Labelling China an Economic Threat

May 17, 2016

In terms of economic leadership, it’s crucial to establish vital roles and vital threats that seep into the global economic order. Without the establishment of vital roles, democracy will be surrounded by fear and will abandon its objective reasoning. If democracy believes that China presents a vital threat, then international law is only held to the legitimacy of nations that are willing to adhere to the law without national interests.

International law only offers cohesion to the global economic order. However, it can not unite nations’ willingness to grow and expand within a region that emphasizes their own way of life. Gu Xiaosang, an expert on Southeast Asian studies at the Guangxi Academy of Social Science mentioned, “The US is taking the opportunity to encourage its allies to stand against China on the South China Sea.” If China achieved no legitimate influence in the economic world, then the prevailing thought is to raise the issue that China should not influence or provide a competing influence towards the US. Obama stated, “The US has been committed to the security of this region for more than 70 years, we have a treaty obligation and an iron clad commitment to the defense of our ally The Philippines who can count on the US.”

This is fine, but China does have treaty obligations and trade co-operations to promote connectivity in the Asia Pacific region and to speed up the construction of a free-trade area in the Asia Pacific region. If Xi Jinping is promoting a peaceful environment working towards a cooperative agenda in having the US, Britain, France, Indonesia, and oil companies playing a physical and tangible role in the region, then why is leadership incubating the word threat? Xi reiterated, “This is an area where the Asia Pacific region can take the lead in the world by adopting new ideas, models, and pathways of development.” If the pathways to development are attached with the word threat, is it the fact that the platform of capitalism breeds contempt because of its familiarity?

This means that American capitalism can not deal with its own structural reforms to infuse China’s philosophical virtues of win-win and facilitating a cooperative economic element that all nations will benefit from. It is a question of not achieving the subjugation of economic dominance. China would not have achieved economic influence if it adopted economic subjugation and interest solely on its own merits of capitalism. Xi had to boost the openness of economic prosperity and raise nations’ expectations that they will contribute as a united system of supply.

China is devoted to the acceleration of economies and implementing the benefits of expansion rather than the systemic greed in accumulation and self-interest. Xi is painting a picture of the future and complementing a capitalistic contract through a continuous authority that all nations should benefit equally. Xi is propelling the view of capitalism by virtue of integration in their mode of stability rather than instability. It is indeed a question of leadership that perhaps Washington doesn’t know what they’re doing. If their geopolitical thinkers can not think, then Washington has serious problems in the economic order of this world.

If democracy chooses to fight all of the battles of the world, then it achieves no strategic advantage. This means their resources are running thin in a world that is saying that we should give up a portion of economic authority to achieve stability. If you label a nation a threat, it will consider its options of being a threat and ascertaining a menacing stance towards its economic progress. Xi refused to do that and incorporated the UK, China, Venezuela, and a multitude of countries in establishing a degree of stability that they can live with and subscribe to.

If democracy continues to wage all of these wars then a more sinister effect will emerge. Terrorism will not back down, nor will it end its terror for the sake of ending it. If terrorism strikes the population of democracy, eventually it will have the fortitude to attack the corporate world in its own territory. This in itself will create more terror, more fear, and may destroy the fabric of capitalism. If you hold confidence as the core tenant of what capitalism is, an attack towards it will diminish its effectiveness in growth and prosperity.

It is the elevation of terrorism towards capitalism that is at risk. Leadership in Washington calling China a threat does not establish a full-frontal attack on terrorism. Democracy is fighting from all angles and must achieve a certain semblance of order in terms of negotiating with kleptocracy in Russia and China to maneuver towards a collaborative sphere of combating terrorism. There is no doubt in my mind Russia will eventually move troops into Syria because of the fact that capitalistic kleptocracy has been threatened by terrorism.

All these fundamental ideas towards capitalism do have their own belief system. It is the exceptionality of one belief system that dominates the other that is currently in play. The world order has to unite, cooperate, and remove the barriers of threat. Sometimes it is easier to deal with individual leaders that command influence in the world rather than a syndicate of terrorists that feel that terror is the only form in the transitional phase of disorder in establishing an objective. A scorched earth policy may need an objective that meets with the same rules and criteria to penetrate it.

Jack Weatherford said it best in his piece Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern, “If you can’t swallow your pride, you can’t lead. Even the highest mountain had animals that step on it.” Darwin’s survival of the fittest relied on stability. Therefore, we must cooperate in order to ensure the safety of the economic world. When we reach the mountain, we will know where the animals are.

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

© 2023 by "This Just In". Proudly created with Wix.com