China has made a huge political mistake in ignoring the strong convictions among leading American figures that China has been fundamentally unfair in many of its economic policies: demanding technology transfer, stealing intellectual property, imposing nontariff barriers. "The US has a strong case" against China in this area, as Magnus notes.
This is dooley noted, as they say in Casablanca and the White House. Of all his hateful media, even the adversarial New York Times has run op-eds suggesting that Trump engage Europe.
Mahbubani points to "three contributing factors" that brought about China's unacceptable behavior: one, the power of local officials to control business arrangements with foreigners; two, Sino hubris over the 2008 Wall Street financial collapse; and, three, weak central government in the 2000s. While Americans applied pressure on Beijing, Mahbubani points out that "even if Beijing wished to do so, there are limits to how much day-to-day control the center can impose." He adds, Charlie Chan-like, "A well-known Chinese saying is: The mountains are high, and the emperor is far away. For millennia, the provinces of China, even under strong emperors, have always had strong local autonomy." And, sure, they were laughing their asses off when the Cappies almost blew their own brains out playing Russian roulette in 2008, almost like Manchurian candidates. Wah.
Mahbubani also takes issue with American tactics. By giving the Middle Kingdom the middle finger, as only Americans can do (think Easy Rider), we've become occidentally disoriented in our foreign policy, becoming the kind of reactionaries that Mao and Nixon had a chuckle festival over in 1972. And, as far as Mahbubani is concerned, America has a "need to find a foreign scapegoat to hide the deep domestic socioeconomic challenges that have emerged in American society."
Mahbubani largely blames Trump for this drive:
By plunging into a major geopolitical contest, possibly the biggest ever in human history, without first working out a comprehensive long-term strategy, the Trump administration has only succeeded in diminishing America's standing in the world while, at the same time, creating space for China's influence to grow in the world.
As Charlie Chan might have said: Wise man say, If you shoot from hip too often, soon you need hip replacement therapy. Better hope HMO cover. Well, anyway, Mahbubani doesn't stop there, he continues to lay into Trump. He writes, "America would present a formidable challenge to China if it were a united, strong, and self-confident country." He's not done: "Trump has done the opposite. He has divided and polarized America"Trump's administration must take sole blame for following a unilateral, rather than a multilateral, approach to deal with China"America, under Trump, is increasingly perceived as a chaotic and unpredictable actor." His pitch rising, Mahbubani goes aria, "Did anyone in the Trump administration work out a thoughtful and well considered strategy before launching the first round of these tariffs (which were followed by many more rounds)?" He notes: "Trump replied: 'I just like tariffs.'" Wah. Chaos. Jake, you tell yourself, it's just Chinatown.
Sometimes while reading Has China Won? you wonder if Mahbubani didn't get so driven to distraction by Trump that he started leaning on some magic dust to get through his analysis. He thinks,
it would be reasonable for many Chinese leaders to believe that when America promotes democracy in China, it is not trying to strengthen China.It is trying to bring about a more disunited, divided China, a China beset by chaos. If that was China's fate, America could continue to remain the number one unchallenged power for another century or more.
That's fine, but what I'm talking about is his diminishing Trump by trotting in Plato. He notes, "Edward Luce reminded us, that 'democracy was the rule of the mob-literally demos (mob) and kratos (rule).'" And that "Plato said the best form of rule was by a philosopher king." And then the punchline: "There is a very strong potential that Xi Jinping could provide to China the beneficent kind of rule provided by a philosopher king." Sweet Jesus. Pass the bong.
But the most important takeaway from this section is Mahbubani's discussion of the US Dollar as the global reserve currency, and how it has backed American privilege and hegemony over the many decades, and, how, most importantly, this "privilege," which has allowed Americans to pursue "middle class" lives, on credit, (without knowing it), is in danger of collapse. He quotes Ruchir Sharma to make his point:
Reserve currency status had long been a perk of imperial might-and an economic elixir. By generating a steady flow of customers who want to hold the currency, often in the form of government bonds, it allows the privileged country to borrow cheaply abroad and fund a lifestyle well beyond its means.
As a result of this status, paper money can be printed up whenever needed - essentially IOUs bought up by foreign investors and countries, such as China, who if they ever cashed in could make the US government insolvent overnight.
Mahbubani points out that such an arrangement is built on trust and that
The world has been happy to use the US dollar as the global reserve currency because they trusted the US government to make the right decisions on the US dollar that would take into consideration the economic interests not only of the 330 million American people but also of the remaining 7.2 billion people outsideAmerica who also rely on the US dollar to fund their international transactions.
But, he writes, now much of the world sees America falling into disorder, with the 2008 near-collapse of the global economy, thanks to Wall Street hijinks, being a harbinger of ill-tidings ahead for America. As a result, China, and other countries have begun looking for ways to get around the US dollar, such as with BRICS and other talk of alternate currencies. No doubt, this left many Western bankers sh*tting bricks. Could such moves cause a war? Wah.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
