They are not interested in giving China more say. If they had done so,
would have done so already. They are sharing within themselves of what
know, but would not share them to China.hey are reluctant
"ltlee1" wrote in message news:email@example.com...
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 9:44:23 AM UTC, HH wrote:
Those lynchpin's world of institutions are the uni-drivers of keeping US
Uni-power. If there are dismantled, it will fragmented away and they not have influential and collaborative influential power ever again.
By original design. Yes.
But then China had joined the WTO and other orgainzations as a later
To enter the WTO, it went through 13 years of tough negotiation with every member of the WTO. Needless to say, each member looked to protect its
special interests before it gave China the "YES" vote.
China did get to join the WTO as a developing nation. Other than that,
faced the toughest competitions. On the other hand, China entered the
market without internal obstacle originated from entrenched producers.
interests are politically powerful but not be as competitive in the China energized global market. This, together with China's large pool of human capital and infrastructure built up have made China manufacturing very competitive world wide.
Right now, China sees many of these same institutions the foundation for multi-polarity. Of course, as many in the West had pointed out, the World Bank and the IMF and etc need to give China more say.
"ltlee1" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:28:20 PM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 5:21:33 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 12:09:17 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 12:52:27 AM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:15:25 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:08:26 PM UTC, ltlee1 wrote:
"Resume: Only a strong and well-considered relationship between
and China can constitute a powerful enough global counterweight
unipolarity and the United States' strategic offensive posture,
act as a midwife in the birth of an undeniably multipolar world
I would take it in a less narrow way. Russia and China may both be
seen 'prominent', in each kind, but there's a bunch of nations who
are not happy with the Atlanticist abuse of 'unipolarity', but who
also have issues among themselves as well as some 'concerns' with
regard to China or Russia, - and decrease of conflictogenic issues
among these nations would reduce the Atlanticist opportunities to excercise their power in favor of the Atlanticism. China and Russia
may both be interested to stimulate such harmonizing developments,
in an inclusive manner, including among their two selves as well.
Actually, there are at least 3 world order. A military world order with
US still the only Unipower. A global free trade world order maintained
WTO, World Bank, IMF, and associated institutions with US dollar serves
the linchpin international currency. And then there is the liberal democratic civilizational world order with US the leader.
With the rise of Asian countries, US is losing competitive edge fast.
Trump, the US is overtly withdrawing from global free trade world order originally engineered by the US. The dollar, however, is still the
one reserve currency.
The liberal democratic civilizational world order is also crumbling.
Huntington had convincing destroy the idea that modernization is Westernization, i.e. Western liberal democracy. China, India, as well as Russia are civilizational states which could not easily fit into the "Western civilization" pigeon hole. More important, various European countries, as well the US are also ditching the vision of a Liberal Democratic world order.
Right now the military world order is still in full force. That is,
U.S. leaders could still rely on its military dominance to maintain a
order favorable to the US. But over-reliance on the military also drives the
US into various violent conflicts. I think the article
of Unipolarity" focused more on the military world order than other
of current international situation.
"Unipolarity cannot last forever. Whether its demise is imminent or
away is an open question, but even the most optimistic observers do
believe the international system has reached its final stage of
At some point, ..., the United States will cease to dominate the
quite the same way it currently does.
What will the effects of this decline be? ...widespread consensus
The postunipolar world will be worse, much worse in some ways, than
current order. The only disagreement is over the extent of the
Well, that's a standard reasoning, while in practice it happens like
let us create ISIS and then heroically defeat it in order to prove
that the Middle East can not be stable without American supervision.
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||8 (1 / 7)|