I'm not posting this video for the interview per se but for the overarching discussion about the tug-of-war between Western powers and China, and the ramifications of that for the world and global efforts to address climate change.
The video starts with a claim from Liz Truss that China is the "largest threat both to the world and to the United Kingdom," a tone-deaf and self-centered claim that overlooks China's relations with much of the Global South and even with many Western countries. At around 3:56 (which I timestamped in the link below), the host, Andrew Marr, asks the CCP spokesperson, Victor Gao, about "what language we [the UK] use about China": whether it is a "competitor," an "ally," or a "threat":
I'm glad that the influence of Western powers prevents China from having free rein to bully other countries or invade them (as it wants to do to Taiwan) without worrying about significant pushback, but I'm also glad the reverse is true. The attempts of the US and the UK, of all countries, to lecture others on the "global order" or "threats to the world" usually come across as starkly inconsistent at best—which also goes for China with its litany of human rights abuses on a domestic level and its own geopolitical bullying and aspirations for global hegemony.
Between the power struggle involving the US and China, the rise of India as a global power, and the intensifying climate crisis that requires global coordination to tackle—especially between these three countries, as they are the world's largest carbon emitters—I suspect that the next two to three decades may well be a unique and difficult period.
What are your thoughts? Where do you see the current situation and the competition for global hegemony leading us in the next two to three decades?
I thought the answer to the question from the CCP spokesperson was interesting. He was essentially saying that Britain
can't compete with China in the various categories he listed (auto production, AI development, semiconductors, etc.). "Is Britain a competitor? No," he kept saying.
Obviously, the West has had a bit of history with China, Britain probably more so than the U.S. at first.
The U.S. leadership has been largely myopic and reactive in its foreign policy in general. Their recurring and never-ending problem seems to be some kind of willful indecisiveness as to whether they want to work for America's best interests on the global stage, or whether they want to make the world safe for freedom and democracy.
Back in 1949, China was not necessarily considered an immediate threat to America, although we sided with the Chinese Nationalist government which fled to Taiwan and considered them the true government of China for over 20 years until Nixon reversed that policy (though still guaranteed Taiwan's security). Overall, during the Cold War, the US leadership viewed the Soviet Bloc as being the greater threat, and with the Sino-Soviet split creating a window of opportunity, Nixon took it. (Nixon may have been a scoundrel overall, but that was one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal administration.)
Meanwhile, China and the U.S. got even more cozy with each other, while the Soviet Union favored detente with the West. Reagan came in like gangbusters and pretty much ended detente, and decided that America should start building up its military and act more aggressively in fighting the "evil empire." For the most part, China wasn't really considered any great threat, and in fact, a lot of Americans saw warming relations with China as an economic opportunity, since China was reforming and becoming more capitalist-friendly.
I think the Soviets were also open to having a more economically and politically "normalized" relationship with the U.S., particularly under Gorbachev. Two events I recall which happened was that they started tearing down the Berlin Wall, and the East Germans and Soviets didn't really do anything. This demonstrated (to me, at least) that they were probably getting tired of walls and barbed wire and iron curtains and all the other trappings of the Cold War, the roots of which grew out of disagreements from WW2 which no longer really seemed relevant more than 40 years later. It had gone on for far too long, and both sides were obviously getting weary of it.
In China, it also seemed like they were undergoing progressive changes as well, and there were protests in Tiananmen Square - which were ultimately crushed by tanks. Quite a contrast between what happened in Berlin and what happened in Beijing, as it appeared at the time that Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe could become free and democratic, but China would not be.
Still, for whatever reason (and most likely a very dumb reason), U.S. policy remained guarded towards Russia, still apparently considering them a potential threat, while pretty much throwing caution to the four winds when it came to China. Outsourcing became a big bonanza as Western corporations looked at China and saw nothing but money. The Chinese apparently understood the weakness of Western political and business leaders is money. A lot of Americans at the time might have thought that, if we do business with the Chinese, they'll come to understand and love the joys of capitalism and freedom that they'll eventually come around to our way of thinking.
Was their apparent friendly attitude towards the US in the 80s and 90s just a big ruse, designed to lull American leaders into a false sense of security until we fell into their diabolical, intricately-designed trap 30 years later? Or was it our government and our political and business leaders who were being dishonest? Did they do something to sour relations, or did we?
I mean, we've always known that they've wanted Taiwan back, going all the way back to 1949. So, I can't really understand why the government is acting like it's some great big shock, like they never heard of the idea before. We knew it back when they massacred all those protesters at Tiananmen Square, yet still decided to do more and more business with that government. We knew (or should have known) who and what we were dealing with, so it's a bit late for the West to be crying about it now.
When looking at the larger picture, not just in terms of China, but I've heard it from people in other countries as well, I get the feeling that large segments of the world are seemingly fed up with American militarism and interventionism, along with the sanctimonious attitude that often goes with it - the idea of Captain America out to right all the world's wrongs and act as the leader of the free world. Even in other Western countries, as well as within America itself, there are those who view it with a sense of cynicism and dismay - some of it a legacy from the Vietnam War era, but also with a noticeable dimension of exposure and greater interaction with people from outside of America who express a much different view of American policy than what most Americans were raised with.
When we have politicians who openly say things like "Bomb them back to the Stone Age," people from outside America might look at that and think that we've gone stark, raving mad. There is a very strong warmongering, warlike element within our political and popular culture that many Americans probably recognize, since it's something many of us grew up with. But I can also see where people who have been on the receiving end of America's military might could develop a different point of view. Others might be watching as well, and if we really took a long, hard objective look at our government, our politicians, and their behavior over the past 30-40 years, we might begin to understand why other countries might see us in a less than flattering light.
At this point, I don't know exactly what the future holds, because it's not really clear what China and the West would have any kind of tug-of-war or power struggle over. I don't see any real basis for conflict with China. While the US was too busy playing soldier around the world, other countries like China were quietly building up their industries and improving their technology, while US industries deteriorated and US schools found themselves woefully behind the rest of the industrialized world.
In other words, the US-sponsored "global economy" of outsourcing combined with military adventurism turned out to be a real stinker ever since Reagan, Bush, and Clinton brought it to us. And now, we have an unstable and dangerous Russia to deal with, and an increasingly intransigent China bristling against Western sanctimony. This, along with a flagging economy, a diminished infrastructure, and an ever-widening and polarized political rift which could lead to greater discord and instability.
