Forums

No, if the Chinese stake in federal American debt paradoxically makes it necessary to bolster the credit of the U.S. dollar, which, unlike the U.S. state, has no legitimate rivals at all (certainly not the Chinese currency). in the "de-Americanized world," the world seems only to depend yet more on (de-)America.

Quote from Geoff Hamilton on October 18, 2013, 02:15
Liu Chang, "Commentary: U.S. fiscal failure warrants a de-Americanized world"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-10/13/c_132794246.htm

I see the recent American brinkmanship on the debt ceiling as further evidence that a 'de-Americanized world,' whether desirable or not, is coming faster than many, or at least I, anticipated. What I find curious about Chang's argument, though, is the idea that the United Nations could fill the resulting power void. Isn't a de-Americanized world inevitably a (forgive the clumsy term) Chinese-ized one?

Long-term, it sure looks like the bland congealing of former nation states (more locally and immediately in the EU, and more globally and distantly in the UN) is as inevitable as, well, Disneyland I want to say (but will seem repetitive). The geo-political world often seems to me like some monstrous science-fiction creature glomming together its heterogenous elements into a great, seamless and inescapable One (reminds me, in a weird way, of the 'white logic' of the 'Noseless One').
Thus, I think you're quite right and wrong here, Geoff: I'd say China is trying to use the UN as a lever to pry America out of the world-center, knowing that (barring some act of God) there will never be a chance again for another in that place, but preparing to form the preeminent faction in that world coalition government that has no opposition.

To furlani, I think an alternative currency (not the yuan, but a composite of the dollar, yuan, etc., and maybe gold), may happen sooner than you think. But there is a far more entrenched and only strengthening American currency, which will prove much harder to unseat...but I think I should start a new topic on this, instead of hogging this one.
(I'll call it, 'America is dead! Long live America!', and take my talkative self there immediately.)

As other forum members have mentioned, I do believe that the power dynamics that we had taken for granted since the Cold War has and will continue to change drastically, what with debt within the US rising to ever higher heights and no one can argue against China's economic growth in the past 10 years.

However to speak of China as a super power, one has to approach this with a clean slate. What I mean by this, is that one has to wipe clean the normalised ideal and conception of the American model. To say China will never take America's place as a super power is correct in some sense in that China will most likely develop its own unique model. Looking at PierreM's quote from Aljazeera "Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian values" is an expected and almost feared outcome. Cold War sensibilities regarding communism shrouds this prediction with trepidation. But what is to say that this model is negative? True, it would not live up to the "image" America has built around it's cultural identity as pointed out by laurakey. However it might be a stretch to assume that the new society would stay a fully authoritarian one. According to BBC's Simon Jack, "entrepreneurs is the highest form of life" in developing China:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9778000/9778527.stm

With more and more people looking to start businesses of their own, innovation will inevitably follow. The authoritarian system of government would have to loosen its hold to accommodate economic growth. So if this turns out to be the case, "Chinese-Singaporean capitalism with Asian Values" might not be such a bad idea.

And yet, Uncle Sam (Brian), you won't think you're in Houston if "undemocratic Chinese capitalism" straitjackets your pursuit of happiness. I'm with Zizek here (and, I think, Pierre, laurakey, and Esther) on recognizing the important and intriguing differences between what America seems to want the rest of the world to share, and what an authoritarian regime (however committed to super-charged capitalism) might allow. Uncle Sam, says Brian (I think), will eventually dissolve that authority -- tempting the masses with pleasures they can't resist, and prompting democratic reforms that go at least so far as to permit the free indulgence in them -- but I think this underestimates the power of a state that learns to harness all the totalitarian techniques of supervision and manipulation pioneered by the corporations. Zizek's example about the (alleged) Chinese ban on reading time-travel fiction ("They have banned fictional works considering alternative worlds"; thanks, Pierre!) seems like a forbidding indication of how Houston -- or all of Houston -- is not heading to Shanghai anytime soon.

Looking at the Chinese comments from a more real politik angle, China's intentions have always seemed fairly clear to me. They are perfectly happy dissembling publicly and taking pot shots at America when they can. But what they really want right now is to be left alone to grow. China has no desire to take over or even share America's "indispensable" role in world affairs. Not yet. And no one would be more alarmed than China if America actually followed the advice put forward in Chinese rhetoric and started the de-Americanization of the world with any speed. China needs the stability that American power brings to the world economy so that China can keep growing, and it doesn't want to dilute its focus on that growth by sharing in any of these responsibilities at the moment.
However, China does like it when America is occupied elsewhere and unable to focus on keeping China contained in Asia. Despite public protests to the contrary, China has been tickled pink that the US has spent the last 10 years (and several trillion dollars) bogged down in the Middle East. What China wants is a slow, gradual decline of American influence that gives China increasing room to maneuver in Asia, while not requiring any Chinese investment in maintaining the World Order until they are ready.

China's Africa policies seem typical of their approach: spread some money around, secure some access to oil, but don't become involved in anything that you can't easily walk away from. I'm not necessarily impugning their motives for providing aid, and I think anyone who acts with generosity should be applauded for it. I'm just saying that the kind of commitment China is making in Africa is on a far different level than America's commitments in the Middle East or South East Asia, to take just two examples.