Xi’s and Biden’s talk about global (win-win) competition, instead of Cold War 2, is rhetoric intended for the majority of politically uneducated citizens

The neoliberal globalist world order was based on the premise that 1) America always remained the indisputable superpower, and 2) China would eventually become a democratic society after participating in free markets worldwide. These premises have evaporated. Pretending that US and China are now just engaged in a fierce competition, not a Cold War 2, is as naive as believing that the anarchy of the international state system is like the Olympic Games.

Military power is based on economic power, so America will never say: “If authoritarian China wins the global economic competition then we’ll accept defeat and just watch how the Chinese model spreads across the globe”.

The British and American economic system is the last stage of the Meyer Lansky model. China’s model is state power. But the Godfather will never freely surrender without a fight if seeing a new Tito or Mao (or Mussolini) getting enough power to oppress his “sons of anarchy”. America cooperated with the mafia during WW2. The US cooperated with the mafia in an attempt to defeat communism in Cuba, before and after Fidel Castro implemented his state model on the island. It’s only a thin glass ceiling between organized crime and Western corporations. The East India Company was a drug cartel. All modern drug cartels try to “go legit”, to follow in the footsteps of the UK/US robber barons, and Western banks help them launder money.

Corporations in the West have seen how CCP treats large domestic companies inside China. Western CEOs don’t want this dictatorial model to spread globally. They rather cooperate with shady City of London, Washington and Canberra.

Some argue that global “business as usual” can continue in all areas except in the field of high-end semiconductors and other cutting-edge military technologies. But economic growth in general is the foundation of military power, so Washington cannot risk that China becomes the dominant economic superpower, not when its population is 4-5 times larger than America’s.

But we’ll see a lot of absurd contradictions and funny statements from presidents during Cold War 2, because Western corporations are greedy and will always be tempted by the Chinese market, and the communists in Beijing have become dependent on globalized capitalism. CW2 is therefore messy compared to CW1.

Strategists in Beijing and Washington are obviously aware of the power dynamics presented in this article here. It’s elementary political realism. They all know that Washington today will only accept competitive international trade if the US feel safe that such transactions will not help China become the main superpower. But militaries in the West rely on getting money through international trade, so until we get two parallel economies in the global system we’ll see much economic cooperation between China and the US, but it will be gradually phased out, more or less, wherever it’s possible.

The two parallel economies will each try to secure self-sufficiency in areas that are vital in any case (if remaining global supply chains fall apart during a crisis) but trade will to some degree probably continue in all sectors which are not essential to long-term national security.

The challenge for Washington is to weaken China’s economy without simultaneously weakening America’s economy even more. But the US will not support any economic policy that makes China the global winner. America will do everything necessary to remain king of the hill. Always keep in mind that America nuked Japan. It also risked WW3 to win the first Cold War. US today has become more soft, woke, privatized and decadent, so it will probably avoid WW3 at all costs, but it will use all Machiavellian tricks in the book if ordinary economic competition with China doesn’t work.

It must be stressed however that I’m just a newbie in the arena of international politics. To be an “expert” in this domain you have to be a member of the global power elites: Big Tech, Davos, Kremlin, PSC or a CIA director for example. Scholars don’t have access to what is going on behind closed doors. But there is a limit to how much info can be processed by a single human mind/brain, so not even Xi or Putin knows what is really happening in a chaotic, complex and Byzantine global system. AI is a black box. The fourth industrial revolution is paradoxically the new Dark Age (until we have two fully crystallized panopticons in the East and West).

The above narrative presupposes that Washington and Beijing don’t end up in a situation where they both are forced to extremely reluctantly co-exist as equals in a new fintech system of global trade. For example, if they have to choose between WW3 and fintech AI-regulated international trade, they will be pragmatic enough to accept a compromise, but only if it’s not too late, if the situation has not spun totally out of control.

The word “adversary” is not used in diplomatic relations unless two nations or blocs are real enemies.

Aukus: China denounces US-UK-Australia pact as irresponsible

“Chinese state media carried similar editorials denouncing the pact, and one in the Global Times newspaper said Australia had now “turned itself into an adversary of China”.”

Classic Cold War…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s