Comments on: Brzezinski & Obama’s bipolar disorder

By: From hope to dope | The Acorn

From hope to dope | The Acorn — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:19:21 +0000

[...] we have noted earlier, a Brzezinskian world is a world where there is a tidy bipolar world, where the United States and [...]

By: fchiramel

fchiramel — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:57:32 +0000

China may have the economic and strategic momentum towards superpowerdom, but it really does not have the intellectual/cultural confidence or imagination to be one in the US mold. The US has been a superpower in a historical sense because it was not just a pre-eminent military and economic power, but also the trend setter in socio-political liberties and ideas, culture and science. Even while being a conservative society and, as commentators incessantly point out, "a center right nation at its soul", it always had the confidence to question its practices and constantly evolve to a more fairer society. And this honest internal dynamic has been connected to its external perception, and thus we have a highly admired world hegemon. I think some of the criticism and commentary within the US about its decline and the exaggerated sense of the rise of China - from where it is picked up by the world media- is an example of internal corrective forces at work, and partly the reason it will remain the primary power for some more time now. Even in the more conventional sense, the Chinese are still some ways away from superpowerdom and the Chinese authorities seem quite aware of the fact.

By: SR Murthy

SR Murthy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:38:56 +0000

Alex, What is this stuff about “US cannot wait for the emergence of X”? So what’s the rush to hand over China to mentor and develop the “Asian co-prosperity sphere” along with China?

And this claim that the end goal of the G-2 is the peaceful emergence of other competitors to the USA outside of China….How can that be a possible end goal in power politics given human nature? The usual impulse is to decrease the rate of loss of power to as low levels as possible, which can be the only reason for the US to “develop China” regardless of the obfuscation on that front in official statements.

This is infact implied by my earlier logical breakdown. See Case 1 in my previous post — this is the best case for the US to arrest its decline by having only one competitor for as long as possible, which is the reason for propping China up. It defies logic to claim that this is being done to benefit the peaceful logic of other powers especially given China’s predatory nature in its interaction with outsiders.

As Acorn mentions in this post, it all depends on whether one wants the world to be G-2 or not, regardless of what reality will tend to favour given current trends.

By: SR Murthy

SR Murthy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:26:44 +0000

Alex wrote:
“Perhaps the US must make some overtures to China now in order to forestall the emergence of the kind of competitive dynamic that would be damaging not only to the US and China, but to international security and the prospect of a stable and peaceful external environment in which other powers might develop?”

Alex,

And allowing China free reign of Asia is supposed to bring about this “stable and peaceful environment in Asia”? Which part of Chinese behaviour in the global stage would allow one to reach that conclusion? Is it Chinese nuclear proliferation of materials and weapons designs to unstable terrorist-ridden states like Pakistan, NorthKorea, or is it Chinese support for terrorist groups like LeT in the UN and elsewhere that will make China responsible once it acquires the mantle of “global leader”? But then again, the US has already been openly supporting a terrorist-camp-running regime in Pakistan for decades, so the Chinese won’t be doing anything new.

China is an irresponsible power that will only work to destabilize the world order to its benefit, especially in Asia. China will pretend to work with the USA publicly — the preferred chinese method for weakening the USA is via proxy powers it will create by selective nuclear proliferation around the world. They have done it before and there is nothing to stop them from doing it again.

I guess we shall all find out in due course as to how this all falls out.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:16:33 +0000

Perhaps SR Murthy is correct that a bi-polar G-2 will be a castle in the air. Though I suspect more so because of China’s political culture and lack of interest in playing the part than insufficient capability–think about the US in the interwar period.

Yet the US and the world faces a very real and very difficult “transition problem.” While it is true that the EU, Japan, India, Brazil and Russia may one day become “polar” powers in their own right, that day has not yet arrived. It may take another 10-20 years for these countries to get there houses in order (if indeed they are able to at all). The US cannot simply wait for the emergence of other “polar powers” while China continues to excel.

Perhaps the US must make some overtures to China now in order to forestall the emergence of the kind of competitive dynamic that would be damaging not only to the US and China, but to international security and the prospect of a stable and peaceful external environment in which other powers might develop? In short, the US cannot really count on the eventual emergence of a multipolar world, it also has to take real steps to try and head off too competitive a dynamic before it begins? As is so often the case the medium-term and long-term strategic imperatives are in conflict with one another (see also US policy in South Asia).

By: SR Murthy

SR Murthy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:44:50 +0000

Any casual observer knows that China is itching to acquire power at the US’s expense. The only end result of a continuation of the US relinquishing influence/power to China, like it is happening today, will result in a US that has less power/influence. This can only be arrested by a China that cooperates with the US in wielding global influence — there is not a chance of that happening.

But even if we assume that the loss of US power as inevitable (“power ebbs and flows”), there are two possibilities:

1. China alone occupies the vacuum left behind by USA
2. China is one of many entities (like EU, Japan, India, and Russia) that fill the vacuum left behind by the USA

Depending on whether one is assuming 1 or 2, it is likely that one’s world-view will insist on a bi-polar future or multi-polar future, respectively.

ZBrzyz is probably assuming 1 in building his bi-polar castles-in-the-air

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:27:02 +0000

Overall I agree with the post, but can’t help but wonder if your last sentence is indeed its own bit of “irrationalism?”

By: trickey

trickey — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:25:20 +0000

China has 0 leverage over India. This could be a nice way of telling China, “Lean on your all-weather friend, buddy”.
Hey, just trying to inject some optimism into the gloom-and-doom.

By: Aravind

Aravind — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:29:46 +0000

Obama is trying everything to please Chinese so that they keep buying dollars. It is one of the charms that he thinks it works as he was able to do in America. His understanding of the world troubles me. Beyond all the hype his team creates on every move he takes, there is underlying inaction and disregard for allies (countries that share values with America traditionally). The G2 argument over-emphasizes the role and clout of Chinese interests as well as US influence around the world. India should be aggressive in objecting to such ridiculous view of relations. We should probably meet Cuban president and say the same things for US and Cuba and US and Venezuela.