Today's Estadão replicates an article in The Economist – “China and the US in a new kind of cold war” – which boasts that the clash between the two megapowers has already surpassed the commercial confrontation “stritu sense” to increasingly assume the holistic character of the dispute for the supremacy of world power. As the article states, “…the two superpowers were once looking for a world where everyone wins.. Today, winning implies the defeat of the other – a collapse that permanently submits China to American order or a humble America withdrawing from the Western Pacific…”
It's as if geoeconomic multipolarity, or a PRC/US bipolarity, were doomed to an inescapable outcome, replaced by the univocal domination of the "strongest". Still according to "The Economist", “…even if China and the US avoid conflict, the world will bear the costs of reducing growth”. I think this Manichean view, typical of western thought, where the principle of "I" prevails - singular or collective – does not take into account one of the pillars of the Confucian East civilizations: the principle of "we", according to which it is the interaction in the social context that defines the relationships between individuals, States and international context..
In this perspective, is the People's Republic really seeking to dominate the world in isolation? Does she feel prepared, or enabled, or even really interested in doing it, “western style”?…
To understand China today it is necessary to revisit its past, especially the "century of humiliations" – or nefarious XIX -, which attacked the failing Qing empire with two iniquitous wars against the London Court to combat the consumption of opium imposed on its society as a way to balance the balance of bilateral trade that was profoundly unfavorable to the British. what happened then had, somehow, as an initial spark the Chinese desire to recover the “mianzi” – to honor – of the nation, which had been conspired, and reinsert themselves in the space they thought was theirs in the concert of nations: the Communist Revolution, the maoism, or “deng-ism”, the opening to the world, the “China Dream” and the “New Silk Road”, had this impulse, ultimately.
I believe that Donald Trump's United States did not understand this and “carried in the inks” when starting a battle that will only bring disastrous effects for the whole world.. To the unrestrained vociferation of the Americans, Xi Jiping's China responds with the strategic phlegm that history taught her. It does not take initiatives and responds - as it should be - to American invectives with sufficiently balanced retaliations, confident that international trade is on its side.: according to data from the same “The Economist”, in 2016 the People's Republic was the main trading partner of 124 countries, against 56 to the United States.
In this frame, will she accept a subordinate role, contrary to its strength and ambition to become the main economy 5.0 of the planet, in 2050, as your “Made in China 2025” plan prescribes?
I agree, more with Celso Ming, that in a brilliant article published in Estadão, equally, in day 17 of May, titled “China Plays Wei qi”, points out that “whoever thinks that Chinese negotiators are at every moment willing to launch a heroic coup to destroy the US government is wrong.. China conducts a more complex process, who seeks successive relative advantages. Even the announced commercial retaliations…should be seen as measures of tactical range". Towards 2050…
Said!
I suggest to friends that they read and reflect on the article of “The Economist”ECONOMIA.ESTADAO.COM.BRChina and the US in a new kind of cold war – Economy – Estadão
