[Fasces]

China has quietly released a manifesto stating its position on US Hegemony and the current world order, as well as its objectives going forward. This post should not be read as an uncritical defense of the claims made by the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

Some selections, full source at the bottom:

Since becoming the world's most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community.

[...]

While a just cause wins its champion wide support, an unjust one condemns its pursuer to be an outcast. The hegemonic, domineering, and bullying practices of using strength to intimidate the weak, taking from others by force and subterfuge, and playing zero-sum games are exerting grave harm. The historical trends of peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit are unstoppable. The United States has been overriding truth with its power and trampling justice to serve self-interest. These unilateral, egoistic and regressive hegemonic practices have drawn growing, intense criticism and opposition from the international community.

Countries need to respect each other and treat each other as equals. Big countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and take the lead in pursuing a new model of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership, not confrontation or alliance. China opposes all forms of hegemonism and power politics, and rejects interference in other countries' internal affairs. The United States must conduct serious soul-searching. It must critically examine what it has done, let go of its arrogance and prejudice, and quit its hegemonic, domineering and bullying practices.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/ ... 27664.html

Summary of critiques:

• The US uses human rights languages to justify its intervention in the internal affairs of other countries, but does not apply these critiques equally or abides by them themselves.
• The US has created many small blocs of 'supporters' and 'enemies' and its interference in these countries is more predictable by their alignment than their actual human rights situation.
• The US relies on its military and goes to war too easily. These wars often produce worse humanitarian outcomes than the 'problem' they were ostensibly attempting to solve.
• The Breton Woods system is fundamentally unjust and establishes a US economic hegemony that US regulators use to cudgel independent states into following US policy.
• The US frequently uses the US dollar as a means of implementing its foreign policy agenda abroad, undercutting national sovereignty.
• The US uses patent law and intellectual property to ensure technological hegemony for itself and its allies. It uses human rights language as a justification for this, but again, this isn't born out in the evidence.
• The US often violates its own objectives, policies, and agreements to do so.
• The US carries out cyber attacks frequently and surveils indiscriminately its own citizens, citizens of allied countries, and citizens of non-allied countries.
• The US uses its soft power to promote its world view, especially the soft power of Hollywood.
• The US is one of the leading social media manipulators and misinformation agents in the world.
• The US has a policy of informal and formal suppression of media narratives counter to its foreign policy goods, even internally.

A lot of these criticisms are mirrors of the ones the US itself uses for China. These critiques are 'true to life' in my personal experience - they are widely held beliefs even among Chinese population, both within and outside of China. They are a decent summary of what the 'average' Chinese and the CPC thinks of the US and US hegemony.

[Beren]

Big countries should behave in a manner befitting their status and take the lead in pursuing a new model of state-to-state relations featuring dialogue and partnership, not confrontation or alliance.

I've also noticed they don't think in terms of alliance.

A lot of these criticisms are mirrors of the ones the US itself uses for China.

Indeed, they just mirrored and copy-pasted usual US criticism, so they didn't respect their intellectual property again.

[Reichstraten]

The Chinese are against hegemonic practices, yet strive for hegemony themselves.
https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/
Will the Chinese be a better superpower when they take the lead in international relations?

[Fasces]

I've also noticed they don't think in terms of alliance.

This is pretty consistent with their practices. Outside of broad economic cooperation agreements such as SCO, China prefers to work on a bilateral state-to-state basis. Even within the SCO, development projects and partnerships are usually on a state-to-state basis. Within the EU, they work on a state-to-state level. This probably helps them capitalize on relative strength of their own economies vs everyone else.

Will the Chinese be a better superpower when they take the lead in international relations?

Not under their current leadership, and not unless trust can be established between China and the West prior to its rise.

[Tainari88]

This is pretty consistent with their practices. Outside of broad economic cooperation agreements such as SCO, China prefers to work on a bilateral state-to-state basis. Even within the SCO, development projects and partnerships are usually on a state-to-state basis. Within the EU, they work on a state-to-state level. This probably helps them capitalize on relative strength of their own economies vs everyone else.



Not under their current leadership, and not unless trust can be established between China and the West prior to its rise.

Kennan definitely laid out the US objectives after WWII during the fifties. It is transparent. You get the documents and it is correct. They interfered to make sure the US stayed dominant. He did write in the documents there of dispensing with notions such as democracy and etc. All that has to go. The USA after winning WWII has to just make sure the rest of the world is controlled by US interests. Period.

The issue is? Do the PRC keep their word to workers and ordinary Chinese citizens and represent the interests of the working man and woman? Avoiding creating inequality in Chinese society and differences in power dynamics? I am not convinced that the CCP represents the Chinese citizens who are poor and the workers in all these hellbent on production schemes are not about state capitalism and having the Chinese state grow wealthy off the back of workers who don't have the promised security that the CCP are supposed to provide.

But that the Chinese are right about the agenda that Kennan of the state department laid out for the USA and the USA has pursued to the nth degree? Yes indeed.

[Steve_American]

The Chinese are against hegemonic practices, yet strive for hegemony themselves.
https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/
Will the Chinese be a better superpower when they take the lead in international relations?

Peter Ziehan says that China has 2 problems that separately mean that it will not becme a super power anytime soon. And, ACC aka GW means it doesn't have time to correct either one.
They are =>
1] China is dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf for 80% of its usage. It can't protect the ships carrying the oil to China because all its ships have too little range and it lacks bases along the route. It also imports a lot of food. If it goes to war its imports will be cut off. So, it can't even usefully threaten a war.

2] China's population graph is an inverted pyrmid. This means for the next 60 years it will always have more older people than younger people. Older people consume and don't produce, and younger people produce and fill the ranks of the army and navy.

IMHO, China should look internally, get its house in order, use a knowledge of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to see how to use its power that comes from having a full fiat currency and no foreign debts to improve its economy, cut back the PLA (army) to direct resources to improving its economy, stop trying to take Taiwan, etc..

A MMTer who doesn't care about tradition and women's rights could use the power its fiat currency to pay a bonus for the birth of each child and a continuing payment until it is 19, and maybe even impose a tax on every unmarried woman from 19 to 38 years old to encourage marriage. Lesbians could marry a woman and a man, if they're willing to be totally radical. There are way more young men than young women, so gay men can marry each other without hurting the nation.

The OP is totally right about how the US has behaved. It has gotten worse since 2000 with its minor wars, for no good reason. Invading Aphganstan was fine but, we shoiuld have pulled out after 1 year and paid whatever Aphgnstan Gov. in was power a large sum of money to keep Al-qaeda out. Iraq was wrongly started and a disaster for Iraq and the US both. Syria was little better.
.

[Fasces]

Peter Ziehan says that China has 2 problems that separately mean that it will not becme a super power anytime soon.

It doesn't seek to be a super power in the same sense the US is at this time, as it is still competing for regional hegemony. This stems from the reasons listed above in the OP, of course - the Chinese leadership, rightly or wrongly, believes that it needs to be in a position to challenge the US just to defend itself from US taking action to contain them in a state of permanent subservience. There is no trust in the US-led world order, as evident in the OP.

Because I need to make this clear to some posters here: This is not defense of China. Sometimes those bullied when young turn into big bullies when they grow up. I think China right now is motivated by a desire to make Western bullying stop. It has internalized its identity as a victim. I do think that, if the wrong guy is in power, this can manifest itself very badly should the roles reverse and China becomes a dominant hegemon. I think this is more likely the more trust breaks down between the West and China, so I do advocate for Western-led rapprochement and long-term trust-building.

Zeihan though is an idiot. He's part of the crowd of US analysts that make money by telling US leaders what they want to hear - the Gordon Changs that predict China's imminent collapse every other year for reasons X or Y. On these two criticisms, I feel he misses the mark entirely:

1] China is dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf for 80% of its usage. It can't protect the ships carrying the oil to China because all its ships have too little range and it lacks bases along the route.

Central Asia pipelines are already running, and while capacity is a problem China as of 2023 sources 60-65% of its energy from oil and gas sources outside of China, and while some comes from the Persian Gulf, a proportion of this is delivered overland, through or from Russian and Central Asian providers.





Even as far back as 2013, China was a world leader in renewable energy production. About 70% of its energy needs are met with fossil fuels.

It also imports a lot of food. If it goes to war its imports will be cut off. So, it can't even usefully threaten a war.

China is has caloric self-sufficiency since about 2015. The per capita domestic food supply is well above the international standard of 400 kg, at around 605 kg. The country has achieved basic self-sufficiency in grain and absolute security in staple foods, per the FAO.

It relies on imports for supplementary foods, fish and meats. As China has grown wealthier, this has led to a net trade deficit on food products, since these are of comparably higher value. In the case of war, the Chinese will have a leaner diet - but not no diet.

hina's population graph is an inverted pyrmid. This means for the next 60 years it will always have more older people than younger people. Older people consume and don't produce, and younger people produce and fill the ranks of the army and navy.

I think demographic concerns in China are overstated by US analysts. China can mitigate a lot of this through improvement to productivity. China has a productivity per labor hour figure about a third of Japan and a quarter of the US. They're world leaders in AI and automation R&D, and have closed the innovation gap to a significant degree over the last few years. China could lose up to a billion citizens and still be as economically productive as it is today just by rising to match the productivity per labor hour of most Western states, something that can be accomplished without even needing to be innovative per se.

[Reichstraten]

Not under their current leadership, and not unless trust can be established between China and the West prior to its rise.

Sometimes I wonder whether the Chinese really take these values at heart or just employ them to capitalize on anti-American sentiments in America itself.
You can say what you want about Putin, but he is obvious against Western liberal values. The Chinese are indistinct.

[Fasces]

I think a term like 'liberal values' has become utterly meaningless in this day and age. Could you expand? Are you talking 'freedom of the seas' liberalism or 'teaching my trans 3 year old to suck dick' Fox-brand liberalism?

[Reichstraten]

I think a term like 'liberal values' has become utterly meaningless in this day and age. Could you expand? Are you talking 'freedom of the seas' liberalism or 'teaching my trans 3 year old to suck dick' Fox-brand liberalism?

I realize that. What I intend to say is that Putin is a patently obvious barbarian, while the Chinese appear to be civilized.

[Tainari88]

I realize that. What I intend to say is that Putin is a patently obvious barbarian, while the Chinese appear to be civilized.

China for me needs to beef up on worker rights. Those stories I hear about Apple factory employees having to work seven days a week and live near the factory and worked to the bone, and they go insane and commit suicide is TERRIBLE.

Look at this report about Foxconn that did Apple orders. It is terrible! is that what they do with workers? Make the family members sign liability releases to prevent being responsible for overwork and desperation? It is a total lack of regard for workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

[Fasces]

China for me needs to beef up on worker rights. Those stories I hear about Apple factory employees having to work seven days a week and live near the factory and worked to the bone, and they go insane and commit suicide is TERRIBLE.

Look at this report about Foxconn that did Apple orders. It is terrible! is that what they do with workers? Make the family members sign liability releases to prevent being responsible for overwork and desperation? It is a total lack of regard for workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

996 is widely unpopular in China these days, and the national government has taken action against the more egregious violators. From the outside looking in, many don't realize that China is quite decentralized and has some forms of legitimized corruption at the provincial level. Often the national government has laws that protect workers from these excesses, but turns a blind eye toward provincial governments neglecting enforcement. When these stories reach national attention, or when the CPC needs to shore up legitimacy/political support, it often then steps in to 'protect' the people from these violations and provincial corruption. This gives the CPC a role as a defense of the people against local governments and oligarchs, and I fear the national government has become a bit addicted to this release valve and isn't willing to take as strong a stance as it should.

The good news is that some provincial governments, such as the one in Shandong, go harder than the national government and really do enforce these rights as much as possible. Ultimately, I think when discussing Chinese policies its important to distinguish between provinces, much as we do when we discuss the US.

[Rugoz]

Indeed, they just mirrored and copy-pasted usual US criticism, so they didn't respect their intellectual property again.

[Steve_American]

It doesn't seek to be a super power in the same sense the US is at this time, as it is still competing for regional hegemony. This stems from the reasons listed above in the OP, of course - the Chinese leadership, rightly or wrongly, believes that it needs to be in a position to challenge the US just to defend itself from US taking action to contain them in a state of permanent subservience. There is no trust in the US-led world order, as evident in the OP.

Because I need to make this clear to some posters here: This is not defense of China. Sometimes those bullied when young turn into big bullies when they grow up. I think China right now is motivated by a desire to make Western bullying stop. It has internalized its identity as a victim. I do think that, if the wrong guy is in power, this can manifest itself very badly should the roles reverse and China becomes a dominant hegemon. I think this is more likely the more trust breaks down between the West and China, so I do advocate for Western-led rapprochement and long-term trust-building.

Zeihan though is an idiot. He's part of the crowd of US analysts that make money by telling US leaders what they want to hear - the Gordon Changs that predict China's imminent collapse every other year for reasons X or Y. On these two criticisms, I feel he misses the mark entirely:



[img]https://www.brook[]ings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/figure-1-reviving-the-silk-road.jpg[/img]

Central Asia pipelines are already running, and while capacity is a problem China as of 2023 sources 60-65% of its energy from oil and gas sources outside of China, and while some comes from the Persian Gulf, a proportion of this is delivered overland, through or from Russian and Central Asian providers.

[img]ht[]tps://assets.weforum.org/editor/yZnNSirqWJCPr4LUU4fnZx6vepyJ4hLYpT4g5mzFPlA.png[/img]

[img]h[]ttp://chinaenv.colgate.edu/renewableenergy/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/11/Energy4.jpg[/img]

Even as far back as 2013, China was a world leader in renewable energy production. About 70% of its energy needs are met with fossil fuels.


China is has caloric self-sufficiency since about 2015. The per capita domestic food supply is well above the international standard of 400 kg, at around 605 kg. The country has achieved basic self-sufficiency in grain and absolute security in staple foods, per the FAO.

It relies on imports for supplementary foods, fish and meats. As China has grown wealthier, this has led to a net trade deficit on food products, since these are of comparably higher value. In the case of war, the Chinese will have a leaner diet - but not no diet.



I think demographic concerns in China are overstated by US analysts. China can mitigate a lot of this through improvement to productivity. China has a productivity per labor hour figure about a third of Japan and a quarter of the US. They're world leaders in AI and automation R&D, and have closed the innovation gap to a significant degree over the last few years. China could lose up to a billion citizens and still be as economically productive as it is today just by rising to match the productivity per labor hour of most Western states, something that can be accomplished without even needing to be innovative per se.

From your own sources in your post, China uses oil and gas for 71% of its energy needs, Most of the rest IIRC comes from hydroelectric power and the drought is reducing that as of now, forcing factories to shut down.

And, 61% of its oil comes from outside China.

A drop of 50% of that would cripple the nation. Look at what a drop of 5% did to the US back in the 70s when OPEC cut the US off, and we had to find other sources fast.

Your rebutal isn't convincing. It still looks like China would be massively crippled if all oil moved by sea stopped flowing. Also coal is important to burn to generate eletcticity and it also comes by sea.
.