5 ms·

That's unavoidable actually. Basically US just begins to treat China as an eligible opponent. There were never "friendly" relationships between two superpowers

That's unavoidable actually. Basically US just begins to treat China as an eligible opponent. There were never "friendly" relationships between two superpowers in history if I remember correctly.

oblio 8y ago
There were, up to a point. France and the UK carved up several continents without much tension, after 1850 or so. Provided that China becomes less authoritarian and the US doesn't do something stupid, it's not impossible for both to coexist, while still competing.
- ende 8y ago
  It’s also not that impossible to imagine both being peer stakeholders in a renewed liberal trade order, ala US + EU.
  - riffraff 8y ago
    And yet the US/EU relationship is at an all time low.
    - killyp 8y ago
      I would say that this depends on your perspective. While Trump likes to talk bad about the EU, NATO and FVEY members, our military, intelligence and economic cooperation is still VERY strong. And I see no indication of this changing, outside of the rhetoric coming out of the White House. Our Allies know that pulling out of Syria via Twitter was not a decision that came from the Pentagon.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It took a thousand years for Franco-British relations to settle to peaceful tolerance, then the Entente Cordiale. I can't, for example, imagine calls for a China-US union like Franco-British Union was seriously suggested twice in the 20th century. The second time might have been interesting for world history, as the French PM proposed it before France decided to join the Treaty of Rome nations to bootstrap the EU.
- therealforsen 8y ago
  Why would China become less authoritarian? They can continue to grow and gain power without doing so.
- geowwy 8y ago
  The US doesn't care about authoritarianism. They're friendly with plenty of authoritarian states. The issue is that China is pursuing an independent foreign policy instead of following America's lead.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "The issue is that China is pursuing an independent foreign policy instead of following America's lead." The issue is mostly China grabbing international waters like the S. China Sea as sovereign territory, grabbing Taiwan, pressuring Japan and neighbouring states, and building what will eventually be a string of military bases throughout East and South Asian oceans. The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc. There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders. And FYI Americans do care about authoritarianism, and there is constant pressure on places like Saudi to reform (and FYI there are steady reforms), though yes, it's very secondary. The paradox is that China is pursuing a macho 'we're the local king' strategy much like Russia, when for it's own benefit, the military escapades are not fruitful. Maybe in China's case there are some advantages, though almost none in the case of Russia. The new Belt-and-Road strategy is an example of a good project that will have immensely positive results for most players - shenanigans aside. Nobody is against any of this, we are all for it, except for the shifty things like debt-traps to grab ownerships of ports, which will eventually be Chinese navy bases. China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really.
    - geowwy 8y ago
      >>> The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc. Right now they do. But if conflict breaks out between China and the US you can guarantee the US will use its navy to block all trade with China. This puts China in a very vulnerable position, which is why they're willing to risk upsetting neighbours by aggressively pursuing bases in the South China Sea (as well as the Belt and Road project). >>> There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders. Why do you think that? >>> China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really. My wife is Taiwanese so I understand the situation pretty well. I just think it's a mistake to put this down to ideology or democracy versus authorianism. It's just two states vying for power, the same thing that's been going since forever.
smcl 8y ago
The US and the British Empire in first half of the 20th century (until the dissolution of the empire) might be an example
- arethuza 8y ago
  Well, the US Army did regard the UK as a potential enemy before WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
  - TallGuyShort 8y ago
    Even then, they had pretty detailed plans worked out for many, many scenarios. It doesn't mean they weren't co-existing well or that anyone thought it was likely. Making a plan is so inexpensive compared to the cost of responding to some event without a well-laid-plan, that having a plan is hardly what I would call regarding them as a potential enemy.
- vkou 8y ago
  That's because the US (by this point) indisputably claimed one third of the world (The Monroe doctrine), whereas the UK was at the time more focused on being on the winning side of the European alliance system, then on making claims on American colonies. (Because it was afraid of an ascendant Germany. Fear of Germany was also the biggest driver for entering into an alliance with France.) In the inter-war years, the UK was no longer concerned with Germany, but, due to the Great Depression, was also too damn broke to go on international adventures. The same situation played out in the US. The only reason the two powers are now aligned, is because the United States started seeing communism, as opposed to European colonialism[1] as its biggest threat. The moral of this story is that superpowers can have friendly relationships when they have a common enemy, or no conflicting goals. An obvious question, here is - what are the conflicting goals of China, and the United States? The answer is - influence among China's neighbours. If the US was not interested in maintaining it, there would be no conflict. [1] In the 19th century, European colonialism was a threat to American colonialism. In the 20th century, the American empire has resisted de-colonization a lot better then European powers did.

That's unavoidable actually. Basically US just begins to treat China as an eligible opponent. There were never "friendly" relationships between two superpowers in history if I remember correctly.

oblio 8y ago

There were, up to a point. France and the UK carved up several continents without much tension, after 1850 or so. Provided that China becomes less authoritarian and the US doesn't do something stupid, it's not impossible for both to coexist, while still competing.

ende 8y ago
It’s also not that impossible to imagine both being peer stakeholders in a renewed liberal trade order, ala US + EU.
- riffraff 8y ago
  And yet the US/EU relationship is at an all time low.
  - killyp 8y ago
    I would say that this depends on your perspective. While Trump likes to talk bad about the EU, NATO and FVEY members, our military, intelligence and economic cooperation is still VERY strong. And I see no indication of this changing, outside of the rhetoric coming out of the White House. Our Allies know that pulling out of Syria via Twitter was not a decision that came from the Pentagon.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It took a thousand years for Franco-British relations to settle to peaceful tolerance, then the Entente Cordiale. I can't, for example, imagine calls for a China-US union like Franco-British Union was seriously suggested twice in the 20th century. The second time might have been interesting for world history, as the French PM proposed it before France decided to join the Treaty of Rome nations to bootstrap the EU.
therealforsen 8y ago
Why would China become less authoritarian? They can continue to grow and gain power without doing so.
geowwy 8y ago
The US doesn't care about authoritarianism. They're friendly with plenty of authoritarian states. The issue is that China is pursuing an independent foreign policy instead of following America's lead.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "The issue is that China is pursuing an independent foreign policy instead of following America's lead." The issue is mostly China grabbing international waters like the S. China Sea as sovereign territory, grabbing Taiwan, pressuring Japan and neighbouring states, and building what will eventually be a string of military bases throughout East and South Asian oceans. The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc. There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders. And FYI Americans do care about authoritarianism, and there is constant pressure on places like Saudi to reform (and FYI there are steady reforms), though yes, it's very secondary. The paradox is that China is pursuing a macho 'we're the local king' strategy much like Russia, when for it's own benefit, the military escapades are not fruitful. Maybe in China's case there are some advantages, though almost none in the case of Russia. The new Belt-and-Road strategy is an example of a good project that will have immensely positive results for most players - shenanigans aside. Nobody is against any of this, we are all for it, except for the shifty things like debt-traps to grab ownerships of ports, which will eventually be Chinese navy bases. China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really.
  - geowwy 8y ago
    >>> The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc. Right now they do. But if conflict breaks out between China and the US you can guarantee the US will use its navy to block all trade with China. This puts China in a very vulnerable position, which is why they're willing to risk upsetting neighbours by aggressively pursuing bases in the South China Sea (as well as the Belt and Road project). >>> There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders. Why do you think that? >>> China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really. My wife is Taiwanese so I understand the situation pretty well. I just think it's a mistake to put this down to ideology or democracy versus authorianism. It's just two states vying for power, the same thing that's been going since forever.

smcl 8y ago

The US and the British Empire in first half of the 20th century (until the dissolution of the empire) might be an example

arethuza 8y ago
Well, the US Army did regard the UK as a potential enemy before WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
- TallGuyShort 8y ago
  Even then, they had pretty detailed plans worked out for many, many scenarios. It doesn't mean they weren't co-existing well or that anyone thought it was likely. Making a plan is so inexpensive compared to the cost of responding to some event without a well-laid-plan, that having a plan is hardly what I would call regarding them as a potential enemy.
vkou 8y ago
That's because the US (by this point) indisputably claimed one third of the world (The Monroe doctrine), whereas the UK was at the time more focused on being on the winning side of the European alliance system, then on making claims on American colonies. (Because it was afraid of an ascendant Germany. Fear of Germany was also the biggest driver for entering into an alliance with France.) In the inter-war years, the UK was no longer concerned with Germany, but, due to the Great Depression, was also too damn broke to go on international adventures. The same situation played out in the US. The only reason the two powers are now aligned, is because the United States started seeing communism, as opposed to European colonialism[1] as its biggest threat. The moral of this story is that superpowers can have friendly relationships when they have a common enemy, or no conflicting goals. An obvious question, here is - what are the conflicting goals of China, and the United States? The answer is - influence among China's neighbours. If the US was not interested in maintaining it, there would be no conflict. [1] In the 19th century, European colonialism was a threat to American colonialism. In the 20th century, the American empire has resisted de-colonization a lot better then European powers did.