[Politics_Observer]

So, it seems that dictatorships in China and Russia want to preserve their excessive power that denies their own people the right to choose their own leaders, to have human rights, and have a democratic system with checks and balances on power. This article discusses the Russia-China plan to establish a new global order based on the principles of tyranny and oppression, where one man calls all the shots and nobody else matters. I would also note that China hasn't even bothered to reach out to Ukraine and get the Ukrainian point of view on the Russian-Ukrainian War.

Nor do they seem interested in the fact that Russia has violated the sovereignty of Ukraine. But they are A-OK with being buddy with Russia because China, like Russia, is a dictatorship. China has no interest in allowing any elections in their country or anywhere else in the world if they had it their way. Hence, why they haven't even bothered to listen to Ukraine's point of view.

Russia and China are attempting to shake up the international order, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Sunday.

China and Russia, Kirby said on “Fox News Sunday,” “are two countries that are chafing against this international rules-based order that the United States and so many of our allies and partners have built up, since the end of World War II.”

He added: “They’d like to rewrite the rules of the game globally.”

Kirby said the United States would be watching carefully to see what emerges from the much-heralded meetings between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in Russia.

“They have been increasing their cooperation and their relationship, certainly of late,” Kirby said of the two superpowers.

China recently floated a 12-point plan designed to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Kirby told host Mike Emanuel that the Biden administration remains dubious of China’s intentions when it comes to this war.

“What we have said before,” Kirby said, “and we’ll say it again today, that if coming out of this meeting, there’s some sort of call for a ceasefire, well, that’s just going to be unacceptable because all that’s going to do, Mike, is ratify Russian’s conquest to date.”

Kirby said he hoped China’s president would keep open “lines of communication” with President Joe Biden and also seek out the Ukrainian side of the story through discussions with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“We hope, and we’ve said this before, that President Xi will call and talk to President Zelenskyy because we believe that the Chinese need to get the Ukrainian perspective here,” Kirby said.

Speaking Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” former Trump National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster noted that Xi’s friendship with Putin seems to be getting stronger despite all the issues surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war.

“Remember, it’s really 10 years ago,” McMaster said, “almost to the day that Xi Jinping made his first visit to Moscow and they declared their special friendship. Since then they’ve just continued to double down on this relationship.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/1 ... l-00087760

[Fasces]

John Kirby isn't a reliable narrator on the topic. He's pushing the State Department rhetoric hard.

China is interested in a Westphalian international order, based on bilateral relations between countries. They are in favor of establishing a new global rules-based order separate from the Western post-war consensus (LIO). There are many things they can agree with the US on internationally - freedom of the seas, security of trade, the territorial integrity of states, etc.

However, the key reforms they would advocate for are: 1) ending the US dollar as the single global reserve currency, 2) ending the status of the US as the single guarantor of peace (preferring coalitions of regional partners), and 3) the promotion of 'Western liberal values' as the end objective for all nations regardless of local culture or history.

China criticizes the US as a hegemonic state (points 1+2) that is also an ideological crusader (point 3) and which uses its ideology to justify its hegemony (point 1 and 2).

Obviously the Chinese position is untenable to the US.

The issue I take with Kirby's rhetoric, personally, is that China and the Chinese don't really care about the internal affairs of EU or US nations. They are not ideologically motivated. Western democracy (and territory) is not under threat in the Chinese world order, just its hegemonic position. It isn't a global order based on 'tyranny' and 'oppression' so much as a world order that is 1) multipolar, with multiple centers of finance and military strength region-to-region; 2) Westphalian, which of course provides shelter for oppressive countries to continue to be oppressive; and 3) equitable - not created and led by Western states but involving the entire Global South.

I do not want to insinuate that China is not self-motivated here. Obviously, as the largest state by population and the second-largest economy, they benefit a lot from a world order that prioritizes national sovereignty. When China and Bulgaria sit down to negotiate a trade deal as two 'equally sovereign states' on a bilateral basis, the scales of course tilt heavily toward China.

As for China-Russia specifically, I really think this episode of the China podcast, which I posted the transcript too, gives a much more nuanced reading.

[Patrickov]

@Fasces

1. The US dollar is the single global reserve currency because no other currency system is both widespread or reliable enough. (I recall that before the US-Spanish War the Spanish currency was effectively global reserve, as many Chinese text back then used 大洋 as their accounting unit) The problem now is that whether people trust the system behind, and unfortunately both China and Russia are too statist to give people trust.

2. Any decent people will find Western liberal values as the sole guarantor of peace and order. Those who don't are either stupid or, more likely, want to be a bully.

3. As for local culture, I can at least say that China is not that respecting its own culture more than foreigners, and Communist ideology fundamentally think this is a "ruling class" / "oppressive" thing. To put it simply, most socialists or non-Westerns simply have a mind of illiterate farmers. Western liberal values arguably cause less damage or acknowledge their own wrongdoings faster.


@Politics_Observer
From what I perceive (down to some of my own neighbours no less), I see local people of Russia and China less as victims than they are collaborators or even beneficiaries of the bullying and tyranny I now suffer from.

[Fasces]

The US dollar is the single global reserve currency because no other currency system is both widespread or reliable enough.

No, it is because Europe owed a huge amount of war debt to the United States at the end of WW2, and the US was able to leverage that and reconstruction aid to push through Breton Woods and establish the US dollar as a global reserve currency.

The problem now is that whether people trust the system behind, and unfortunately both China and Russia are too statist to give people trust.

China's position is that this should be settled by competition - letting nations use the euro, dollar, yuan, yen, ruble, etc etc (whatever currency they desire) as a reserve currency for transnational transactions without being punished for it through sanctions. At the moment, the US uses the existing power of its currency to maintain its power - nations which refuse to use the US dollar as the reserve currency or currency of exchange are punished by the US for doing so.

As a sovereign nation, the US has the right to control how its currency is used - but I agree with China that the US using sanctions and other coercive mechanisms to maintain its currency's status might constitute a violation of good faith free trade.

Any decent people will find Western liberal values as the sole guarantor of peace and order. Those who don't are either stupid or, more likely, want to be a bully.

Values don't have anything to do with it. Values don't kill pirates. Values don't down jets. I'm talking about US material might.

If the US ceased to be a liberal democracy tomorrow, it would still have a de facto position as the guarantor of peace in the world, by virtue of its military material - ie: if the UNSC voted to send troops to a specific place, the bulk of the equipment would still be American. China would prefer for bilateral and regional cooperation between states to replace the US in this capacity.

As for local culture, I can at least say that China is not that respecting its own culture more than foreigners, and Communist ideology fundamentally think this is a "ruling class" / "oppressive" thing. To put it simply, most socialists or non-Westerns simply have a mind of illiterate farmers. Western liberal values arguably cause less damage or acknowledge their own wrongdoings faster.

We'll agree to disagree.

[Rugoz]

The issue I take with Kirby's rhetoric, personally, is that China and the Chinese don't really care about the internal affairs of EU or US nations. They are not ideologically motivated. Western democracy (and territory) is not under threat in the Chinese world order, just its hegemonic position.

It certainly loves to punish "unfriendly" researchers in the West. And it could end an obviously illegal invasion and annexation of a European country by a pseudo-fascist regime but doesn't. So much for the "territorial integrity of states".

China's position is that this should be settled by competition - letting nations use the euro, dollar, yuan, yen, ruble, etc etc (whatever currency they desire) as a reserve currency for transnational transactions without being punished for it through sanctions. At the moment, the US uses the existing power of its currency to maintain its power - nations which refuse to use the US dollar as the reserve currency or currency of exchange are punished by the US for doing so.

We need a source for that.

[Fasces]

It certainly loves to punish "unfriendly" researchers in the West

What?

We need a source for that.

For which claim? US using coercive measures to ensure the use of the USD, or for China wanting these coercive measures to end and allow market competition between major currencies?

[wat0n]

China doesn't allow full market competition of its currency, and I don't mean the Yuan here.

That's why it's not a player in that regard.

[Fasces]

Of course. Even CIPS does exactly what China likes to whine about SWIFT doing by forcing compliance with Chinese capital controls and sanctions.

Xi's biggest problem is that his anger at the injustice of US hegemony is more a matter of who sits on the throne than the throne itself.

Li Keqiang was better than that - at least he had an interest in doing away with the throne altogether.

[Rancid]

China and especially Russia aren't capable of establishing a world order. At best, China will establish a regional hegemony. It likely will not be good for its neighbors in the region of course. New boss will be the same as the old boss.

[QatzelOk]

1. The US dollar is the single global reserve currency because no other currency system is both widespread or reliable enough.

As Fasces said, it's also because all the other colonial currencies were hobbled by WW2.

2. Any decent people will find Western liberal values as the sole guarantor of peace and order. Those who don't are either stupid or, more likely, want to be a bully.

*And yet* it was China who got Saudi Arabia and Iran to start cooperating again. Western liberal values were too eager to sell weapons, and to divide the oilfields of the world into warring camps.

3. As for local culture, I can at least say that China is not that respecting its own culture more than foreigners, and Communist ideology fundamentally think this is a "ruling class" / "oppressive" thing.

Yes, China has evolved quite a bit since the end of the Century of Humiliation. That you don't seem to like this... is not likely due to your affinity for traditions that you yourself probably don't follow.

[Rugoz]

What?

How's that even news? If your research is not to the liking of the CCP and/or you are critical of China on social media, you better not be dependent on China in any way or form (money or visa).

For which claim? US using coercive measures to ensure the use of the USD, or for China wanting these coercive measures to end and allow market competition between major currencies?

The first obviously.

[Politics_Observer]

@Fasces

The issue I take with Kirby's rhetoric, personally, is that China and the Chinese don't really care about the internal affairs of EU or US nations. They are not ideologically motivated. Western democracy (and territory) is not under threat in the Chinese world order, just its hegemonic position.

You seem to have a blind spot here. Taiwan is a democracy. China wants to destroy Taiwan's democratic system, occupy the country and establish its dictatorship and tyranny over Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't want to live under the tyranny and oppression that China seeks to impose upon it. China is not a democracy or free society. If China takes Taiwan, it will not stop at Taiwan. No, for China, Taiwan is an important piece of land that they can use to expand further out and impose its system of government, based on the ideals of tyranny and oppression, onto other islands and countries in the Pacific.

[Fasces]

If China takes Taiwan, it will not stop at Taiwan.

With all due respect, no. China's desire to assimilate Taiwan has nothing to do with Taiwan's democratic system or to use Taiwan as a platform for expansion in the Pacific. Those might be, at best, fringe benefits.

You, like many in the US security establishment, really don't understand the Chinese people or the CPC if you can't see this. If China became a democracy tomorrow, it would still want to occupy Taiwan. If Taiwan were located on the ass end of the moon, offering zero strategic benefit, it would still want to take Taiwan.

Even my super liberal, feminist, wants to emigrate to EU and never return to mainland China, has visited Taiwan and loves Taiwanese culture wife... Considers it a matter of fact that Taiwan is a part of China, even if she's willing to entertain a Chinese "national divorce" it is still framed in those terms: a national divorce.

It would take a few generations to unwind this psychological knot.

As for not stopping at Taiwan, also no. China is very insular and has no interest beyond what it considers its Qing era borders, in terms of expansion: Taiwan + SCS + whatever slivers of land it hasn't settled yet, in India and Bhutan.

Do you have any evidence, from Chinese sources or the CPC, that it has other intentions?

[Politics_Observer]

@Fasces

I think you are being extraordinarily naive about Chinese intentions in the Pacific. It has been bullying the Pacific Island nations as well as building artificial islands to muscle their way through to dominate trade routes. Taking Taiwan for the Chinese Communist Party has nothing to do with "re-uniting with the motherland" and everything to do with using Taiwan to dominate the Pacific and the wealthy trade routes in the Pacific.

[Fasces]

I think you are being extraordinarily naive about Chinese intentions in the Pacific. It has been bullying the Pacific Island nations as well as building artificial islands to muscle their way through to dominate trade routes. Taking Taiwan for the Chinese Communist Party has nothing to do with "re-uniting with the motherland" and everything to do with using Taiwan to dominate the Pacific and the wealthy trade routes in the Pacific.

On the other hand, I think it is easy (and common in the DC political establishment) to downplay the emotional/psychological baggage of issues simply because Americans can't relate.

What do you mean by dominating trade routes? China already dominates these trade routes by virtue of the vast majority of these ships beginning and ending in a Chinese port. If you mean taking ownership of security, sure, China has an interest in that.

Does Taiwan occupy a key position in the First Island Chain? Yes. Does control of Taiwan give China a greater latitude of strategic freedom in the Pacific? Yes. Are these the motivating factors behind the Chinese-Taiwanese conflict? Absolutely not. Much like the Bush Doctrine was a strategic plan overlaid on an emotional core - the 9/11 terrorist attacks - China's ambitions for Taiwan are similarly emotional/psychological. I am sure China/CPC welcome the assessment that they're governed by a bunch of logical, cool-headed, strategic realists, with no biases or emotional decision-making. They're not.

Imagine if Texas seceded and voluntarily joined with China. Would the loss of the strategic ports and naval bases and refineries and the prospect pose a significant strategic threat to the rest of the United States? Absolutely, but the core of the anger of the American people and their leaders would be emotional/psychological, not strategic.

The red line in the sand for China that could start a war tomorrow isn't the current strategic reality of the Pacific. It is something that would have little practical effect on the strategic/material reality in that theater - a de jure Taiwanese declaration of independence. This symbolic action, which would change absolutely nothing on the ground materially or strategically, would instantly lead to a war. Because at its core, this issue isn't a strategic one - those are just ancillary concerns.

[Rugoz]

You, like many in the US security establishment, really don't understand the Chinese people or the CPC if you can't see this. If China became a democracy tomorrow, it would still want to occupy Taiwan. If Taiwan were located on the ass end of the moon, offering zero strategic benefit, it would still want to take Taiwan.

Even my super liberal, feminist, wants to emigrate to EU and never return to mainland China, has visited Taiwan and loves Taiwanese culture wife... Considers it a matter of fact that Taiwan is a part of China, even if she's willing to entertain a Chinese "national divorce" it is still framed in those terms: a national divorce.

Sorry but China being a liberal democracy a la Taiwan would totally change the equation. I don't think Taiwanese would even resist unification in that case. There are those in Taiwan who still want reunification with China, but not under CCP rule, and there are those who think that's utterly delusional and therefore reject reunification altogether.

But let's say they would resist and a military conquest would be necessary. Liberal democracies don't fight wars against each other, certainly not wars of conquest, and there are good reasons for that.

[Politics_Observer]

@Fasces

The CCP is playing off emotional Chinese nationalist sentiment to garner domestic support for their imperial ambitions in the Pacific, in which Taiwan plays a key role in those ambitions. Taiwan and China never had the same form of government.

Moreover, if China does take over Taiwan, you can be sure they will suffer probably a worse fate than those in Hong Kong currently due to the fact the Chinese will have to fight to take Taiwan where they didn't have to do so to take Hong Kong. Many in Hong Kong protested the Chinese takeover once they realized what that really means.

No, for China, this is about power and control, and taking over Taiwan plays a crucial role in those plans due to its location in the Pacific. So does forcing their style of autocracy down the throats of democracies and others in the Pacific.

I also agree with @Rugoz, if China had a system of government similar to that of Taiwan, then Taiwan would be happy to reunite with China. But China doesn't. The Taiwanese do not want to live under a dictatorship where they have no rights.

[Fasces]

The CCP is playing off emotional Chinese nationalist sentiment to garner domestic support

Xi is by all accounts, even American, a "true believer". So are many in the CPC. Your point of view is inherently flawed, as viewing the CPC as a parasitic organism that exists outside of and exploitative of China, rather than being made up of Chinese people themselves. It simply isn't reality, and it is why so much popular analysis of China in the West is fundamentally flawed and fails at its most basic purpose - predicting behavior.

So does forcing their style of autocracy down the throats of democracies and others in the Pacific.

This is an absolute Americanism. Sure bud, they hate you for your freedom.

The Chinese do not care about the internal governments of other states. They will work with a democrat, a sheikh, a warlord, the Taliban, etc.

Good luck finding any CPC white paper saying otherwise.

[Rugoz]

Isn't it ironic that China whines about the West being ideological yet still labels itself 'communist'?

[Rugoz]

It simply isn't reality, and it is why so much popular analysis of China in the West is fundamentally flawed and fails at its most basic purpose - predicting behavior.

Oh really. Here's a prediction: Xi will invade Taiwan if he thinks his military can do it without creating too much of a mess. He's an ambitious bastard. These people are the same everywhere.