Obama’s intention is not to have China rise peacefully, it is simply not in the mind-frame of Washington and political elites. Washington’s intention is to show that China’s rise corresponds with the sequence of creating instability and destroying global peace. Their propaganda machine is set in place for no other reason than gaining dominance over China and the Asia-Pacific region. For Washington, it matters very little what benefits Chinese businesses and American multinationals can incur in their lifetime in terms of profit.
The Chinese Central Command may have been reluctant to advocate a rising China in view of the fact that the natural inclination of America’s mind-frame would become antagonistic towards them. China may have been willing to relinquish a strong rise from one that is soft in order to appease not only Washington, but their prejudice towards them.
Whether indirectly or directly, China only had to appease their ideology towards capitalism that rested on a rise that was non-threatening to many countries. They realized the US would act as a battering ram against China and how the rest of the world views China’s rise against their dominance and unipolarity. Their foreign policy and growth had more to do with emerging nations rather than dealing directly with superpowers. There’s no doubt China is willing to invest in these countries’ infrastructure in order to get their foot in the door to reap the rewards in the future.
It was China’s gradual transition in developing their foreign policy towards the superpowers. Once they felt secure that their rise was imminent, they were able to pursue dealing with the superpowers on their turf. China can not deal with great powers without leverage; their only leverage was to gain access into the Third-World and allow them to benefit with China’s progress.
It was the United States’ financial meltdown that was pivotal in undermining US influence in the geopolitical world. The US were vulnerable to their own insecurities that allowed China to rise and gain dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. China will not go back in history whereby imperialism enslaved them into a role of victimization and exploitation.
China’s rise will most definitely have an impact on the direction regionalism takes place in the Asia-Pacific region. China has an opportunity to play a major role in integrating with the region in this rapidly developing process. The rise of China is an opportunity to build the community of the region. However, the rise of China in power and influence could also spark fear and anxiety, thereby hampering the growth of the Asia-Pacific region.
China’s philosophical thinking was for their politicians and intellectuals to establish a peaceful rise. What is evolving is a community in Asia to cement those feelings and commitments that the nation is indeed peaceful rather than war-like. Western capitalism will have neither a peaceful rise nor a China that circumvents those ideologies to the Asia Pacific region.
The US wants war, they need war. It is a concept of capitalism that can not forget itself if it can not reign supreme. Their mind-frame possesses that the world should not be a give-and-take or an economic benefit in how the US grows its economy. The only benefit they can achieve is to tell China that they can’t rule the Asia-Pacific region because of the color of their skin.
If China’s rise is the most important story of this millennium then there is a greater probability that it will not result in such a happy ending for both the US and Chinese economy. There’s a greater degree of suspicion among US political elites with Xi Jinping’s policy of win-win mutual cooperation that benefits Third-World countries. It does not account with capitalistic exploitation; no different than American tobacco companies needing to generate revenue with Third-World countries that produce death among the many who smoke.
Both countries have achieved a certain degree of capitalism. However, China has achieved capitalism by associating communism with growth, benefits, and the market integration of Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region. Chinese shipping company COSCO recently signed a 368.5 EURO megadeal that privatized the Piraeus shipping port in Greece. The deal was aimed primarily to reach China’s goal of moving cheap goods from East to West for the economic benefit of China. In the future, this move will exclude America as a dominating influence in Europe.
Extraordinary economic growth and active diplomacy in China are transforming East Asia to a large degree. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang indicated China would never “bully” smaller countries, but at the same time China is not in a position of tolerating “blackmail” on the South China Sea issue. China is inherently imbued with the ideology that it must safeguard peace and stability in East Asia. Their military rise is based on achieving those objectives knowing fully well that capitalism will undoubtedly go on a smear campaign against China.
Washington’s role is to get enough European and Asian partners to go against China no matter what. If Britain and the US have indicated that they will not get involved in territorial claims, then the logical question is which puny country should get involved against China in order to legitimize Britain’s and the US’ role in the Asia-Pacific region?
The problem with this is that if David Cameron can’t stand tall against Angela Merkel, then that means Britain will never dominate Europe like they’re supposed to. That means Britain is comparatively weaker than Germany; Britain needs Germany in order to tell them what to do in the European Union.
It was odd that David Cameron made the case of global peace in order for Britain to stay in the European Union. What peace is he talking about? Is he talking about a rising China that has to submit to the unipolarity of the US? We all know that if that doesn’t happen, a war will be inevitable, so what is Cameron saying? Absolutely nothing.
The only thing that David Cameron promoted was slow growth of labor productivity compared with many advanced countries. The slow growth of the British economy has more to do with Cameron’s leadership that devotes more time to his stupidity than dominating the European economy as a whole. This man is willing to allocate resources towards the public sector rather than technology and innovation to dominate Europe. Therefore, he is incompetent in even dealing with Germany.
Perhaps it is best for Britain to realign itself with the Third-World countries it did in the past to develop the colonial mentality and stick with the US in a fatherly manner. Cameron failed to understand that there’s no prosperity without growth or influence in Europe and the rest of the world unless you’re willing to stand on your own. He failed miserably in constructing a framework at a national level of eliminating regional uneven development. Cameron established regional disparity for no other reason than because he was too young and stupid in expanding the national economic growth for all regions under British rule. China will not make these same mistakes.