"World-history is the history of the great cultures, and peoples are but the symbolic forms and vessels in which the men of these cultures fulfil their destinies.” ― Oswald Spengler
Something is going on
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, a latent fissure in the World order opened that continues to expand. While the West, led by Washington, immediately jumped to support the embattled Ukrainians, the Rest in Latin America, Asia and Africa proved more sceptical. Many declined to buy the West's narrative as double standards and hypocrisy; others opted out for fear of being trampled.
These events triggered something. It feels like an ambiguous, epoch-changing transformation is underway as geopolitics realigns. Certainly, the West is not culturally, spiritually and demographically in good condition. But, then again, neither is much of the World.
If we talk of civilisational cycles, the West may have entered the "evening land" long predicted by Oswald Spengler, as institutions fail to deliver with growing societal dissatisfaction. In the West, the late-stage neoliberal order has left many behind, who are now restless and demanding change.
Further eroding the foundations is the drive for extreme individualistic expression, seen in the current strident trans-gender movement. These belligerents and their cheerleaders are busy dismantling exhausted power structures leaving barren silos. Is the consensus around global capitalism, free trade and liberal democracy eroding? What comes next?
Of course, whether the West can reinvent and reinvigorate — as it did in the past — remains a moot point. That capacity exists, although if Spengler is correct, we could see the return of the apolitical Caesars; therefore, the road ahead is far more tricky.
In the confusion of events, it is difficult to comprehend the dynamics at work, with many people disoriented. Look through the absurdly propagandistic Western media, and it's no wonder people get lost. With activist journalists driven by an agenda, discerning the truth is difficult, if not impossible. In a perverse twist, those claiming unbiased coverage of events often prove the most deceptive. Look no further than the BBC.
In the new internet age, contrarian pundits like Russell Brand and Joe Rogan gather more followers on social media channels to lead the discussion. As a result, they earn influence legacy news outlets can't match.
So what going on? I ask because we are at a pivotal moment with specific outcomes visible but a great unknown over the horizon. I propose a move is underway from a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. towards a multi-aligned arrangement with a more complex and chaotic ordering of nations. Hold tight.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, a latent fissure in the World order opened that continues to expand. While the West, led by Washington, immediately jumped to support the embattled Ukrainians, the Rest in Latin America, Asia and Africa proved more sceptical. Many declined to buy the West's narrative as double standards and hypocrisy; others opted out for fear of being trampled.
These events triggered something. It feels like an ambiguous, epoch-changing transformation is underway as geopolitics realigns. Certainly, the West is not culturally, spiritually and demographically in good condition. But, then again, neither is much of the World.
If we talk of civilisational cycles, the West may have entered the "evening land" long predicted by Oswald Spengler, as institutions fail to deliver with growing societal dissatisfaction. In the West, the late-stage neoliberal order has left many behind, who are now restless and demanding change.
Further eroding the foundations is the drive for extreme individualistic expression, seen in the current strident trans-gender movement. These belligerents and their cheerleaders are busy dismantling exhausted power structures leaving barren silos. Is the consensus around global capitalism, free trade and liberal democracy eroding? What comes next?
Of course, whether the West can reinvent and reinvigorate — as it did in the past — remains a moot point. That capacity exists, although if Spengler is correct, we could see the return of the apolitical Caesars; therefore, the road ahead is far more tricky.
In the confusion of events, it is difficult to comprehend the dynamics at work, with many people disoriented. Look through the absurdly propagandistic Western media, and it's no wonder people get lost. With activist journalists driven by an agenda, discerning the truth is difficult, if not impossible. In a perverse twist, those claiming unbiased coverage of events often prove the most deceptive. Look no further than the BBC.
In the new internet age, contrarian pundits like Russell Brand and Joe Rogan gather more followers on social media channels to lead the discussion. As a result, they earn influence legacy news outlets can't match.
So what going on? I ask because we are at a pivotal moment with specific outcomes visible but a great unknown over the horizon. I propose a move is underway from a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. towards a multi-aligned arrangement with a more complex and chaotic ordering of nations. Hold tight.
“The press today is an army with carefully organised weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play.” ― Oswald Spengler
The State of Play
For sure, the most significant international relationship is that between the U.S. and China. Anyone who values peace and diplomatic engagement over military conflict must seek to understand the dynamics at work there. Unfortunately, on that front, insights provided by Washington insiders are not encouraging.
Speaking in Foreign Affairs, Professor Jessica Chen Weiss of Cornell University paints a disturbing picture. She opines that all discussions about China face hijacking by the "Taiwan invasion fever".
Loose tongues have even spoken of the U.S. destroying Taiwan's chip plants to prevent these from falling into the wrong hands. These remarks echo the "we had to destroy it to save it" mentality that influenced the U.S. war in Vietnam. And that turned out well.
Weiss points towards Washington policy wonks and advisers seeking to "out-hawk" each other to advance their careers. She believes this reduces the quality of debate by shutting down open discussion. Few appear prepared to speak out against the consensus as Washington becomes an echo chamber of anti-China voices.
Christopher Johnson, a former China analyst at the CIA, supports these views. Further, he concludes that the mainstream U.S. portrayal of China is over-simplified and wrong.
Specifically, Johnson states there is no evidence that China is preparing to invade Taiwan, pointing out that you should never conflate capability with intent. Hence, while China may strengthen its defences, offensive action is far off.
Johnson claims signs of invasion would likely be visible, with prolonged preparations including the production of large amounts of amphibious craft. In parallel, actions to shield the Chinese economy would gather pace. But there is no sign of any of these activities. America's top soldier, General Mark Milley, the Joint Chief of Staff Chairmen, agrees. At least a few rational, evidence-based voices exist.
Why is China such a bogeyman in Washington? Well, this process germinated over the years. Part of the genesis is that China didn't follow the trajectory the experts predicted by adopting Western liberal values as its economic clout increased. "You give a man a Mercedes Benz; he becomes democratic" is the flawed mantra underpinning Western reasoning.
Instead, China demonstrated it is possible to have a vibrant economy without all the trappings of Western-style democracy. Plus, with that democracy wobbling in various places, China felt vindicated. The events in Washington on January 6th 2022, coupled with the chaos in British politics, fed negative sentiments about the Western governance model.
A recent panel discussion also hosted by Foreign Affairs is informative. The panel of distinguished thinkers from India, Africa and America agreed that many places lost patience with the West. People in Asia and Africa ask, "Why the International Criminal Court issues a warrant to arrest Putin, but Bush and Blair walk free?".
To the global South, the grand ideas of equality and fairness expressed by the West are laudable but empty words when the West puts itself before them. The apocryphal statement, "The Chinese gave us an airport, the U.S. gave us a lecture", sums it up.
In the discussion, it came out that Indian policymakers assess the West doesn't apply the same standards to its own actions as it seeks to impose on others. Moreover, the imperfections in American society get glossed over as the U.S. adopts a hectoring approach when commenting on politics and societal strife in India.
Yet, the greatest scorn comes reserved for utterances from the West about a "rules-based international order." Especially when a disconnect between statements and deeds is so plain, the words land in a voice of moral superiority.
If we have "international laws," critics ask, why does the U.S. put itself beyond the jurisdiction of the Hague? Washington has even enacted a law preventing federal, state and local government officials from assisting the ICC. The act authorises the President to "use all means necessary" to secure the release of U.S. personnel before the ICC. It earned the name, 'The Hague invasion act".
Against this background, it's understandable that nations question the U.S. commitment to a rules-based order. Still, Indian and African policymakers welcome rules because they don't want to create a "might is right" world with neo-imperialism traits.
If Professor Kishore Mahbubani is correct, the West is sleep-walking into a demise brought about by an arrogance that the global South will no longer tolerate. Mahbubani, a former leading Singaporean diplomat, saw all the machinations of superpower politics. He is now working at the National University of Singapore. His book, "Has the West Lost it?" should be a wake-up call to Westerners mired in their self-regarding silos.
Mahbubani agrees that China and India, with their economic clout, are less willing to kowtow to the demands of the West. However, he foresees this stance will impact the world order in the coming decades. He concludes there is some agency in retaining bodies, such as the United Nations, if the superpowers play fair.
It is important to remember that the League of Nations failed because major powers acted in their national interests and not for the common good. In the same way, the U.N. Security Council fails because it works in the interests of the dominant players or is ignored. That being so, the challenge is to get superpowers to follow the rules even when it erodes their interests. And that looks difficult, if not impossible.
Further, the idea of a world divided between democracies and totalitarian states is a fudge. As Washington provides military aid to 35 countries identified on the Freedom House Index as totalitarian, the suggestion that the U.S. is for democracy and against such regimes rings hollow.
For sure, the most significant international relationship is that between the U.S. and China. Anyone who values peace and diplomatic engagement over military conflict must seek to understand the dynamics at work there. Unfortunately, on that front, insights provided by Washington insiders are not encouraging.
Speaking in Foreign Affairs, Professor Jessica Chen Weiss of Cornell University paints a disturbing picture. She opines that all discussions about China face hijacking by the "Taiwan invasion fever".
Loose tongues have even spoken of the U.S. destroying Taiwan's chip plants to prevent these from falling into the wrong hands. These remarks echo the "we had to destroy it to save it" mentality that influenced the U.S. war in Vietnam. And that turned out well.
Weiss points towards Washington policy wonks and advisers seeking to "out-hawk" each other to advance their careers. She believes this reduces the quality of debate by shutting down open discussion. Few appear prepared to speak out against the consensus as Washington becomes an echo chamber of anti-China voices.
Christopher Johnson, a former China analyst at the CIA, supports these views. Further, he concludes that the mainstream U.S. portrayal of China is over-simplified and wrong.
Specifically, Johnson states there is no evidence that China is preparing to invade Taiwan, pointing out that you should never conflate capability with intent. Hence, while China may strengthen its defences, offensive action is far off.
Johnson claims signs of invasion would likely be visible, with prolonged preparations including the production of large amounts of amphibious craft. In parallel, actions to shield the Chinese economy would gather pace. But there is no sign of any of these activities. America's top soldier, General Mark Milley, the Joint Chief of Staff Chairmen, agrees. At least a few rational, evidence-based voices exist.
Why is China such a bogeyman in Washington? Well, this process germinated over the years. Part of the genesis is that China didn't follow the trajectory the experts predicted by adopting Western liberal values as its economic clout increased. "You give a man a Mercedes Benz; he becomes democratic" is the flawed mantra underpinning Western reasoning.
Instead, China demonstrated it is possible to have a vibrant economy without all the trappings of Western-style democracy. Plus, with that democracy wobbling in various places, China felt vindicated. The events in Washington on January 6th 2022, coupled with the chaos in British politics, fed negative sentiments about the Western governance model.
A recent panel discussion also hosted by Foreign Affairs is informative. The panel of distinguished thinkers from India, Africa and America agreed that many places lost patience with the West. People in Asia and Africa ask, "Why the International Criminal Court issues a warrant to arrest Putin, but Bush and Blair walk free?".
To the global South, the grand ideas of equality and fairness expressed by the West are laudable but empty words when the West puts itself before them. The apocryphal statement, "The Chinese gave us an airport, the U.S. gave us a lecture", sums it up.
In the discussion, it came out that Indian policymakers assess the West doesn't apply the same standards to its own actions as it seeks to impose on others. Moreover, the imperfections in American society get glossed over as the U.S. adopts a hectoring approach when commenting on politics and societal strife in India.
Yet, the greatest scorn comes reserved for utterances from the West about a "rules-based international order." Especially when a disconnect between statements and deeds is so plain, the words land in a voice of moral superiority.
If we have "international laws," critics ask, why does the U.S. put itself beyond the jurisdiction of the Hague? Washington has even enacted a law preventing federal, state and local government officials from assisting the ICC. The act authorises the President to "use all means necessary" to secure the release of U.S. personnel before the ICC. It earned the name, 'The Hague invasion act".
Against this background, it's understandable that nations question the U.S. commitment to a rules-based order. Still, Indian and African policymakers welcome rules because they don't want to create a "might is right" world with neo-imperialism traits.
If Professor Kishore Mahbubani is correct, the West is sleep-walking into a demise brought about by an arrogance that the global South will no longer tolerate. Mahbubani, a former leading Singaporean diplomat, saw all the machinations of superpower politics. He is now working at the National University of Singapore. His book, "Has the West Lost it?" should be a wake-up call to Westerners mired in their self-regarding silos.
Mahbubani agrees that China and India, with their economic clout, are less willing to kowtow to the demands of the West. However, he foresees this stance will impact the world order in the coming decades. He concludes there is some agency in retaining bodies, such as the United Nations, if the superpowers play fair.
It is important to remember that the League of Nations failed because major powers acted in their national interests and not for the common good. In the same way, the U.N. Security Council fails because it works in the interests of the dominant players or is ignored. That being so, the challenge is to get superpowers to follow the rules even when it erodes their interests. And that looks difficult, if not impossible.
Further, the idea of a world divided between democracies and totalitarian states is a fudge. As Washington provides military aid to 35 countries identified on the Freedom House Index as totalitarian, the suggestion that the U.S. is for democracy and against such regimes rings hollow.
Some Historical Context
Having won the Cold War, many Western intellectuals believed that was it. They'd resolved the big questions, democracy prevailed, and free market capitalism was the only way forward. The likes of Francis Fukuyama reinforced that message with the "end of history" theory.
Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy may constitute the "end of mankind's ideological evolution." In short, only the systems adopted by the West work to bring progress, stability and the most significant benefit to all.
And yet, along comes China to disprove that idea. On reflection, this should have been no surprise. The British Empire attained its heights before democracy shaped policies, and other empires did the same.
Besides, India and other places in Asia are making great strides without adopting all the dogma of the acclaimed "Western" model. And these advances have not gone unnoticed in Africa and South America, as others seek governance models for their specific needs.
In part, what is emerging is a model based on "good governance". This approach is loosely defined, although at its core seeks the best for the majority in the long term.
Having won the Cold War, many Western intellectuals believed that was it. They'd resolved the big questions, democracy prevailed, and free market capitalism was the only way forward. The likes of Francis Fukuyama reinforced that message with the "end of history" theory.
Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy may constitute the "end of mankind's ideological evolution." In short, only the systems adopted by the West work to bring progress, stability and the most significant benefit to all.
And yet, along comes China to disprove that idea. On reflection, this should have been no surprise. The British Empire attained its heights before democracy shaped policies, and other empires did the same.
Besides, India and other places in Asia are making great strides without adopting all the dogma of the acclaimed "Western" model. And these advances have not gone unnoticed in Africa and South America, as others seek governance models for their specific needs.
In part, what is emerging is a model based on "good governance". This approach is loosely defined, although at its core seeks the best for the majority in the long term.
"The Chinese gave us an airport, the U.S. gave us a lecture"
When the Centre Doesn't Hold
To understand how matters may unravel in a Western democratic country, look no further than Britain. Once the dominant superpower, it controlled a quarter of the globe. These days the U.K. struggles to find a defined diplomatic or military role. Moreover, it faces many daunting issues at home, including a possible break-up of the "united kingdom".
With food banks and a stagnant economy, its politicians dither as the country performs worst than the sanctioned Russians. And by 2030, the economy of Poland will exceed that of Britain. For a symbol of the U.K.'s slippage, consider that a nation that once deployed the most powerful navy struggles to stop migrants in rubber dinghies crossing the channel. During the Falklands War in 1982, the British Navy had almost 100 warships. Today it has fewer than 40.
There are lessons here. Britain threw away its gifts as the empire faltered, weakening with Brexit. Meanwhile, President Macron of France talks of "strategic autonomy". He seeks to position the E.U. on neutral ground, a stance that makes economic sense because the E.U. relies on China for some 40% of its export growth, which it can ill afford to give up.
In this positioning lies the essence of a multi-aligned world that will emerge in the coming years. For defence, the Europeans will still look towards the U.S., seeking to cooperate as they hold back the perceived threat of Russia. On the other hand, they will align with China and the other emerging powers for economic growth. Balancing these positions will be tricky.
Australia is another example of this approach. It is desperate to keep trade with China, yet aligns itself with Washington and London through the AUKUS security pact. Remarkably, Australia's trade war with China benefited the U.S. the most as they picked up $US4.6 billion worth of trade with China. With friends like that, who needs enemies.
To understand how matters may unravel in a Western democratic country, look no further than Britain. Once the dominant superpower, it controlled a quarter of the globe. These days the U.K. struggles to find a defined diplomatic or military role. Moreover, it faces many daunting issues at home, including a possible break-up of the "united kingdom".
With food banks and a stagnant economy, its politicians dither as the country performs worst than the sanctioned Russians. And by 2030, the economy of Poland will exceed that of Britain. For a symbol of the U.K.'s slippage, consider that a nation that once deployed the most powerful navy struggles to stop migrants in rubber dinghies crossing the channel. During the Falklands War in 1982, the British Navy had almost 100 warships. Today it has fewer than 40.
There are lessons here. Britain threw away its gifts as the empire faltered, weakening with Brexit. Meanwhile, President Macron of France talks of "strategic autonomy". He seeks to position the E.U. on neutral ground, a stance that makes economic sense because the E.U. relies on China for some 40% of its export growth, which it can ill afford to give up.
In this positioning lies the essence of a multi-aligned world that will emerge in the coming years. For defence, the Europeans will still look towards the U.S., seeking to cooperate as they hold back the perceived threat of Russia. On the other hand, they will align with China and the other emerging powers for economic growth. Balancing these positions will be tricky.
Australia is another example of this approach. It is desperate to keep trade with China, yet aligns itself with Washington and London through the AUKUS security pact. Remarkably, Australia's trade war with China benefited the U.S. the most as they picked up $US4.6 billion worth of trade with China. With friends like that, who needs enemies.
The West's Good Stuff
In the 1500s, China was far ahead of the West. An efficient, centralised civil service ran the country with the sole purpose of maintaining harmony. Innovation was only encouraged when a specific need arose, with unwanted changes considered disruptive. Notably, despite a robust economy and a leading position, China never ventured much beyond its borders. It never engaged in the empire-building of the British and others.
Later in the West, starting with the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment movement arose. By the 1800s, this rational and empirical process of discovering truth seeded the scientific revolution. It's worth noting none of this took place in the framework of what we today call democracy.
The "rule of law", affirming property rights, a work ethic, and medical advances, took hold in parallel. Such innovations, including on the military front, gave the power to advance national interests.
In effect, the West gifted humanity with the scientific process in full bloom, with all its benefits and risks. And while other places had elements of the scientific method well before the West, none had the conditions that allowed full implementation. Instead, societal constraints, be these religious or other dogmas, held them back.
Some argue the "individualistic" Western brain proved the tipping point. But conversely, the innovation gifted by nonconformist thinking is also the source of a lack of cohesion in Western societies, with an excessive focus on individual rights.
In the 1500s, China was far ahead of the West. An efficient, centralised civil service ran the country with the sole purpose of maintaining harmony. Innovation was only encouraged when a specific need arose, with unwanted changes considered disruptive. Notably, despite a robust economy and a leading position, China never ventured much beyond its borders. It never engaged in the empire-building of the British and others.
Later in the West, starting with the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment movement arose. By the 1800s, this rational and empirical process of discovering truth seeded the scientific revolution. It's worth noting none of this took place in the framework of what we today call democracy.
The "rule of law", affirming property rights, a work ethic, and medical advances, took hold in parallel. Such innovations, including on the military front, gave the power to advance national interests.
In effect, the West gifted humanity with the scientific process in full bloom, with all its benefits and risks. And while other places had elements of the scientific method well before the West, none had the conditions that allowed full implementation. Instead, societal constraints, be these religious or other dogmas, held them back.
Some argue the "individualistic" Western brain proved the tipping point. But conversely, the innovation gifted by nonconformist thinking is also the source of a lack of cohesion in Western societies, with an excessive focus on individual rights.
The Post-War Years - The Return of China
The World emerged from World War II into a bipolar era; the American-led capitalist system versus the Soviet-led communist idea. By the 1990s, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, a uni-polar world appeared policed by Washington — supreme, unchallenged on all fronts.
The U.S. dollar-dominated trade as movies and other American cultures captured the young.
But unnoticed at first, a man with a big vision called Deng kicked off an initiative that would change everything. As Deng Xiao-ping took over from Mao Ze-dong, he rewrote the social contract with the Chinese people.
Deng's goal was to show that foreign investment wasn't bad. So he created the first Special Economic Zone in Shenzhen, north of Hong Kong. Simultaneously, the smartest and brightest Chinese went to the West to study and bring back what they learnt to China.
With this, Deng sought to show that by adopting capitalist methods, the Chinese could prosper. What happened next was breathtaking, as 800 million people went from absolute poverty to near-middle-class status in three decades.
Along the way, China morphed into a technocratic one-party autocracy in an evolution that confounded all Western assumptions. A confident China stood up again, prepared to assert itself with the economic clout and the military means to make its presence felt. That process continues.
At first, China quietly moved forward as the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the U.S. as the top dog. With the Berlin Wall down and the Soviet Union breaking apart, the West expected the same fate for China. This assessment ignored the unity conferred on the Chinese race by a desire to right the humiliations suffered at the hands of stronger powers. China had long been homogenous, with a few distinct ethnic groups, meaning a cohesion existed that was absent in the old Soviet Union.
To some extent, the rise of China came aided by the West's engagement in futile wars that tied down resources, took up the time of leaders and distracted them. Thus, while the U.S. and its allies fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, China stepped out and traded with the World.
The World emerged from World War II into a bipolar era; the American-led capitalist system versus the Soviet-led communist idea. By the 1990s, with the break-up of the Soviet Union, a uni-polar world appeared policed by Washington — supreme, unchallenged on all fronts.
The U.S. dollar-dominated trade as movies and other American cultures captured the young.
But unnoticed at first, a man with a big vision called Deng kicked off an initiative that would change everything. As Deng Xiao-ping took over from Mao Ze-dong, he rewrote the social contract with the Chinese people.
Deng's goal was to show that foreign investment wasn't bad. So he created the first Special Economic Zone in Shenzhen, north of Hong Kong. Simultaneously, the smartest and brightest Chinese went to the West to study and bring back what they learnt to China.
With this, Deng sought to show that by adopting capitalist methods, the Chinese could prosper. What happened next was breathtaking, as 800 million people went from absolute poverty to near-middle-class status in three decades.
Along the way, China morphed into a technocratic one-party autocracy in an evolution that confounded all Western assumptions. A confident China stood up again, prepared to assert itself with the economic clout and the military means to make its presence felt. That process continues.
At first, China quietly moved forward as the Soviet Union collapsed, leaving the U.S. as the top dog. With the Berlin Wall down and the Soviet Union breaking apart, the West expected the same fate for China. This assessment ignored the unity conferred on the Chinese race by a desire to right the humiliations suffered at the hands of stronger powers. China had long been homogenous, with a few distinct ethnic groups, meaning a cohesion existed that was absent in the old Soviet Union.
To some extent, the rise of China came aided by the West's engagement in futile wars that tied down resources, took up the time of leaders and distracted them. Thus, while the U.S. and its allies fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, China stepped out and traded with the World.
"Neither the West nor the Rest monopolise virtue or vice."
Values, Democracy and the World Order - who gets to define it?
The belief that Western-style democracy is the answer to whatever issues face a country is now openly challenged. Survey after survey records that people living in Western democracies are dissatisfied with systems that don't deliver.
Atop that, we see failed attempts to shoe-hone democratic systems in various countries with disastrous results.
Yet it's essential to recognise that the Western democratic models worked well in the context of where they evolved. That context is critical. In turn, it does not mean these models will function elsewhere; tribal struggles, resentment amongst significant majorities, and other local factors can destabilise the process.
In China, I'd argue that a feedback loop mandates that the leadership must listen and take account of citizen sentiment. That process operates through formal channels of representation at provincial, city and regional levels. In a more informal setting, through the internal, people are vocal, albeit within constraints.
The swift and unexpected dropping of the most strident aspects of the Covid restrictions is proof of this at work. Xi Jinping cannot ignore these voices if he is to maintain the support of 1.4 billion Chinese. In that sense, he is accountable to the populace.
The belief that Western-style democracy is the answer to whatever issues face a country is now openly challenged. Survey after survey records that people living in Western democracies are dissatisfied with systems that don't deliver.
Atop that, we see failed attempts to shoe-hone democratic systems in various countries with disastrous results.
Yet it's essential to recognise that the Western democratic models worked well in the context of where they evolved. That context is critical. In turn, it does not mean these models will function elsewhere; tribal struggles, resentment amongst significant majorities, and other local factors can destabilise the process.
In China, I'd argue that a feedback loop mandates that the leadership must listen and take account of citizen sentiment. That process operates through formal channels of representation at provincial, city and regional levels. In a more informal setting, through the internal, people are vocal, albeit within constraints.
The swift and unexpected dropping of the most strident aspects of the Covid restrictions is proof of this at work. Xi Jinping cannot ignore these voices if he is to maintain the support of 1.4 billion Chinese. In that sense, he is accountable to the populace.
America Versus China
Do the maths; population is power: 1.4 billion people versus 329 million. China's economy has grown over the past forty years at a rate four times that of the U.S. By purchasing power parity, the yardstick the IMF uses to compare national economies, China has surpassed America.
In the process, China has become the World's workshop, the number one trading partner of most nations and the primary engine of economic growth. And yes, because of Covid and the pursuit of a zero infection policy, China's economy slowed. Although, claims of a crash proved wrong.
With Covid over, growth in the Chinese economy is returning at a rate higher than expected. If the numbers stand up, depending on which statistics you assert, by 2050, China will attain double the GDP of the U.S., which could fall to third place behind India.
But don't dismiss the challenges faced. A sudden fall in population is coming that may see China struggling to maintain economic momentum. Related to that are rising wages and production moving out of China.
Still almost absent from Washington's thinking is an understanding that the Chinese people will decide China's future. Policy wonks and spooks may play their games, but if the history of their success is a measure, their impact is marginal.
Moreover, many in the West are kidding themselves if they believe the Chinese people view Xi and the CCP through the same lens as them. On the contrary, their popularity remains robust, at numbers Western politicians can only dream about.
It is noteworthy that relations with the U.S. have not thawed under Biden. And yet, I feel it now wrong to frame the relationship between the two superpowers as a 'cold war' because the Soviet Union and the U.S. never enjoyed interlinked economies. Moreover, China's economy is integrated into the fastest-growing countries in Asia. While at the same time, these countries rely on the U.S. for defence. More signalling of a multi-aligned world.
Thus the equation is far more complicated than the old cold war. For example, if Biden pushes countries in Asia to take sides, he risks them moving further into the Chinese domain. Plus, Afghanistan demonstrated that the U.S. could cut and dash, leaving friends in the lurch. That has not gone unnoticed, including in Taiwan.
I must address one issue. Many pundits cite the "Thucydides Trap" to assert that China and the U.S. will end up at war. This moulding of a classical theory, which says that the rising and the waning power must fight, looks cliched and silly in the modern era. Many factors differ from classical times, including nuclear weapons on both sides.
The Dollar - a blunted weapon
In recent years, Washington has opted to use the leverage provided by the dominance of the U.S. dollar to its advantage. But, like other aspects of U.S. power, this is under threat, with clumsy short-term policies helping erode the dollar's prowess. There are several factors at play here. One of the most significant is the emergence of other economic powers. For instance, China has successfully sought to trade in the Yuen.
Also, concerns over the stability of the U.S. economy and political system have led some foreign investors to seek out other safe havens for their money.
Finally, the emergence of alternative digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, has created competition for the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency. Hence, central banks are exploring the creation of digital currencies, which could further diminish the importance of the U.S. dollar in the worldwide economy. Watch then as the algorithms prevail.
Do the maths; population is power: 1.4 billion people versus 329 million. China's economy has grown over the past forty years at a rate four times that of the U.S. By purchasing power parity, the yardstick the IMF uses to compare national economies, China has surpassed America.
In the process, China has become the World's workshop, the number one trading partner of most nations and the primary engine of economic growth. And yes, because of Covid and the pursuit of a zero infection policy, China's economy slowed. Although, claims of a crash proved wrong.
With Covid over, growth in the Chinese economy is returning at a rate higher than expected. If the numbers stand up, depending on which statistics you assert, by 2050, China will attain double the GDP of the U.S., which could fall to third place behind India.
But don't dismiss the challenges faced. A sudden fall in population is coming that may see China struggling to maintain economic momentum. Related to that are rising wages and production moving out of China.
Still almost absent from Washington's thinking is an understanding that the Chinese people will decide China's future. Policy wonks and spooks may play their games, but if the history of their success is a measure, their impact is marginal.
Moreover, many in the West are kidding themselves if they believe the Chinese people view Xi and the CCP through the same lens as them. On the contrary, their popularity remains robust, at numbers Western politicians can only dream about.
It is noteworthy that relations with the U.S. have not thawed under Biden. And yet, I feel it now wrong to frame the relationship between the two superpowers as a 'cold war' because the Soviet Union and the U.S. never enjoyed interlinked economies. Moreover, China's economy is integrated into the fastest-growing countries in Asia. While at the same time, these countries rely on the U.S. for defence. More signalling of a multi-aligned world.
Thus the equation is far more complicated than the old cold war. For example, if Biden pushes countries in Asia to take sides, he risks them moving further into the Chinese domain. Plus, Afghanistan demonstrated that the U.S. could cut and dash, leaving friends in the lurch. That has not gone unnoticed, including in Taiwan.
I must address one issue. Many pundits cite the "Thucydides Trap" to assert that China and the U.S. will end up at war. This moulding of a classical theory, which says that the rising and the waning power must fight, looks cliched and silly in the modern era. Many factors differ from classical times, including nuclear weapons on both sides.
The Dollar - a blunted weapon
In recent years, Washington has opted to use the leverage provided by the dominance of the U.S. dollar to its advantage. But, like other aspects of U.S. power, this is under threat, with clumsy short-term policies helping erode the dollar's prowess. There are several factors at play here. One of the most significant is the emergence of other economic powers. For instance, China has successfully sought to trade in the Yuen.
Also, concerns over the stability of the U.S. economy and political system have led some foreign investors to seek out other safe havens for their money.
Finally, the emergence of alternative digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, has created competition for the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency. Hence, central banks are exploring the creation of digital currencies, which could further diminish the importance of the U.S. dollar in the worldwide economy. Watch then as the algorithms prevail.
Some Final Thoughts
The unipolar World of U.S. dominance is ending. Henceforth the challenge is how the U.S. works with China and others. Given the hawkish debate in Washington highlighted above, different voices must be heard. Otherwise, the Chinese/U.S. relationship may enter a downward spiral of action and reaction.
Likewise, there is a view that China sees the U.S. as a lost cause. In their mind, the U.S. seeks to deny China's rise and will stop at nothing to meet that. But, again, this feeds the unhelpful action and reaction cycle of responses. Further, there are views in China that, left to its devices, the West may implode.
In a sense, Putin helped shore up the West. Until the recent Ukraine war, the U.S. relationship with Europe was deteriorating. Obama was indifferent, Trump openly hostile, and Biden left to repair the damage. However, Putin's actions did him a favour as the under-defended Europeans scrambled to shape a response to Russia's invasion. Their only option was to join the US-led effort.
That war rumbles on with no signs of a victory or peace talks. So, Europe suffered an energy crisis, inflation and other destabilising effects. A mild winter and gas supplies from the U.S. helped but at a cost.
Although these broad views can't hide the complexity, a few instances tell a story; Biden favours Ireland over the U.K. but relies on the U.K. as a critical member of the Five Eyes surveillance network to house his military in Europe. At the same time, Macron makes noises about distancing France from the U.S. with his "strategic autonomy". Yet, he's in NATO and the G7.
Meanwhile, most Asian nations are hedging their bets by maintaining cordial relations with Beijing and Washington. Several have made it clear they don't want to take a position by picking sides.
And now, with Covid out of the way, a steady stream of world leaders knock on Beijing's door seeking an audience with Xi. These visits and China's blind-siding move of brokering peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia affirm a change is underway that may not be to the liking of those strident Washington policy wonks.
No U.S. President can admit it, but they must recognise that China is now a peer nation with a formidable economic, diplomatic, military and ideological heft.
Although, as I've suggested before, the rise of China to dominance is by no means assured because India is also gaining increasing prominence, and Nigeria will soon be the most populous nation.
Thus, none of the propositions cited here is set in stone — let us recognise that China and India face significant challenges as they advance. On the trade front, both can't afford to cut off the West.
Also, neither the West nor the Rest monopolise virtue or vice. While thrown-around arguments about human rights provide helpful distractions to black an opponent, even a brief examination of history will throw up despicable acts by any nation. Nobody holds the moral high ground.
Every country has its list of sins, but it's ridiculous to define that country by its past only. So let it be said, once more, that there are no exact boundaries between the two kinds of governance. Each is about power.
Now, it is finally possible to take a decisive step by sketching a possible future. Applying Spengler's theories and predictions, I foresee that the West doesn't fall in an apocalyptic manner — even Rome lingered for two and half centuries after the Caesars. Instead, a drift into stagnation creeps up. As this happens, no new superpower claims the crown to dominate the scene; rather, a hotchpotch of alliances and power blocks compete for dominance.
I will venture to say kinetic wars get relegated to rare events in fear of triggering the worse; still, low-key hostilities will play out in cyber-space and on the fringes. For example, proxy wars, such as in Ukraine, keep the big players at a distance.
We will never have a perfect world, indeed such a thing may be cripple us. But we can have a safe world, and if there is any hope, it rests in trade, cooperation and a move away from dogma. The view from Spengler is bleak, we don't want to go there.
The boundless mass of humanity flows on a stream without banks; upstream, the past is lost in time; while downstream, a future clouded by starless possibilities awaits.
Watching all this are men of zest, overawed - the romantic era of empires is over. They declare the Caesars will return, driven by will to power. So, finally, nations sit as economic units, stripped of their identity, with the populace cushioned from grim reality by social media wrecked attention spans.
They bickering over gender, porn consumption, and other matters of the day, then drift on.
The unipolar World of U.S. dominance is ending. Henceforth the challenge is how the U.S. works with China and others. Given the hawkish debate in Washington highlighted above, different voices must be heard. Otherwise, the Chinese/U.S. relationship may enter a downward spiral of action and reaction.
Likewise, there is a view that China sees the U.S. as a lost cause. In their mind, the U.S. seeks to deny China's rise and will stop at nothing to meet that. But, again, this feeds the unhelpful action and reaction cycle of responses. Further, there are views in China that, left to its devices, the West may implode.
In a sense, Putin helped shore up the West. Until the recent Ukraine war, the U.S. relationship with Europe was deteriorating. Obama was indifferent, Trump openly hostile, and Biden left to repair the damage. However, Putin's actions did him a favour as the under-defended Europeans scrambled to shape a response to Russia's invasion. Their only option was to join the US-led effort.
That war rumbles on with no signs of a victory or peace talks. So, Europe suffered an energy crisis, inflation and other destabilising effects. A mild winter and gas supplies from the U.S. helped but at a cost.
Although these broad views can't hide the complexity, a few instances tell a story; Biden favours Ireland over the U.K. but relies on the U.K. as a critical member of the Five Eyes surveillance network to house his military in Europe. At the same time, Macron makes noises about distancing France from the U.S. with his "strategic autonomy". Yet, he's in NATO and the G7.
Meanwhile, most Asian nations are hedging their bets by maintaining cordial relations with Beijing and Washington. Several have made it clear they don't want to take a position by picking sides.
And now, with Covid out of the way, a steady stream of world leaders knock on Beijing's door seeking an audience with Xi. These visits and China's blind-siding move of brokering peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia affirm a change is underway that may not be to the liking of those strident Washington policy wonks.
No U.S. President can admit it, but they must recognise that China is now a peer nation with a formidable economic, diplomatic, military and ideological heft.
Although, as I've suggested before, the rise of China to dominance is by no means assured because India is also gaining increasing prominence, and Nigeria will soon be the most populous nation.
Thus, none of the propositions cited here is set in stone — let us recognise that China and India face significant challenges as they advance. On the trade front, both can't afford to cut off the West.
Also, neither the West nor the Rest monopolise virtue or vice. While thrown-around arguments about human rights provide helpful distractions to black an opponent, even a brief examination of history will throw up despicable acts by any nation. Nobody holds the moral high ground.
Every country has its list of sins, but it's ridiculous to define that country by its past only. So let it be said, once more, that there are no exact boundaries between the two kinds of governance. Each is about power.
Now, it is finally possible to take a decisive step by sketching a possible future. Applying Spengler's theories and predictions, I foresee that the West doesn't fall in an apocalyptic manner — even Rome lingered for two and half centuries after the Caesars. Instead, a drift into stagnation creeps up. As this happens, no new superpower claims the crown to dominate the scene; rather, a hotchpotch of alliances and power blocks compete for dominance.
I will venture to say kinetic wars get relegated to rare events in fear of triggering the worse; still, low-key hostilities will play out in cyber-space and on the fringes. For example, proxy wars, such as in Ukraine, keep the big players at a distance.
We will never have a perfect world, indeed such a thing may be cripple us. But we can have a safe world, and if there is any hope, it rests in trade, cooperation and a move away from dogma. The view from Spengler is bleak, we don't want to go there.
The boundless mass of humanity flows on a stream without banks; upstream, the past is lost in time; while downstream, a future clouded by starless possibilities awaits.
Watching all this are men of zest, overawed - the romantic era of empires is over. They declare the Caesars will return, driven by will to power. So, finally, nations sit as economic units, stripped of their identity, with the populace cushioned from grim reality by social media wrecked attention spans.
They bickering over gender, porn consumption, and other matters of the day, then drift on.
May 2023
Copyright © 2015