. This soil erosion resulted in the constant need to manage and control flooding from the Yellow River, as well as the need to prepare against famine caused by flooding by stockpiling rice and grain. There were constant projects to deal with and minimize the devastating flooding. This ate up huge amounts of surplus that might otherwise have been used to fund wars. As a result, however, the Chinese became very good at civil engineering, and lousy at military engineering. They were the first to invent gunpowder and guns, but never invested their surplus into improving them but into improving flood management on a continental scale instead. Furthermore, early guns and gunpowder were not suitable for dealing with horse mounted archers, so there was no push to develop that technology (unlike the West where it was more about seizing forts and there cannons and gunpowder made a big difference). And from that bifurcation, two different cultures were formed.
Mr. Xi has often stated that TW must be reunified with the motherland and the US had accepted the one CN principle to ally with CN against the USSR in the 1970's. I think Mr. Xi has made the reunification the cornerstone of his presidency and he must complete this internal task to complete the first phase of the CN rejuvenation. If I understand your historical thesis and my observations, CN does not consider the TW reunification as a first step in expanding an empire, rather a last step in reuniting modern CN. I believe the strength of Western militaries, the power of Western navies, and the deterrence of nuclear arms, have led to the conclusion for CN to match the West and control the CN sea if the TW reunification is to be successful. White details may be much more complex, I think a simple observation is that Mr. Xi must complete his life's work and must have military strength to prevent the West from interfering with the reunification. I wholeheartedly agree with your explanations of historical CN and the recurring references of earlier successes and failures to shape the thinking and tactics for conflict today.
More about Xi. After all, if there is one thing that’s the core ideology of Xi, it’s the “rejuvenation of China”. Taiwan is part of that, but not the only part. If in certain circumstances reunification risks detailing the larger rejuvenation, he will back down.
I think the Russia-Ukraine war should provide concern about the cost and duration of conflict as a means of resolution for a political issue. Others may conclude that it is a playbook for what not to do, thus providing guidance on what military action to take that could be successful. I think this is illustrated by the removal of corrupt military leadership to avoid issues experienced by the Russian military. In contrast, the reunification of HK has come at lower cost of treasury and life. But I think the large build-up of the CN defense industry will eventually be used for offense, at a minimum regarding TW. It would make sense that a political solution should cost far less but would need to evolve over several generations. But I understand that there are those who believe the wait has already been long enough. That is why I think there will be a military action.
Also, it suffices to say I never believe China’s territorial ambition is anything other than the reuni as well as securing at least some substantial rights from SCS, and no more. Heck, if China is really expansionist, it should already be working on reclaiming the India-sized land mass that was lost to Russia. Now should be the best moment to stab in the back. But no, we don’t do that.
I agree with this point. Reunification from the CN position should not be viewed as expansionist from the West. But some will view it differently than I.
Yes, mostly agree. Although i do have doubts about “Xi must reunify with TW in his lifetime” thing. I mean, he will definitely want to see that. And he will work towards the goal pretty hard. If an opportunity presents itself, he will seize that moment. BUT, if circumstances don’t allow, I don’t think he will bang his head and burn the world to achieve that. He was known to be flexible. Fundamentally, I think Chinese leadership has some deep confidence that so long as China keeps rising, and the relative balance of power in west pacific keeps tilting towards China, this issue will be resolved one day. I genuinely think (and hope) he is satisfied with at least ensuring China to be on this path. But, what do we know, we don’t sleep on the same pillow with Xi so we may never know.
While what you say is on point (while perhaps intentionally downplaying the military successes of China, at least in recent decades), I think it will largely fall on deaf ears. The people who follow Noah do so not because they want to be informed, but because they enjoy the feeling of having their supremacist notions reinforced. Noah makes his living off of fear-mongering about China. He won’t change his views because it’s in his best interest not to.
Why do you believe Noah Smith is sincere in his beliefs as opposed to being someone who is just coming up with excuses that he thinks will best push the US to a war?
That's plausible too, and actually more likely. But, my job is really not about Noah Smith himself. But try to show the alternative to those who read his work, especially the more open-minded ones among that group
All good and optimistic points to keep in mind. I think it would be good if Noah were challenged more on some of his rhetoric on China.
If I can just steelman his case a little though, it is not the issue that China is a warlike culture, it might be the least warlike culture in existence, but that doesn't matter if it is nevertheless on the warpath. If all the capabilities and forces needed to enact war at a large scale are being put in place can America 100% trust they are not the true target.
Of course, even a peace-loving nation may feel the need to strengthen its military. But more pessimistically, even a peace-loving nation can be brought to war if they feel victimized (or are made to feel so).
It is not wrong to fear such things at this moment in history. But the fear is exaggerated. Noah tends to make war instigated by China sound as if it is predestined. The more difficult reality is that it is a possibility (driven by events). Something that you can prepare for too much and also too little. Maybe your part 2 will deal with this (9/11 type events or maybe something more ambiguous).
Robert, you have absolutely convinced me that war is not in China's interest and that the average Chinese does not want war. However, you have also proven that China has repeatedly moved into non-Han areas either self protectively or because of a leader's love of glory. Thus, non-war loving China has inflicted plenty of hurt on neighboring peoples.
It is this that I fear— China seems to want to claim the South China Sea as its own. Since China does not need the South China Sea for its own security, why?
Why is China building up its military so rapidly?
If Chinese are non-militaristic, why do they join the military? Are they drafted? If enlisted men join the PLA for job security, are they really willing to fight?
Under the conditions of conventional warfare 100 years ago, it made sense for China to directly control border regions. This meant that an invading army had to march far much farther to reach your capital city. But now that the true threat to any nation is nuclear, why does China need to hang on to Xinjiang and Tibet, obviously against the will of the inhabitants?
These are probably the toughest questions I could possibly ask you, but they are the ones that are on my mind.
I love your substack. I open it immediately and read every one.
Just in terms of "why is China building up it's military so rapidly" - a question that seems very common at the moment - it's worth remembering that the USA's military expenditure was, up until very recently, larger than the rest of the planet combined.
There's certainly still questions about why ramp up military capacity if you have no intention of using it, although I think the argument that "They (USA) has a big stick and seems to hate us, so we (China) should have a big stick too, just in case" probably covers it.
I feel it helps to put China's current expansion within that context.
But the US has had a big stick (atomic bombs) the whole time that the PRC has existed, and it has never been used. The Japanese proved during World War II that no conventional forces can possibly conquer China. What is the newly enlarged PLA army and Navy for?
I think bringing nuclear weapons in to this is a distraction - nobody wants to go there so MAD doctrine is still in effect which renders a lot of your questions irrelevant as the competition is about the build up and use of conventional arms in lieu of resorting to nuclear options. Although, while we're on the subject the USA does remain the only country that has ever been willing to use nuclear weapons so it's hardly a trustworthy track record.
What is more interesting is the rapid build up on conventional military capacity, particularly the navy - which is about force projection in the western Pacific and control over key trade bottlenecks such ash the Malacca Straight and of course the near-seas inside the 1st island chain.
In this respect, the USA's navy has been the largest in the world and able to deploy to any global theatre for several decades - that's the big stick I was referring to. If China's goal is territorial integrity, the 'giant aircraft carrier' of Taiwan and a fundamental lack of control over the seas in it's immediate vicinity, e.g. the SCS, is a crucial weakness.
So I'd say that probably addresses your other questions, aside from the one about why people join the military in general, which is nonsense. People in every country join their respective militaries for a variety of reasons, a lot of the time due to economic pressure.
The whole debate on whether any culture in 'inherently warlike' (or not) is, frankly, dog-whistle nonsense and shouldn't be engaged with at all.
You don't have to actual deploy a weapon to use it. The old fashion terminology was "Fleet in Being", but bludgeon seems more apt for the American lack of sophistication. The USA has therefore "used" nuclear weapons as a Fleet in Being/bludgeon against Russia, and of course China, Cuba, India, Vietnam, South and North Korea. By your logic and lack of historical perspective, China does not need a nuclear deterrent, after all Japan still exist and was only nuked twice.
If your neighbor in Texas conveniently places his shotgun rack so the barrels all point at your backyard BBQ area and complains about the noise. you might counter but "I don't live in Texas", and I'd reply "precisely."
United States used nuclear weapons precisely twice to end the bloodiest war in world history, world War II. Despite losing several wars since 1945 it has not used them again. We don't seem to have prevented much mayhem in the world by owning nuclear weapons. Will the facts that China wants to quadruple its nuclear capacity make the world safer?
BTW, I do live in Texas in Houston. I am pretty sure that a neighbor having weapons pointed at my backyard would be a concern for the police. Perhaps not in other places in Texas.
Assault and Battery, two legal terms you might want to look up for your edification. If you can't get the history of the American use of nuclear weapons straight, then either you do so intentionally or you can't be bothered. 「子曰：’不憤不啟。不悱不發。舉一隅不以三隅反，則不復也。’」
China is dredging in south china sea cause everybody is doing it. China is just superior at it.
Tibet is all off chinas water supply. Either china controls or india does. Tibet like mongolia will never be independent.
As for xinjiang. Its like asking why doesnt usa give florida to cuba or hawai return to independence. Or give back cali and new mecico to mexico? That would be fair. Because mostly latinos, cubans and hawaians live there.
Hi Robert, this is a long and interesting post which I look forward to reading in depth. There's just one small thing in your introduction that I would be remiss if I didn't respond to in some way as I found it quite strange- I hope you don't interpret what I say here as an attack, more as good faith engagement.
When you mention that if you were the US government you would also ban TikTok because it does not "follow the norms of our mainstream value system", to illustrate your point you say "just look at the amount of anti-Israel and pro-Palestine content on it. It’s out of control!".
I found this quite strange because, well, which system of values are you talking about? In fact I would say that the vast majority of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok is in fact very much in alignment with mainstream Western values, specifically the values of human rights and international law as laid out in the Geneva convention. Hence I find your comment that this is not in alignment with mainstream values quite odd.
The posts on the app that you are referring to are generally criticising the failure of the United States to live up to its supposed commitment to human rights and international law in continuing to provide unlimited diplomatic support and funding to the Israeli government even as it has engaged in very serious war crimes that make a mockery of those principles.
Evidence of such war crimes have been very strongly attested by respected Western institutions, including:
B'tselem (a respected Israeli NGO): https://www.btselem.org/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell (specifically about the use of torture on prisoners, including the systematic use of rape against prisoners held without charge or trial in Israeli prisons).
In my opinion as a Westerner, the killing of aid workers, journalists, doctors, the cutting off of medical aid, food, and water to civilians, the bombing of hospitals, the deliberate destruction of schools and universities, the use of torture including rape on prisoners abducted and held without charge are all very bad things that we should oppose. I would hope that they do not align with our mainstream value system!
So I would offer a different interpretation of the US desire to ban TikTok. I very much agree that the "the amount of anti-Israel and pro-Palestine content" has a lot to do with their decision to impose a ban, but I don't think that in wanting to impose a ban they are doing so because they genuinely believe opposing Israeli war crimes is against "mainstream values". The fact that when Russia bombs hospitals they (correctly) point out that this is a very serious crime according to international law shows that they are aware of mainstream values with regards to human rights and international law.
Actually, a better interpretation is that they are alarmed at how TikTok is being used to spread awareness of the US government's abandoment of the "mainstream value system" of human rights and international law they pretend to uphold, and are attempting to stifle this speech so that they can continue to support Israel for reasons of realpolitik.
I also don't believe that those in the US government supporting the TikTok ban for this reason believe that pro-Palestine supporters are "gullible idiots". As evidence of this I would point to the fact that Biden in his final interview with MSNBC actually admitted that he was aware of Benjamin Netanyahu's genocidal intent from the beginning, or that leaked reports showed that Antony Blinken was aware of intelligence that Israel was blocking food aid to civilians (a grave war crime) but tried to hide this information from the public (https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken). Both of these pieces of evidence show that at the highest level the Biden administration shared the view of pro-palestine TikTok users that Israel was committing war crimes and therefore could not believe that holding such views is gullible. In fact I would argue that in banning TikTok they are hoping to cut off access to such inconvenient truths in order to turn the public into "gullible idiots" who genuinely believe the ridiculous propaganda that Israel has "the most moral army in the world".
Again, I hope you don't see this post as an attack but receive it in the spirit in which it was written- as good faith engagement. I also can imagine you might read this and think "why ask this question? It's just a small part of the introduction to the post, it's not important!".
But imagine if I wrote a comment about whether the Japanese government should ban TikTok due to there being some posts on the platform criticising the Japanese government for not closing the Yasukini shrine, and in defense of my argument I said something like "If I were the Japanese government I would ban TikTok- those that believe that Unit 731 or the Rape of Nanjing were really that bad are just gullible idiots and making posts about such things is against mainstream values", I would definitely understand if you found such an argument strange and had some questions to ask about it!
Hi dolores, I think I might have overplayed the role of US politician beholden to Jewish lobby and interests, the elites that defined what is "mainstream" and set up the unspoken rules of what is allowable. Let me think about ways to reword to avoid being too insensitive...
Thanks for the speedy and thoughtful reply Robert! Ah I see what you mean, I wonder if "hegemonic value system" instead of "mainstream value system" might be a useful way of expressing that?
Anyway apologies for my initial comment being so long- I just thought rather than just flippantly saying that I didn't understand the phrasing of that part of the introduction, I should explain my reasoning in detail and provide evidence. For obvious reasons the discourse on Israel-Palestine is very emotive and rather than perpetuating that I would try and be as logical and comprehensive as possible even if that meant writing a big wall of text.
Thanks for saying this. It is nuts to think AIPAC is having such a significant impact, but a lot of supposedly intelligent folks say it. The money can move close things, but support for Israel and opposition to groups that continually make war/commit terrorism is not a close issue except possibly for those who do not know history.
Hey, I just contradicted my earlier post, but perhaps not. There is a belief that Liberals have learned some lessons of life and, therefore, have superior judgment. We're doing our best to educate Gazans without following the evil practices of the past, but the instant they get to the point where they present a genuine threat, it gets ugly very fast, and the rules will go out the window.
The Jewish Lobby has power precisely because it's useful to the real elites, who's interests are comingled with it. When it is no longer so useful, then it will rapidly lose power, and when it is detrimental to their interest it will be outlawed or reduced to the same effect. Israel still serves as an important function of threatening the oil cartels with their nukes, without requiring the USA to do so publicly.
I should add when (maybe if, but when is a decent bet) Israel attacks Iran, even if the Gulf Region shuts down all oil exports killing the EU economy, the USA stands to profit while Israel will take most of the blame for doing it's master's dirty deed. Oil and Gas prices soar, EU corporations decamp even faster to USA, China takes a hell of a hit, there are so many pluses for Washington /NYC money (and the City of London) it's almost unfathomable that it would not be allowed to happen.
You might want to add something to any future follow ups about the rather unique "tribute" system for most China's post Han Dynasty history, where China was under "Chinese" i.e.: domestic rule, the exchange of tribute was a negative, partly for face, but partly to strengthen the tributary nation's ruling elite and economy so that they would create a more effective buffer state. Kind of reminds me of the belt and road initiative.
Nations like Korea and Vietnam not only adopted the Confucian ethics/trained bureaucrat system of rule, but often some of their most brilliant scholars went to China to serve as high level administrators. In someway, it's like a far more benevolent/less evil version of the USA's use of soft power through the NED.
Kleiner, Juergen. (2001). Korea: A Century of Change. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. ISBN 981-02-4657-9.
"For example, Choe wrote of a conversation he had with a Chinese officer who had shown him a great deal of hospitality during his travels, saying to him:
Certainly that shows your feelings that though my Korea is beyond the sea, its clothing and culture being the same as China's, it cannot be considered a foreign country ... All under Heaven are my brothers; how can we discriminate among people because of distance? That is particularly true of my country, which respectful serves the Celestial Court and pays tribute without fail. The Emperor, for his part, treats us punctiliously and tends us benevolently. The feeling of security he imparts is perfect."
Wang Gungwu, a highly regarded historian on China, explains that the "tribute" system also functioned as an early warning system and foreign trade agreement. You correctly point out that the "tribute" system was more an exchange of gifts, where the Chinese government gave more to the contributor than it received. As the gift exchange ceremony would invariably involve pledges of allegiance, contributors would typically refuse to exchange gifts when they intended to go to war. At the edges of the gift exchange, merchants from both sides were allowed to carry out trade deals, so the gift exchange also functioned as a form of foreign trade treaty.
I think the tribute system, or mentality behind it, is much more relevant to China's current positioning than a strictly military-based expansion. Robert's argument is great, but narrowly focused on war as a very specific form of "war" activity rather than the various other ways in which nations can come to dominate one another.
If you look at China's engagement with multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO, building of alliances (trade and political, rather than military) such as the BRICS, and of course the economic strategy to become self-sufficient in world-leading technologies, this is a much more coherent pattern of attempts to wrest control away from incumbent powers than strictly military/territorial expansion.
Of course, securing the 1st Island Chain and ability to therefore securely project force into the western Pacific is critical to the traditional Chinese military doctrine of securing the borders in order to protect the centre (I've seen the massive signs on the hillsides of Tibet with this exact quote on them to remind everyone why they are here). But this is exactly the strategy that the USA followed with the colonisation of Hawaii and subsequent use of Pacific islands as forward military bases. I personally doubt China has much more strictly territorial ambition than that.
Unfortunately , as Robert mentioned "unless it’s a matter of self-defence", anything can be framed as "self-defence" with enough wishful thinking, even Putin's invasion of Ukraine is nominally in the name of self-defence (and follows the same logic of securing Russia's borders/hinterland. It's spectacularly failed in Putin's case, but that's by the by. It's as yet unclear how far along this path China's leadership will travel, but personally I think the tributary model is more likely.
The trouble with wresting political and economic control away from the incumbents is that, in political systems built on trade - which every modern major power is - control of trade and resources is the defining feature of the system and therefore a form of war even if no shots are fired. Both sides need to control the flow of resources in to their respective systems in order to fuel their respective economic machineries; which aren't so different from one another fundamentally. And if the machineries of economics can't defend themselves, guns are brought in to play to make up the difference. Just have to look at the Opium Wars which were driven not by territorial ambitions, but to settle the trade deficit between the British Empire and the Qing, as were many other conflicts.
Fundamentally it's about economics - and on that basis, China has a much more successful history. I believe the end goal is likely to be a prosperous centre, secured through an iron grip on the various borders and hinterlands, both southern mountains and western desert 'limits of expansion' as Robert often describes, and the ocean to the east which is more often omitted from his essays, and sustained through secure flows of resources provided by dependent tributary states - made dependent by China's growing tech advantage. From that, will inevitably grow cultural 'soft power' and other forms of political and cultural influence.
A model and position that is extremely similar to the USA's dominance of the 20th century, and which the USA will not give up easily.
While I don't certainly don't agree with Noah, I also find many of your arguments lacking.
1. China may not have colonised other countries in its history, but colonisation was relatively uncommon - expansion and conquest was the norm and what Chinese empires have done. China wasn't always as big as it is today
2. You gloss over Vietnam, but that is over 1000 years total of Chinese control over Vietnam. It is a testiment to the Vietnamese people that they persevered - not many could do that
I don't know how this cannot be considered expansionism.
It's interesting to note how, in this debate about nation states, powers, and geopolitical influence, the plight of the people (those who grow the food, work the machine, and eventually become cannon foder in wars) is summarily omitted, struck out even.
The West (US & Europe mostly) is seen to be defending democracy with economic weapons (expansionist capitalism) and red lines (human rights) that should not be crossed, while China attempts to preserve its historical relevance by emphasising its Chineseness and oppressing itself, its own people, in that veiled yet preponderant and paradoxically capitalist 'competition for success' paradigm against western capitalism.
In the process, both systems (if a set of improvisations from both sides may indeed be called 'a system') choose to distance themselves from the most basic needs of their people.
The West agrees and welcomes the spiritual and material impoverishment of its people in greater and greater numbers by focusing on gain, on influence, and on the compound accumulation of power through wealth. China continues to convince itself that the ideal of its imperial past, under the guise of communism, will finally achieve the rejuvenation of all under heaven (天下) through political machinations also at the expense of its own people and based on, yes, wealth accumulation.
People whether in China or in the West want control over their own destiny, which, in essence means they want freedom. Government's task is to facilitate open access to such freedom and assist in controlling the exceptions that would impair generalised individual/ societal freedom to express itself.
In the West, the sense of such a freedom has been overtly superseded with contempt by the government's unwillingness to monitor and guide the push for material gains of those who would have it all over and above all others. Dishonesty leads the way, especially in politics, but elsewhere too.
In China the urge for control has taken over the administration of the state, the people, and continues to bring down low those who would want to express themselves in their freedom. The possibility of 'loosing face' continues to undermine and corrupt its ways.
The power of the West relies on economic oversight and alliances, it is fragmented and always goes to the highest bidder.
Similarly, China's power is divided among the influences and individual powers of its territories. From the outside, we see China as one, but the reality is and always has been a struggle for localised power.
Democracy pays lip service to the 'will of the people' while taxing people on. Communism rants about 'being the people' while barely managing to keep itself together, buying out the masses with material lures, and ever diminishing the importance of the man and woman that ultimately support its 'glorious light'.
Whether they succeed or not in becoming bigger/better than the other is totally irrelevant unless the lives of those who grant them life in the first place are catered for in fairness and in freedom.
Can there be any other legitimate goal for any government?
An irony of this appeal to the historical example of Nazi appeasement is that the US has already tried the opposite of appeasement, in Asia no less.
It was fucking coldwar domino theory. We've already tried 'not giving an inch' to China, and it was a huge disaster in Vietnam. Because avoiding 'appeasement' at all costs justifies even the most pointless and self-defeating hawkishness
The simple answer is that there is much more evidence of the US being warlike than China, especially when we consider the short history of the US. Just think of the genocide if indigenous peoples not just in the US itself but elsewhere (in Latin America and now Palestine) which the US supported directly through the CIA or indirectly through proxies.
Of course China is not perfect. But China is certainly and unequivocally less warlike than the US!
The problem with all of this (quite illuminating!) history is that Xi in particular seems to think that he’s a “Man of Destiny”. He’s the most powerful figure since Mao, and he may indeed get it into his head that he can avoid “imperial overstretch” by simply economically subjugating the West.
But the West, and America in particular, are too accustomed to running the global economic hegemony. For various reasons — some quite ugly, some even somewhat noble — we certainly wouldn’t just lie down and accept whatever Xi thinks is historically “fair”.
Which ultimately means conflict. It’s vanishingly little consolation that China is “bad at expansion” or Xi “only wants Taiwan” when the obvious arrow points in the direction of him using Taiwan to challenge the liberal democratic capitalist hegemony. Even if he’s destined to fail at anything past Taiwan, the attempts themselves can EASILY prove deadly and dangerous in their outcomes.
The thing that I think goes WOEFULLY underexamined in all these considerations of any putative conflict, is that one or both sides may possess crippling cyber capabilities that pose an incredibly dangerous escalation risk that neither side’s leaders are prepared for, as illuminated in the book “2034” — read it if you haven’t already! And while I can’t speak for China, I can pretty confidently say that the West would not take any cyber defeat lying down; not when we’re the ones who invented the computer and the internet.
And that illustrates that the greatest risk of underestimation is that Xi may get it into his head that the West can somehow be cowed or kept at bay. This seems to be the fundamental error that Chinese emperors have always committed in their border conflicts with those “harder peoples” you mention.
Of course, none of this takes into account the risk of capitulation under a spineless criminal like Trump. But however unpredictable he may be, the thing about the West is that our leaders are always changing. We’re just one Big Mac away from another Churchill or FDR.
Well, i actually think “bad at expansion” and Xi “only wants Taiwan” are great consolation. If the US doesn’t provoke China into a wider conflict, then China has no appetite. But if it’s true that as you suggest, the US IS looking for a war, then god help us. (I don’t believe it. There could be chance for peace)
Your thinking about unintended consequences of cyber warfare is something I haven’t thought about. But at least for now, there doesnt seem to have evidence to suggest that China is looking to wage cyber war, other than the evidence that China is getting ready to make it enough of deterrent.
Btw see my response to the other comment!
I don’t think my intended takeaway was “the US is looking for war”; but rather, that the US is too prideful to go down without a fight.
Just to lay my own biases on the table, I think that given our current facts on the ground, regrettable and odious as I find them, the best case for my side is that Trump forfeits outright conflict in Round 1 of Cold War II (prob over TW), and unwittingly sets the stage for our next president to rebuild our military industrial complex to catch up to China’s — particularly in drone capabilities and missile interceptors.
But RE cyberwar… the core danger is, there’s basically very little difference between each side’s “deterrent” weapons and offensive ones. The 2034 book illustrates how either side could fail to make this distinction in the fog of conflict, especially given that these weapons have never truly been deployed at scale. An infrastructure attack that Chinese leadership sees as limited and surgical, for instance, could easily cause knock-on damage outside of what was initially intended.
Also, because it could potentially be so devastating for either side on the battlefield, the opening cybershots could dramatically alter the balance of forces in either direction. It’s just highly unpredictable! Either side could see entire battle fleets wiped out in MINUTES.
One point about the cowing… it’s something that may have worked on countless generations of peasants in China, but Americans especially are extremely resistant to it. You see what’s going on with Rednote, right? Don’t mistake it for some great peaceful overture, however heartening the cultural exchange might be. We as a people have an incurable case of Oppositional Defiant Disorder; our idiot teens and twentysomethings are just doing what comes naturally and rebelling against someone telling them what to do. They’ll fall out of love with Rednote as soon as they run up against its very real censorship limitations.
But it also means that we are CRAZY. You know that video of Kendrick Lamar exercising in a park wearing jeans in the middle of an LA summer? You don’t mess with that guy. You don’t even look in his direction too long, and heaven forbid you make eye contact. He is not stable.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with us. We are NUTS. Disturbed. It’s why we elected Trump — we got bored with not having done anything self-destructive in a while.
What scares me the most about Xi is that I don’t think he truly understands this. Most emperors don’t. We are the barbarians — perhaps the Mongols are the best reference point. Xi can make the most well-calibrated calculations in world history, and they will all be wrong if he doesn’t understand that we are dangerously unpredictable in all of our stupid and ignorant glory.
To your point, just then what can be done to manage the US and by extension the West? If indeed US culture is "CRAZY" and "NUTS", in the longer term, regardless of who you elect, the trend will be towards destruction and colonisation of everyone else. So, how to protect ourselves here in the Global South against that? Your beliefs lead to only one conclusion.
That’s a very valid question, which I won’t dismiss out of hand.
The reason for my comment isn’t to pose it as a threat or a quandary. It’s to point out that a catastrophic escalation could result from Xi not really understanding how self-destructive and un-cow-able America is.
The smart play is to (1) keep building up a navy and drone capacity, and (2) escape the middle-income trap by establishing a strong domestic consumer demand economy. Not because it would kowtow to Western sensibilities and aggression, but because it would represent the next step in building on China’s current advantages and strengths.
A war over, say, Taiwan, any time in the current phase of China’s rise would most likely backfire and empower India.
But staying the course of growing their domestic economy, escaping the doldrums, and building a powerful navy… THAT would be the smarter long term play. China is already much of the way towards establishing not merely manufacturing superiority, but outright dominance. They’ve already dramatically weakened and divided the West. The current strategy is working, to the detriment of the side I myself am openly biased towards! But they’re simply not ready to go toe-to-toe.
Xi probably thinks his “window” — on Taiwan, and on achieving global dominance/hegemony overall — is closing. It’s not! He’s just got to ride out the current difficulties and swallow his personal pride enough to realize he isn’t the Man of Destiny he fantasizes about being. If he doesn’t start a disastrous war, he will have an even more successful legacy of setting the stage for a future leader to lead an even greater era of dominance.
Sadly, I don’t think that one achieves the great heights that Xi has, without simply being too prideful to make such a sacrifice. Which, again, scares me.
Thanks for the comment. I have seen similar ideas about XJP's personality being made by other Western commentators and so it piqued my curiosity as to how PRC citizens see their leader, and I have posed a query to Robert and the China Translated community accordingly.
I’d just add that my declarations of America being “CRAZY” and “NUTS” are not intended as humblebrags. They’re fundamental problems that I despise about the country I love. Like, sure, there’s always going to be some cheeky satisfaction and pride in it, but I’d rather be slightly more boring and avoid a potential authoritarian nightmare than have to deal with *waves arms* ALL THIS BULLSHIT.
To your newly added point on the resource curse, can I add the curse of the loess plateau that both contributed to the fertility of and also destroyed the arable lands? The border wars you refer to as point 2 were mostly from the north/north-west. This made it necessary to occupy the Ordoss plain as a buffer zone to prevent incursions into the fertile lands. The need to occupy the Ordoss plain led to soil erosion in its very friable soil. This soil erosion resulted in the constant need to manage and control flooding from the Yellow River, as well as the need to prepare against famine caused by flooding by stockpiling rice and grain. There were constant projects to deal with and minimize the devastating flooding. This ate up huge amounts of surplus that might otherwise have been used to fund wars. As a result, however, the Chinese became very good at civil engineering, and lousy at military engineering. They were the first to invent gunpowder and guns, but never invested their surplus into improving them but into improving flood management on a continental scale instead. Furthermore, early guns and gunpowder were not suitable for dealing with horse mounted archers, so there was no push to develop that technology (unlike the West where it was more about seizing forts and there cannons and gunpowder made a big difference). And from that bifurcation, two different cultures were formed.
Very illuminating add, Charles! Managing water and flooding is indeed a core task of ancient Chinese govt
Mr. Xi has often stated that TW must be reunified with the motherland and the US had accepted the one CN principle to ally with CN against the USSR in the 1970's. I think Mr. Xi has made the reunification the cornerstone of his presidency and he must complete this internal task to complete the first phase of the CN rejuvenation. If I understand your historical thesis and my observations, CN does not consider the TW reunification as a first step in expanding an empire, rather a last step in reuniting modern CN. I believe the strength of Western militaries, the power of Western navies, and the deterrence of nuclear arms, have led to the conclusion for CN to match the West and control the CN sea if the TW reunification is to be successful. White details may be much more complex, I think a simple observation is that Mr. Xi must complete his life's work and must have military strength to prevent the West from interfering with the reunification. I wholeheartedly agree with your explanations of historical CN and the recurring references of earlier successes and failures to shape the thinking and tactics for conflict today.
More about Xi. After all, if there is one thing that’s the core ideology of Xi, it’s the “rejuvenation of China”. Taiwan is part of that, but not the only part. If in certain circumstances reunification risks detailing the larger rejuvenation, he will back down.
I think the Russia-Ukraine war should provide concern about the cost and duration of conflict as a means of resolution for a political issue. Others may conclude that it is a playbook for what not to do, thus providing guidance on what military action to take that could be successful. I think this is illustrated by the removal of corrupt military leadership to avoid issues experienced by the Russian military. In contrast, the reunification of HK has come at lower cost of treasury and life. But I think the large build-up of the CN defense industry will eventually be used for offense, at a minimum regarding TW. It would make sense that a political solution should cost far less but would need to evolve over several generations. But I understand that there are those who believe the wait has already been long enough. That is why I think there will be a military action.
Also, it suffices to say I never believe China’s territorial ambition is anything other than the reuni as well as securing at least some substantial rights from SCS, and no more. Heck, if China is really expansionist, it should already be working on reclaiming the India-sized land mass that was lost to Russia. Now should be the best moment to stab in the back. But no, we don’t do that.
I agree with this point. Reunification from the CN position should not be viewed as expansionist from the West. But some will view it differently than I.
Yes, mostly agree. Although i do have doubts about “Xi must reunify with TW in his lifetime” thing. I mean, he will definitely want to see that. And he will work towards the goal pretty hard. If an opportunity presents itself, he will seize that moment. BUT, if circumstances don’t allow, I don’t think he will bang his head and burn the world to achieve that. He was known to be flexible. Fundamentally, I think Chinese leadership has some deep confidence that so long as China keeps rising, and the relative balance of power in west pacific keeps tilting towards China, this issue will be resolved one day. I genuinely think (and hope) he is satisfied with at least ensuring China to be on this path. But, what do we know, we don’t sleep on the same pillow with Xi so we may never know.
Incredible how Fritzer tried to come at you lol. Also, is the Douyin being open to international users a real thing?
Don’t think so
While what you say is on point (while perhaps intentionally downplaying the military successes of China, at least in recent decades), I think it will largely fall on deaf ears. The people who follow Noah do so not because they want to be informed, but because they enjoy the feeling of having their supremacist notions reinforced. Noah makes his living off of fear-mongering about China. He won’t change his views because it’s in his best interest not to.
Worth a try!
Noah used to make his living from producing excellent economics articles which he still does from time to time
He probably realized he could earn more as an anti-China propagandist, as many US analysts do.
jia you Robert
100 years is 1 year more than Britain's lease of Hong Kong.
Why do you believe Noah Smith is sincere in his beliefs as opposed to being someone who is just coming up with excuses that he thinks will best push the US to a war?
That's plausible too, and actually more likely. But, my job is really not about Noah Smith himself. But try to show the alternative to those who read his work, especially the more open-minded ones among that group
All good and optimistic points to keep in mind. I think it would be good if Noah were challenged more on some of his rhetoric on China.
If I can just steelman his case a little though, it is not the issue that China is a warlike culture, it might be the least warlike culture in existence, but that doesn't matter if it is nevertheless on the warpath. If all the capabilities and forces needed to enact war at a large scale are being put in place can America 100% trust they are not the true target.
Of course, even a peace-loving nation may feel the need to strengthen its military. But more pessimistically, even a peace-loving nation can be brought to war if they feel victimized (or are made to feel so).
It is not wrong to fear such things at this moment in history. But the fear is exaggerated. Noah tends to make war instigated by China sound as if it is predestined. The more difficult reality is that it is a possibility (driven by events). Something that you can prepare for too much and also too little. Maybe your part 2 will deal with this (9/11 type events or maybe something more ambiguous).
Yep, the next article will be more practical.
Robert, thank you for your insights.
Robert, you have absolutely convinced me that war is not in China's interest and that the average Chinese does not want war. However, you have also proven that China has repeatedly moved into non-Han areas either self protectively or because of a leader's love of glory. Thus, non-war loving China has inflicted plenty of hurt on neighboring peoples.
It is this that I fear— China seems to want to claim the South China Sea as its own. Since China does not need the South China Sea for its own security, why?
Why is China building up its military so rapidly?
If Chinese are non-militaristic, why do they join the military? Are they drafted? If enlisted men join the PLA for job security, are they really willing to fight?
Under the conditions of conventional warfare 100 years ago, it made sense for China to directly control border regions. This meant that an invading army had to march far much farther to reach your capital city. But now that the true threat to any nation is nuclear, why does China need to hang on to Xinjiang and Tibet, obviously against the will of the inhabitants?
These are probably the toughest questions I could possibly ask you, but they are the ones that are on my mind.
I love your substack. I open it immediately and read every one.
Hi Kathleen, your questions deserve a full-scale essay of its own and I am thinking about it
Just in terms of "why is China building up it's military so rapidly" - a question that seems very common at the moment - it's worth remembering that the USA's military expenditure was, up until very recently, larger than the rest of the planet combined.
There's certainly still questions about why ramp up military capacity if you have no intention of using it, although I think the argument that "They (USA) has a big stick and seems to hate us, so we (China) should have a big stick too, just in case" probably covers it.
I feel it helps to put China's current expansion within that context.
But the US has had a big stick (atomic bombs) the whole time that the PRC has existed, and it has never been used. The Japanese proved during World War II that no conventional forces can possibly conquer China. What is the newly enlarged PLA army and Navy for?
I think bringing nuclear weapons in to this is a distraction - nobody wants to go there so MAD doctrine is still in effect which renders a lot of your questions irrelevant as the competition is about the build up and use of conventional arms in lieu of resorting to nuclear options. Although, while we're on the subject the USA does remain the only country that has ever been willing to use nuclear weapons so it's hardly a trustworthy track record.
What is more interesting is the rapid build up on conventional military capacity, particularly the navy - which is about force projection in the western Pacific and control over key trade bottlenecks such ash the Malacca Straight and of course the near-seas inside the 1st island chain.
In this respect, the USA's navy has been the largest in the world and able to deploy to any global theatre for several decades - that's the big stick I was referring to. If China's goal is territorial integrity, the 'giant aircraft carrier' of Taiwan and a fundamental lack of control over the seas in it's immediate vicinity, e.g. the SCS, is a crucial weakness.
So I'd say that probably addresses your other questions, aside from the one about why people join the military in general, which is nonsense. People in every country join their respective militaries for a variety of reasons, a lot of the time due to economic pressure.
The whole debate on whether any culture in 'inherently warlike' (or not) is, frankly, dog-whistle nonsense and shouldn't be engaged with at all.
I'm waiting for Robert's answers before I engage in this discussion again.
You don't have to actual deploy a weapon to use it. The old fashion terminology was "Fleet in Being", but bludgeon seems more apt for the American lack of sophistication. The USA has therefore "used" nuclear weapons as a Fleet in Being/bludgeon against Russia, and of course China, Cuba, India, Vietnam, South and North Korea. By your logic and lack of historical perspective, China does not need a nuclear deterrent, after all Japan still exist and was only nuked twice.
If your neighbor in Texas conveniently places his shotgun rack so the barrels all point at your backyard BBQ area and complains about the noise. you might counter but "I don't live in Texas", and I'd reply "precisely."
United States used nuclear weapons precisely twice to end the bloodiest war in world history, world War II. Despite losing several wars since 1945 it has not used them again. We don't seem to have prevented much mayhem in the world by owning nuclear weapons. Will the facts that China wants to quadruple its nuclear capacity make the world safer?
BTW, I do live in Texas in Houston. I am pretty sure that a neighbor having weapons pointed at my backyard would be a concern for the police. Perhaps not in other places in Texas.
Assault and Battery, two legal terms you might want to look up for your edification. If you can't get the history of the American use of nuclear weapons straight, then either you do so intentionally or you can't be bothered. 「子曰：’不憤不啟。不悱不發。舉一隅不以三隅反，則不復也。’」
China is dredging in south china sea cause everybody is doing it. China is just superior at it.
Tibet is all off chinas water supply. Either china controls or india does. Tibet like mongolia will never be independent.
As for xinjiang. Its like asking why doesnt usa give florida to cuba or hawai return to independence. Or give back cali and new mecico to mexico? That would be fair. Because mostly latinos, cubans and hawaians live there.
Hi Robert, this is a long and interesting post which I look forward to reading in depth. There's just one small thing in your introduction that I would be remiss if I didn't respond to in some way as I found it quite strange- I hope you don't interpret what I say here as an attack, more as good faith engagement.
When you mention that if you were the US government you would also ban TikTok because it does not "follow the norms of our mainstream value system", to illustrate your point you say "just look at the amount of anti-Israel and pro-Palestine content on it. It’s out of control!".
I found this quite strange because, well, which system of values are you talking about? In fact I would say that the vast majority of pro-Palestinian content on TikTok is in fact very much in alignment with mainstream Western values, specifically the values of human rights and international law as laid out in the Geneva convention. Hence I find your comment that this is not in alignment with mainstream values quite odd.
The posts on the app that you are referring to are generally criticising the failure of the United States to live up to its supposed commitment to human rights and international law in continuing to provide unlimited diplomatic support and funding to the Israeli government even as it has engaged in very serious war crimes that make a mockery of those principles.
Evidence of such war crimes have been very strongly attested by respected Western institutions, including:
The United Nations: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/10/un-commission-finds-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-israeli-attacks
Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/?utm_source=TWITTER-IS&utm_medium=social&utm_content=15456179219&utm_campaign=Gaza+Genocide+2024&utm_term=-No
Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza
Doctors Without Borders: https://msf.org.uk/article/gaza-death-trap-msf-report-exposes-israels-campaign-total-destruction
B'tselem (a respected Israeli NGO): https://www.btselem.org/publications/202408_welcome_to_hell (specifically about the use of torture on prisoners, including the systematic use of rape against prisoners held without charge or trial in Israeli prisons).
In my opinion as a Westerner, the killing of aid workers, journalists, doctors, the cutting off of medical aid, food, and water to civilians, the bombing of hospitals, the deliberate destruction of schools and universities, the use of torture including rape on prisoners abducted and held without charge are all very bad things that we should oppose. I would hope that they do not align with our mainstream value system!
So I would offer a different interpretation of the US desire to ban TikTok. I very much agree that the "the amount of anti-Israel and pro-Palestine content" has a lot to do with their decision to impose a ban, but I don't think that in wanting to impose a ban they are doing so because they genuinely believe opposing Israeli war crimes is against "mainstream values". The fact that when Russia bombs hospitals they (correctly) point out that this is a very serious crime according to international law shows that they are aware of mainstream values with regards to human rights and international law.
Actually, a better interpretation is that they are alarmed at how TikTok is being used to spread awareness of the US government's abandoment of the "mainstream value system" of human rights and international law they pretend to uphold, and are attempting to stifle this speech so that they can continue to support Israel for reasons of realpolitik.
I also don't believe that those in the US government supporting the TikTok ban for this reason believe that pro-Palestine supporters are "gullible idiots". As evidence of this I would point to the fact that Biden in his final interview with MSNBC actually admitted that he was aware of Benjamin Netanyahu's genocidal intent from the beginning, or that leaked reports showed that Antony Blinken was aware of intelligence that Israel was blocking food aid to civilians (a grave war crime) but tried to hide this information from the public (https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken). Both of these pieces of evidence show that at the highest level the Biden administration shared the view of pro-palestine TikTok users that Israel was committing war crimes and therefore could not believe that holding such views is gullible. In fact I would argue that in banning TikTok they are hoping to cut off access to such inconvenient truths in order to turn the public into "gullible idiots" who genuinely believe the ridiculous propaganda that Israel has "the most moral army in the world".
Again, I hope you don't see this post as an attack but receive it in the spirit in which it was written- as good faith engagement. I also can imagine you might read this and think "why ask this question? It's just a small part of the introduction to the post, it's not important!".
But imagine if I wrote a comment about whether the Japanese government should ban TikTok due to there being some posts on the platform criticising the Japanese government for not closing the Yasukini shrine, and in defense of my argument I said something like "If I were the Japanese government I would ban TikTok- those that believe that Unit 731 or the Rape of Nanjing were really that bad are just gullible idiots and making posts about such things is against mainstream values", I would definitely understand if you found such an argument strange and had some questions to ask about it!
Hi dolores, I think I might have overplayed the role of US politician beholden to Jewish lobby and interests, the elites that defined what is "mainstream" and set up the unspoken rules of what is allowable. Let me think about ways to reword to avoid being too insensitive...
Thanks for the speedy and thoughtful reply Robert! Ah I see what you mean, I wonder if "hegemonic value system" instead of "mainstream value system" might be a useful way of expressing that?
Anyway apologies for my initial comment being so long- I just thought rather than just flippantly saying that I didn't understand the phrasing of that part of the introduction, I should explain my reasoning in detail and provide evidence. For obvious reasons the discourse on Israel-Palestine is very emotive and rather than perpetuating that I would try and be as logical and comprehensive as possible even if that meant writing a big wall of text.
Thanks for saying this. It is nuts to think AIPAC is having such a significant impact, but a lot of supposedly intelligent folks say it. The money can move close things, but support for Israel and opposition to groups that continually make war/commit terrorism is not a close issue except possibly for those who do not know history.
Hey, I just contradicted my earlier post, but perhaps not. There is a belief that Liberals have learned some lessons of life and, therefore, have superior judgment. We're doing our best to educate Gazans without following the evil practices of the past, but the instant they get to the point where they present a genuine threat, it gets ugly very fast, and the rules will go out the window.
The Jewish Lobby has power precisely because it's useful to the real elites, who's interests are comingled with it. When it is no longer so useful, then it will rapidly lose power, and when it is detrimental to their interest it will be outlawed or reduced to the same effect. Israel still serves as an important function of threatening the oil cartels with their nukes, without requiring the USA to do so publicly.
I should add when (maybe if, but when is a decent bet) Israel attacks Iran, even if the Gulf Region shuts down all oil exports killing the EU economy, the USA stands to profit while Israel will take most of the blame for doing it's master's dirty deed. Oil and Gas prices soar, EU corporations decamp even faster to USA, China takes a hell of a hit, there are so many pluses for Washington /NYC money (and the City of London) it's almost unfathomable that it would not be allowed to happen.
Many thanks for making this comment, dolores.
Thank you. I found this to be quite strange as well.
You might want to add something to any future follow ups about the rather unique "tribute" system for most China's post Han Dynasty history, where China was under "Chinese" i.e.: domestic rule, the exchange of tribute was a negative, partly for face, but partly to strengthen the tributary nation's ruling elite and economy so that they would create a more effective buffer state. Kind of reminds me of the belt and road initiative.
Nations like Korea and Vietnam not only adopted the Confucian ethics/trained bureaucrat system of rule, but often some of their most brilliant scholars went to China to serve as high level administrators. In someway, it's like a far more benevolent/less evil version of the USA's use of soft power through the NED.
Kleiner, Juergen. (2001). Korea: A Century of Change. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. ISBN 981-02-4657-9.
"For example, Choe wrote of a conversation he had with a Chinese officer who had shown him a great deal of hospitality during his travels, saying to him:
Certainly that shows your feelings that though my Korea is beyond the sea, its clothing and culture being the same as China's, it cannot be considered a foreign country ... All under Heaven are my brothers; how can we discriminate among people because of distance? That is particularly true of my country, which respectful serves the Celestial Court and pays tribute without fail. The Emperor, for his part, treats us punctiliously and tends us benevolently. The feeling of security he imparts is perfect."
Wang Gungwu, a highly regarded historian on China, explains that the "tribute" system also functioned as an early warning system and foreign trade agreement. You correctly point out that the "tribute" system was more an exchange of gifts, where the Chinese government gave more to the contributor than it received. As the gift exchange ceremony would invariably involve pledges of allegiance, contributors would typically refuse to exchange gifts when they intended to go to war. At the edges of the gift exchange, merchants from both sides were allowed to carry out trade deals, so the gift exchange also functioned as a form of foreign trade treaty.
I think the tribute system, or mentality behind it, is much more relevant to China's current positioning than a strictly military-based expansion. Robert's argument is great, but narrowly focused on war as a very specific form of "war" activity rather than the various other ways in which nations can come to dominate one another.
If you look at China's engagement with multilateral institutions such as the UN, WTO, building of alliances (trade and political, rather than military) such as the BRICS, and of course the economic strategy to become self-sufficient in world-leading technologies, this is a much more coherent pattern of attempts to wrest control away from incumbent powers than strictly military/territorial expansion.
Of course, securing the 1st Island Chain and ability to therefore securely project force into the western Pacific is critical to the traditional Chinese military doctrine of securing the borders in order to protect the centre (I've seen the massive signs on the hillsides of Tibet with this exact quote on them to remind everyone why they are here). But this is exactly the strategy that the USA followed with the colonisation of Hawaii and subsequent use of Pacific islands as forward military bases. I personally doubt China has much more strictly territorial ambition than that.
Unfortunately , as Robert mentioned "unless it’s a matter of self-defence", anything can be framed as "self-defence" with enough wishful thinking, even Putin's invasion of Ukraine is nominally in the name of self-defence (and follows the same logic of securing Russia's borders/hinterland. It's spectacularly failed in Putin's case, but that's by the by. It's as yet unclear how far along this path China's leadership will travel, but personally I think the tributary model is more likely.
The trouble with wresting political and economic control away from the incumbents is that, in political systems built on trade - which every modern major power is - control of trade and resources is the defining feature of the system and therefore a form of war even if no shots are fired. Both sides need to control the flow of resources in to their respective systems in order to fuel their respective economic machineries; which aren't so different from one another fundamentally. And if the machineries of economics can't defend themselves, guns are brought in to play to make up the difference. Just have to look at the Opium Wars which were driven not by territorial ambitions, but to settle the trade deficit between the British Empire and the Qing, as were many other conflicts.
Fundamentally it's about economics - and on that basis, China has a much more successful history. I believe the end goal is likely to be a prosperous centre, secured through an iron grip on the various borders and hinterlands, both southern mountains and western desert 'limits of expansion' as Robert often describes, and the ocean to the east which is more often omitted from his essays, and sustained through secure flows of resources provided by dependent tributary states - made dependent by China's growing tech advantage. From that, will inevitably grow cultural 'soft power' and other forms of political and cultural influence.
A model and position that is extremely similar to the USA's dominance of the 20th century, and which the USA will not give up easily.
While I don't certainly don't agree with Noah, I also find many of your arguments lacking.
1. China may not have colonised other countries in its history, but colonisation was relatively uncommon - expansion and conquest was the norm and what Chinese empires have done. China wasn't always as big as it is today
2. You gloss over Vietnam, but that is over 1000 years total of Chinese control over Vietnam. It is a testiment to the Vietnamese people that they persevered - not many could do that
I don't know how this cannot be considered expansionism.
It's interesting to note how, in this debate about nation states, powers, and geopolitical influence, the plight of the people (those who grow the food, work the machine, and eventually become cannon foder in wars) is summarily omitted, struck out even.
The West (US & Europe mostly) is seen to be defending democracy with economic weapons (expansionist capitalism) and red lines (human rights) that should not be crossed, while China attempts to preserve its historical relevance by emphasising its Chineseness and oppressing itself, its own people, in that veiled yet preponderant and paradoxically capitalist 'competition for success' paradigm against western capitalism.
In the process, both systems (if a set of improvisations from both sides may indeed be called 'a system') choose to distance themselves from the most basic needs of their people.
The West agrees and welcomes the spiritual and material impoverishment of its people in greater and greater numbers by focusing on gain, on influence, and on the compound accumulation of power through wealth. China continues to convince itself that the ideal of its imperial past, under the guise of communism, will finally achieve the rejuvenation of all under heaven (天下) through political machinations also at the expense of its own people and based on, yes, wealth accumulation.
People whether in China or in the West want control over their own destiny, which, in essence means they want freedom. Government's task is to facilitate open access to such freedom and assist in controlling the exceptions that would impair generalised individual/ societal freedom to express itself.
In the West, the sense of such a freedom has been overtly superseded with contempt by the government's unwillingness to monitor and guide the push for material gains of those who would have it all over and above all others. Dishonesty leads the way, especially in politics, but elsewhere too.
In China the urge for control has taken over the administration of the state, the people, and continues to bring down low those who would want to express themselves in their freedom. The possibility of 'loosing face' continues to undermine and corrupt its ways.
The power of the West relies on economic oversight and alliances, it is fragmented and always goes to the highest bidder.
Similarly, China's power is divided among the influences and individual powers of its territories. From the outside, we see China as one, but the reality is and always has been a struggle for localised power.
Democracy pays lip service to the 'will of the people' while taxing people on. Communism rants about 'being the people' while barely managing to keep itself together, buying out the masses with material lures, and ever diminishing the importance of the man and woman that ultimately support its 'glorious light'.
Whether they succeed or not in becoming bigger/better than the other is totally irrelevant unless the lives of those who grant them life in the first place are catered for in fairness and in freedom.
Can there be any other legitimate goal for any government?
An irony of this appeal to the historical example of Nazi appeasement is that the US has already tried the opposite of appeasement, in Asia no less.
It was fucking coldwar domino theory. We've already tried 'not giving an inch' to China, and it was a huge disaster in Vietnam. Because avoiding 'appeasement' at all costs justifies even the most pointless and self-defeating hawkishness
Long shall society suffer from idiotic references to 1930s appeasement