After Apple’s CEO met Xi Jinping in Seattle he blurted out the words, “Did you feel the room shake?” Unconsciously, those words themselves matter very little to Tim Cook. However the American military complex interprets the words quite differently.
On April 19, Obama stated, “What I believe is that the United States, as the world’s singular superpower, has the obligation in all areas of the world where there is mayhem, war and conflict for us to try to be a positive force.” That in itself sends a signal to China and the rest of the world that the US needs to be as powerful as possible to deter potential economic rivals.
If China wants to dominate Asia no different than the United States dominating the Western hemisphere, then China should not be investing in their military future because it threatens the economic clout of America. America managed to establish its economic clout by eliminating European influences militarily from their soil. A rising China will try to push the United States out of Asia. China will never be safe with US military forces operating in its backyard.
If Russia couldn’t send their forces into Cuba to challenge the US Western hemisphere dominance, shouldn’t the same logic apply to China? The social Darwinism exists within a nation’s military complex. If US international military partners rely on the military strength of a singular superpower, then that means the military hierarchy is deployed with respect to one superpower’s frame of mind. This means military partners can not sense their own national interest, purpose, and economic strength.
Will France, Britain, and Germany develop the willingness to forcefully achieve the capability that their economies should do business to benefit from China? Or will they allow China to be weakened to a point where they’re no longer capable of ruling Asia?
China wants Japan’s economy to cripple and a Russian partner to legitimize their claims in the Asia-Pacific region. If the US wants a militarily weak and submissive Canada and Mexico then why is China looked down upon in Asia? Shouldn’t China be the economic godfather allowing neighboring Asian countries access into their domestic market for growth and opportunity?
China’s military ambition is simply to deter the US from dominating the region. It is easy to understand an economic competitor and how the US undermines their growth and sustainability. It’s intolerable for the US to view China as an economic peer. The US will not allow China to gain the advantage unless China achieves equal strength militarily and economically.
Globalization will follow a sequence similar to that of philosopher Thomas Hobbes. However, we will tweak his philosophy to put it in relevant terms. Nations, conscience, and judgment are the same thing, and as the judgment, so also the conscience may be erroneous. Globalization only brought certain systems of competition that are driven by the mobility of factors of production.
US foreign policy of restraint will not carry them toward a new era of humanity. The foreign policy of primacy and hegemony to consolidate and expand US interests are the rules. The US wants to be the willful judge and ruler of the global economic order regardless of war. The US will not give up their hegemonic masculinity to China.
China’s social composition is to win nations with a smile and a checkbook; a win-win attitude for all nations. They want to invest in global infrastructures and companies to benefit their national economic identity as a rising power. Needless to say, they are collectively recruiting nations under their umbrella with economic benefits. China is using its economic leverage rather than military power unlike the United States. American provocational moves in the South China Sea are a clear example of eliminating a competitor because of their anxiety.
George Orwell may have shown how deliberately communism and socialism affect the world in terms of the frailty of the ideology itself. But did George Orwell fail to understand the misconception of social Darwinism? A nation can not curb its national reality if it has a dominant position; they will impose their values and interests, which may become abnormal to the equilibrium of the global order we live in.
Is an open democracy ignoring the principles of many Gods and instead endorsing the military singularity of one God? We can clearly see the singularity of one God with the practical application of Iraq. The US went into Iraq as liberators to bring freedom and democracy to the nation. This is a form of superpower singularity without cooperation. This precipitated in having US generals ordering soldiers to do police duty in combat gear on sovereign soil.
Is the US military trend hunting for terrorists or run-of-the-mill criminals in a sovereign nation? Can the generals tell the difference or are they consumed by fear that they have to adjust their military thinking from deterrence and containment to policing foreign nations?
The global equilibrium does go through radical change no different than global competition. If American and Chinese firms are able to innovate, adapt, and grow in order to survive then that means their global relationship should achieve a closer ideological framework; not an institutionalized framework that divides and conquers.
Global markets are based on market structures that should survive a multisided affair in terms of business. The true instrument of China’s rise is based on profit. With evolutionary economics, there comes a true picture in how American policymakers have failed in understanding China. They are unable to flip the coin and look at themselves.
The US wants to strengthen its military presence surrounding the South China Sea. It is because Washington can not respect China. This means the world of profit can not sustain itself peacefully. Tim Cook made his views known: he respects a rising China. If the American generals believe in capitalism, then they should interpret Tim Cook’s words at face value.
The problem here is the policy of one-upmanship and one God that authorizes a great military to do battle with an economic competitor. If one of the missions of the American military is “to overcome any nation responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States”, then does this include a rising economic power, a rising economic rival, competitors, and US multinationals doing business with China’s domestic market for mutual economic gain and profit?