๐ช๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ฆ๐ก'๐ง ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ก๐ฌ
People keep asking me if China will try to rule the world the way the West did. A lot of Chinese friends answer with Confucius, harmony, peace-loving civilisation. I understand that, but I don't think it's enough. Every big civilisation has had its conquests, China included. Quoting old philosophers doesn't tell you what a country will do tomorrow.
Ken Leong wrote a piece that makes a better case, and I mostly agree with it. Not morality. Realism.
๐ช๐๐ก๐ก๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐๐๐ฆ, ๐๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ก๐ ๐ช๐๐ฅ๐ฆ
Look at America. The strongest military in history.
Afghanistan, 2001. Taliban gone in weeks. Twenty years and a fortune later, the Taliban walked back in.
Iraq, 2003. Saddam gone fast. Then insurgency, sectarian war, and Iran ending up with more influence than before.
Iran, this year. Huge strikes, lots of damage. And still no settlement, while shipping in Hormuz and oil prices tell you who's really paying.
Smashing an army is one thing. Getting the result you wanted is something else.
๐ ๐๐ข๐จ๐ก๐ง๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐
You can't just push harder and get more obedience. A society is messy. Institutions, history, religion, family, money, all tangled up.
Knock out a government and you knock out the police, the ministries, the jobs. People resist. You crack down. They resist more. The thing you went in to stop keeps feeding itself.
More force, past a point, gets you less control. I think that's the lesson Washington keeps refusing to learn.
๐๐ฉ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ๐ง๐๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ก๐๐๐ง๐๐
China lives off trade. Markets, energy, shipping lanes, tech, finance. So does America.
Hurt the network and you hurt yourself. Buddhists have a word for it, everything arises together. Chasing total security usually makes you less secure.
And conquest doesn't pay like it used to. You can't occupy a chip factory and keep it running. Its value is in the engineers, the suppliers, the power grid, the customers. Bomb the system and the building is worthless.
๐๐จ๐๐๐ ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ฆ, ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ
China got rich inside the global system. Why would it burn that down to play empire?
Belt and Road isn't charity, and I won't pretend every project went perfectly. But building ports and railways where others also gain is a smarter bet than invading anyone. Self-interest, just the long-term kind.
That fits how China works, as I see it. Lots of debate, weigh the costs, adjust. Pragmatic, not ideological.
๐ง๐๐๐ช๐๐ก
This is the hard one. Beijing sees it as sovereignty. Others see a threat. Everyone arms "defensively" and everyone feels less safe.
A war there would be a disaster for everyone, China included, and for the whole world economy. That's exactly why patience has to be a deliberate choice, not an afterthought.
๐ฆ๐ง๐ฅ๐ข๐ก๐ ๐๐ก๐ข๐จ๐๐ ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ง๐ข ๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ง
China doesn't need to claim it's more virtuous than anyone. It just needs to look at what happened to the last superpower and not repeat it.
Maybe the real test of a great power isn't how much force it can use, but how much it can get done without using it.
A country that tries to dominate everyone ends up weakening itself. One that understands how connected we all are can build something that lasts longer than domination ever did.
Credit to Ken Leong for the original article.
Be informed, not entertained.
https://x.com/angeloinchina/status/2115987452104204606