I have a question about this passage from Hal Brands’s essay at Bloomberg on eschewing the “clash of civilizations” metaphor:
The Chinese government, by contrast, has embraced the concept of civilizational difference as a means of autocratic self-protection. Beijing has long rejected the idea that it should liberalize its political system — or simply stop throwing dissidents in jail — on grounds that “Western†concepts of democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the traditions of China’s unique civilization.
The U.S. should not be supporting this idea, even implicitly; it should not be affirming the civilizational wall the Chinese regime has sought to build between its citizens and the democratic world.
The clash thesis is also geopolitically dangerous, because here, too, it plays into China’s hands. The Chinese government has long argued that the world should, in fact, be divided along civilizational lines: That Asians have more in common with each other than they do with the U.S., and that Washington should therefore leave Asia to the Asians — meaning that it should allow China to dominate that part of the world. This argument provides an intellectual underpinning for everything Beijing is doing to push the U.S. out of the Western Pacific: Undermining U.S. alliances, building up its military, and weaving webs of economic dependence around its neighbors.
Is it really the case that China’s bolstering a dividing line between the United States and the other countries of Asia is a result of U. S. actions? Or would it proceed regardless of what we did? What’s the evidence that China would not follow such a strategy but for the United States?
My own view is that the U. S. should pursue its own interests and stop trying to suck up to the cool kids. Is there really a “West”? I think we have a lot more in common with Canada, Mexico, or Brazil than we do with the United Kingdom, France, or Germany.
I am also blithely unconcerned about China gaining the support of South Korea, Japan, Philippines, India, or other Asian countries. They are not fools and can handily identify what actually threatens them.
“What’s the evidence that China would not follow such a strategy but for the United States?”
For one thing, China does not have a history of colonialism. Until quite recently, they barely even had a navy. Something new is going on with Chinese ambitions and I think that new thing is American money.
We’ve made them rich. And with that comes ambition. IMHO they will do as autocracies always do and massively misallocate resources. They’ll pour it down the drain. As rich as we think they are, why are they so concerned about tariffs? Like the Saudi’s and their oil, they’ve already allocated, (spent) that money, and can’t afford a reduction.
Not true. Chinese expansion into Taiwan, Tibet, and Central Asia took place in the 19th century. The Qing government attempted to expand into Burma in the 18th century but were repelled in a long and costly frontier war.
Much earlier the Han dynasty expanded into Vietnam, Korea, and parts of Central Asia. Under the Tang dynasty control over parts of Korea and Central Asia were resumed. The Mongol Yuan dynasty attempted to invade Japan.
China has a long and variably successful history of imperialism going back more than 2,000 years.
Well, Imperialism, Colonialism, expanding frontiers.
I think though you are right, but, they never compared to Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, The Dutch, or say, Japan in overseas conquests although today they are buying their way into Africa and the Mediterranean. The legal claims they have on borrowed money by African countries will take a navy to enforce.
To paraphrase what a friend of mine once wrote about Pakistan, the Angolans are going to be amazed to wake up one morning to learn that they’d been Chinese all along.