6 ms·

A rival for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The current hegemon in this region is the US. It is the strongest APAC power by far due to its numerous

A rival for hegemony in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. The current hegemon in this region is the US. It is the strongest APAC power by far due to its numerous military bases as well as its network of strong allies (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea). China seeks to displace the US as the hegemon in APAC. Naturally, the current hegemon doesn't take too kindly to that. So they view China as a rival.

seydor 4y ago
What about the rest of the West
- SSJPython 4y ago
  What about it? The US is also the hegemon in Europe. The "West" just means the US and its network of alliances. Other Western countries may want good relations with China, but they need to take US views into account because the US bankrolls their defense and is also a very important trade partner. Large, strong countries do what they want and small, weak countries do what they must. That's the way it is and the way it's always been.
  - seydor 4y ago
    Don't you think that 's a bit too arrogant? Why should germany support the US domination over Japan, when all they want is industrial materials through the indo-pacific route. I think the world was more fair during cold war, having 2 superpowers pushed both of them to keep each other in check. This one state world, seems worse
    - rgbrenner 4y ago
      Since you brought it up in your example: US, Germany and Japans interests are aligned against China regarding the indo pacific trade route… china’s ambitions to claim all of the South China Sea seek to disrupt the trade route.. and the us helps protect that route by performing freedom of navigation exercises (which have a very real chance of sparking a war that the us alone would be responsible for).
rgbrenner 4y ago
China—so powerful that they believe they can rival the US… but also so weak that they should qualify for WTO protections for developing markets. At a certain point you have to question whether they believe in free trade at all.. or just paying lip service to it to make themselves rich.
- chrischen 4y ago
  The whole point of free trade is a no rules game to make yourself rich.
  - rgbrenner 4y ago
    No. There are definitely rules.. like equal access to markets, limits on tariffs, etc.
    - chrischen 4y ago
      Forcing equal access to markets is a limit on sovereignty (freedom). That's why the TPP got shut down. Equal access to markets in many cases just means total economic subjugation of weaker nations by commercial interests like the whole India colonial period.
      - rgbrenner 4y ago
        Yeah sure… the worlds largest economy is too weak to import roughly 300b a year in goods to balance us/China trade. 300b/yr is enough to subjugate a 27 trillion/yr (gdp ppp) economy. rofl
        chrischen 4y ago
        My point is rather than deciding which economy is large enough to decide for itself how to tariff, you let everyone decide for themselves. And in fact this is how the world works by default, and even the US chooses selective tariffs… so what does it mean to selectively cry “fair trade” only when it benefits your local corporate interests? Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting… should China now start subsidizing US businesses by buying made in USA when they don’t have to? If we make good products, they have no choice but to buy it because their citizens will demand it.

seydor 4y ago

What about the rest of the West

SSJPython 4y ago
What about it? The US is also the hegemon in Europe. The "West" just means the US and its network of alliances. Other Western countries may want good relations with China, but they need to take US views into account because the US bankrolls their defense and is also a very important trade partner. Large, strong countries do what they want and small, weak countries do what they must. That's the way it is and the way it's always been.
- seydor 4y ago
  Don't you think that 's a bit too arrogant? Why should germany support the US domination over Japan, when all they want is industrial materials through the indo-pacific route. I think the world was more fair during cold war, having 2 superpowers pushed both of them to keep each other in check. This one state world, seems worse
  - rgbrenner 4y ago
    Since you brought it up in your example: US, Germany and Japans interests are aligned against China regarding the indo pacific trade route… china’s ambitions to claim all of the South China Sea seek to disrupt the trade route.. and the us helps protect that route by performing freedom of navigation exercises (which have a very real chance of sparking a war that the us alone would be responsible for).

rgbrenner 4y ago

China—so powerful that they believe they can rival the US… but also so weak that they should qualify for WTO protections for developing markets. At a certain point you have to question whether they believe in free trade at all.. or just paying lip service to it to make themselves rich.

chrischen 4y ago
The whole point of free trade is a no rules game to make yourself rich.
- rgbrenner 4y ago
  No. There are definitely rules.. like equal access to markets, limits on tariffs, etc.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    Forcing equal access to markets is a limit on sovereignty (freedom). That's why the TPP got shut down. Equal access to markets in many cases just means total economic subjugation of weaker nations by commercial interests like the whole India colonial period.
    - rgbrenner 4y ago
      Yeah sure… the worlds largest economy is too weak to import roughly 300b a year in goods to balance us/China trade. 300b/yr is enough to subjugate a 27 trillion/yr (gdp ppp) economy. rofl
      - chrischen 4y ago
        My point is rather than deciding which economy is large enough to decide for itself how to tariff, you let everyone decide for themselves. And in fact this is how the world works by default, and even the US chooses selective tariffs… so what does it mean to selectively cry “fair trade” only when it benefits your local corporate interests? Think about the opposite of what you are suggesting… should China now start subsidizing US businesses by buying made in USA when they don’t have to? If we make good products, they have no choice but to buy it because their citizens will demand it.