The storming of the US Capitol will have reinforced the belief amongst the leadership of China’s ruling Communist Party (CCP) that the fracturing of the US represents a huge global opportunity for Beijing.
This opportunity began in earnest with the September 11 attacks. It was locked in by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and it has been accelerated under Donald Trump’s chaotic administration.
Indeed, since June 2018 the CCP under leader Xi Jinping has pushed the line that “the world today is undergoing major changes unseen in a century” in its propaganda. This is a way of saying there is an opportunity to be seized; carpe diem, if you like.
This helps to explain Xi Jinping’s domestic efforts, which have the singular aim of the survival (and thriving) of the CCP while shaping the regional and global agenda to meet China’s ongoing expansion.
In order to do this, Xi has reversed years of decentralisation in the vast nation of 1.4 billion people and reconcentrated power in the hands of CCP’s Central Committee, Politburo and elite seven-man Standing Committee — with himself at the top.
Before Xi’s ascension to the top of the CCP, the US and its Western allies believed that he would be a more “modern” Chinese leader than his predecessor Hu Jintao and press ahead with economic reforms.
As veteran China-watcher Jeremy Page recently chronicled in The Wall Street Journal, this was a major strategic miscalculation:
Mr Xi has pursued an expansive, hypernationalistic vision of China’s future, displaying a desire for control and a talent for political maneuvering. Drawing comparisons to Mao Zedong, he has crushed critics and potential rivals, revitalised the Communist Party and even scrapped presidential term limits so he can, if he chooses, rule for life.
In doing this Xi has made a mockery of the so-called “peaceful rise” of China that has been relentlessly promoted by every leader since Deng Xiaoping gained control of the CCP in the late 1970s.
By 2017, when he was reelected for a second five-year term atop the CCP, Xi had become confident enough to announce that China’s model was something that could be emulated elsewhere:
The China model for a better social governance system offers a new option for other countries and nations who want to speed up their development while preserving their independence. And it offers Chinese wisdom and a Chinese approach to solving the problems facing mankind.
China’s reasons for exporting its authoritarian model are twofold: defensive and economic. It is trying to reshape global institutions, whose aims and processes of fairness (whether real of in principle) do not suit it.
And its economic aims under its signature foreign policy program the Belt and Road Initiative are far more easily achieved with compliant, authoritarian states whose leaders can ride roughshod over their people’s desires and interests.
Two clear nearby cases in point are the South-East Asian nations of Laos and Cambodia which have become effective Chinese client states.
Certainly, China has been facing something of a recent backlash from some Western nations — notably Australia — emboldened by the pushback from the US under Donald Trump. But others have been playing a different game.
Despite being at the forefront of human rights agitation in recent decades, the European Union recently inked a free-trade agreement with China. The move has been largely derided as a hasty and unnecessary win for China, another result of the trans-Atlantic schism under Trump.
While Joe Biden’s imminent inauguration at least offers some promise, China will be certain to continue exploiting the divide in the US and any (likely) further domestic conflict that comes from it.
This is outrageous, only the west may install authoritarian governments in their client states!
I shold not eat when reading you comments, I nearly choked whilst laughing.
Maybe Xi will get a Hillary Server and run for US President. LOL
Aren’t all PMs and Presidents authoritarian?
Apparently not. Did you see the photo of the Dutch PM heading off on his bicycle to offer his resignation to the King after accepting responsibility for some seriously unjust treatment of ethnic minority Dutch residents?
He would be less of an authoritarian if he actually stepped down, but it looks like he wants to stay as leader of his party, the most popular party at the moment, and therefore it is likely he will return as PM.
Yet, as Charles Fox noted, a coupla centuries ago, parliament does tend to attract a particular ‘type’; the priesthood for that matter too.
Yes. The others don’t last. At school in the early 1960s I had a history teacher, Arthur Tonkin, who actually tried to spur us to think and discuss. Years later he was a minister in Brian Burke’s Labor government until we heard that he resigned in a fiery meeting of the Cabinet in Geraldton. Later still Burke went to jail for his corrupt dealings with the Bell group. It was only then that I thought I understood that resignation.
Memories (nightmares?) there. Dowding and Bryce (surprisingly?) elbowed Tonkin out (far too non-Lib) yet Burke let him run a tight ship as Minister for Police.
Dowding wanted (and got) an electronic diary management system (a first in Australia). It was written in “C” on a near dedicated VAX-11 circa 1986-7.
Dowding succeeded Burke and bolted to Sydney when the fan got switched on. ‘Thems’ waz da days.
The author’s manifest bias against China comes through clearly yet again. I agree with the first two commentators. This article is no more than an ignorant bad joke.
Indeed, James.
Personally, I’ll take an infrastructure and supply chain ‘expansionism, every day of the week, before expanding militarism.
The ‘weaponisation’ of the US$, as the global reserve currency, also helps pave the way for greater violence, and further diminution of the rights, generally (sanctions, anyone?).
In the short to medium term, yes, but “beware of what you wish for”. A new dominant economic imperialism – with “Chinese characteristics” – if unchecked may evolve into the type of pernicious global militarism that the US has unleashed on its friends as well as its foes. Chalmers Johnson’s book “Sorrows of Empire” is a good reference re the miseries the US and past colonial empire builders have imposed on very large populations in so called “third world” as well as their allies and/or “peers”.
Alternatively, Gary, might it be possible the CCP sees the better road to be that which does not involve devoting as much of the human and financial capital to hyper militarism, at home and abroad?
The BIG difference b/w the US and China (and Russia, FTM) ‘defence’ spending is China’s spending is very much centred on just that – ‘defence’.
The relative numbers of overseas bases is instructive, here.
Examining the work of some genuine strategists, some of whom went from Russia to the US, in the ’90’s, sees them continuing to make the point that ‘stretching’ your economic resources to maintain and expand your overseas military presence is a relatively quick way to go bust.
I recently saw an interview with the great political economist, Michael Hudson, in which he talked through side by side pie charts on the components of GDP & Cost of Living in the US and Chinese economies.
As Hudson pointed out, the horrendously burdensome levels of (e.g.) student debt and health ‘insurance’ costs in the US are in part a direct result of the ‘need’ to constantly feed the military machine, from the private ‘weapons and service providers’, to all those (what? 900 odd?) overseas bases.
Just not sustainable, and only survived for this long due to the US$’s status as the global reserve currency.
The Chinese are also quietly going about undermining that US$, by doing more and more ‘deals’ o/s without the transactions involving the US$.
Also, even the World Bank and IMF drums are starting to beat, with talk of a new ‘Bretton Woods’, with accompanying ‘chat’ about having another crack at getting up a “Bancor”, maybe even a digital version.
And wasn’t Saddam Hussein threatening to trade his oil in Euro’s rather than $US just before his former benefactor (the US) decided he was suddenly a threat that needed to be destroyed.
Yep.
No, that was Gaddafi.
Both and, I believe.
I thought Iraq 2 was the boys wish to amend his fathers failure.
Yep – but I think it’s always a good idea to take a look over your shoulder now and again – “It is the bright day that brings forth the adder…”.
Big fan of Michael Hudson and his explanation of the recycling of US debt, because the US controls global finance via the dollar, which to date, it can apparently print ad infinitum.
And yep, seems some Wall Street and Central Banks – especially the BOC- are prepping for digital currencies because they fear, the dollar may lose its perceived status, or Zuckers scared the bejesus out of them. But who knows/is bitcoin just a “digital gambling asset” as Mark Blyth suggests?
Bretton Woods I thought was dismantled because when the US became a net debtor it couldn’t honour / have enough gold to back the dollar. Not sure if there is any point revisiting its resuscitation.
Stiglitz would probably be happier with dismantling the IMF and World Bank given their enabling roles in US empire building and ” hauling up the ladder” /denying undeveloped countries to ability achieve economic freedom and growth ( and let’s not forget the o’seas majority shareholding of our own “big 4” key banks, resource and energy companies, retailers etc).
Yeah, the “belt and road” funded by China putting to good use its US dollar reserves – that the yanks apparently won’t allow them to invest in the US – is logical while the dollar still has value.
Further on the great Michael Hudson, 2 of his headline gigs are (and, he still has oodles of gigs, all over the globe, at 81);
Professor of Economics, University of Missouri – Kansas City
&
Professor at the School of Marxist Studies, Peking University in China (from where he also advises the CCP).
This is why the world needs 5 equal powers to balance everything. We need 5 equal size political parties here as well.
True, T. Imperfect coalition’s like they have in some northern European countries provide working models that could be adopted by any country. But there is a very powerful, militaristic empire in charge at the moment – and another pretender waiting in the wings – so don’t hold your breath.
China was trading profitably and equitably with the people here long before the first European ever saw the place, even before it was Terra Incognita Australis. They showed no evidence of a desire to colonise the place then. We are so imbued with the mindset of European Imperialism we are unable to recognise other people might have a different approach to the world.
Not all countries that produce mass murdering emperors are exclusively Eurocentric as Genghis Khan and Hirohito have reminded us.
You are on thin ice here mate. Consider the issues in the Balkins circa 1912 then Nixon and Latin America (as two off-the-cuff examples).
What is remarkable is that Chinese exploration came to a halt just as European exploration commenced. The rest is history (as it were) but the face Europe could have been by (e.g.) 1700; i.e. pre the Industrial Revolution.
And weaponisation of the UN, with the US playing funny buggers with visas for nations like Iran to speak at UN forums.
And, yep.
12.000 trains went from China to Europe in the past 12 months, up from 4000. The BR is ramping up.
How does increasing his personal power lead to Xi making “a mockery of the so-called “peaceful rise” of China“? Sounds like the author has been heavily ‘briefed’ by a Western ‘defence’ department.
How about reframing the question: What could possibly go wrong when a dictator is self-installed in perpetuity? History tells us much about that.
History shows us that these Leaders don’t last long if they lose the confidence of the people and the party. The Chinese also view the term removal as the release of a constraint on someone doing a good job thereby enabling them to continue to do so. Their country, their laws, their culture. Not ours to judge.
Is Xi a dictator when he needs to be re elected by the party every four years. Anyone in China can join the party and have some say.
Too true, C. Harry Truman’s presidential decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nixon’s decision to bomb Laos and Cambodia and Bush Jnr’s
invasion of Iraq, should convince us to fear the personal power of China’s self confessed adversary(s) in the White House more than a Beijing based State Capitalist, building a Mao type cult following.
Dear Crikey,
I love you heaps, but please can you explain your urge to regurgitate ASPI press releases. Is this some kind of clickbait? Is there some quota you have agreed with ASIO in return for some essential quid pro quo? – no don’t answer that I wouldn’t want you to end up in the Australian equivalent of Belmarsh. Would it be possible, maybe once in a while, to publish something from somebody who actually knows something about China?
Yours,
Griselda.
What are you complaining about, Griselda? 95% of the comments here are by ‘experts’ regurgitating the CCP party line, straight out of the People’s Daily.
That’s odd, because a number of the commenters are describing their personal experience of living and working in China over extended periods. Perhaps those fiendish Chinese were injecting special Huawei microbots into their dim sims.
The point being, G., that the accounts are consistent. I’m inclined to punt $50 that Mr MB has not set foot in the place; almost certainly never worked there.
Evidence for the ‘95%’ AND the source Oldie please. For your edification DO take a look at my references.
I’m sorry to say that the entire edition today passes, as one subscriber put it recently, as rat bait. If anyone is able to find a constructive paragraph in the entire edition they have done better than me.
Sainsbury’s article is fortunately lacking in story telling about China, which implies that it is a hostile power, although the claim that the EU-China free trade deal is a “widely derided” and “unnecessary win” for China goes close, since it is the usual suspects from the US that deride it. True, China has declared some hostility to Australia by interfering in our internal affairs. China falsely claims that what goes on in the South China Seas is its own internal affairs when few other countries recognise its territorial claims there, but decisions of the Australian government can be nothing but part of Australia’s internal affairs, when they are about Australia. China should confine itself to objecting to decisions about Huawei and other matters rather than try economic coercion or sanctions, as the US does when it interferes in the internal affairs of many other countries. I honestly have learnt nothing about China from Sainsbury. More reporting of fact and less propaganda would actually set up a contrast with China that would not leave us wondering whether Fox News and other right wing outlets are simply the counterpart of China’s propaganda.
I agree
Actually, China hasn’t interfered in Australian’s internal affairs. They have attempted to influence our views, which is not the same thing and which every Government tries to do with other countries. As to economic coercion, this is both a lead out of the US playbook and a cultural matter. How can anyone expect to criticize their largest customer yet still expect them to buy their products? If you treat China as your enemy they will become your enemy. Australia is a “Middling Power” not a “Middle Power”. We are all mouth and no trousers in any dispute with a superpower. If you are polite, respectful and mind your own business, China will treat you the same.
Pretty spot on. I think we (Aus) have a relatively high opinion of ourselves. If one shows an interest the response is respectfully pleasant. Treat a person (Country) the way you would like them to treat you and they respond accordingly.
As an aside, I was surprised on a visit after Rudd was elected how many ordinary Chinese people mentioned that he could speak Mandarin, whilst showing empathetic respect.
It’s a Western ‘supremacist’ thing.
Like when an Australian reported said to Putin, “What do you think about Australia. Putin’s reply “What about it”
So embarrassing Australian media types grovelling round high profile people seeking approval. Worse was the platforming of white nationalist Steve Bannon by the ABC and Ferguson was appalling….. mainstreaming the alt right….
I was reminded of that Ferguson/ABC shocker, with Bannon, just a few days ago…………when the ABC announced both Mr and Mrs Jones were off to US, to bring us their deep insight.
Nearly upchucked me Weeties!
Still can’t get the image out of head, of Bannon and Mrs Jones, joined by arms around waists, beaming smiles at the PR flaks.
Budget must have been tight in ‘wardrobe’, that year, given Mrs Jones had about 3 buttons struggling to stay in touch with the ‘blouse’.
The ‘whole show’ haunts me to this day!
I did not see the show but I do remember reading the transcript of the Hillary – L. Sales interview or, more accurately, the joint promotion of Hillary’s book.
The US ‘interfered in our internal affairs’ big time in 1975, and yet we still make ourselves available to them and their global imperialism like drug-dependent cheap prostitutes.
A little ‘story telling about China’, Ian, and it involves the EU.
A bit over a decade ago, a train took off from China, went through Russia, and ended its journey at the port in Hamburg.
Over the following years, the time it took that train to travel that journey came down, around 7% to 10% a year.
Then, the 3 joint venture partners, China, Russia and Germany, transferred the JV into a subsidiary of a German rail company. The Russians then went to the US, talked to a mob with some interesting ‘rail tech’ (which had stalled in the US), went back to Russia, and started working with the Chinese on rail by vacuum tube (of a sort).
With, or without, early success with the ‘rail tech’, there is a 5500 km rail project under construction in Asia. One end is in Yunnan, the other in Singapore, and it involves Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore (I think that’s the full list).
Vision? Well, one is from Singapore to Spain, by rail.
Just on Singapore, ‘feelers’ were recently put out, to Singapore, to see if they might be interested in becoming a key I-P base for a reconstituted US ‘First Fleet’ (the idea has bipartisan support in the US, at least as a ‘float’).
The Singaporeans said ‘Nup’.
Further ‘feelers’ have been put about…..where would you think those feelers were better received, than they were in Singapore?
Another island somewhat further south?
Indeed. Lesser prize for that ‘neatest and correct entry’, Rais, given it wasn’t a toughie.