According to frequently repeated opinion, the modern planet is divided into 2 spheres of influence, which are besides guided by another systems of value (great decoubling).
We're talking about spaces around China and the United States. It is so said that, while the first is dominated by an autocratic model, it is aimed at the welfare of the party, as in China, or the elite of power, as in Russia. In contrast, we have a liberal and democratic planet that protects the freedom, human rights and self-determination of nations.
This thesis seems so apparent that attempts to undermine it, e.g. with arguments that Americans have their interests flourished with a cynical smile. As the mantra repeats in this case, Americans have sins behind their ears, but in view of Russia's aggression they are nevertheless better than Russian onuca and Russian mir. We note a akin distance towards your centre, which is blamed for its attempts at the autonomy of Taiwan, Hong Kong and, in economical terms, for the usage of hostile takeover strategies for European companies and intelligence practices. Hence, European and American analysts look forward to the global decline of China. As the forecast of the West's dependence on China over the decade could fall by up to 20-40 percent, including as a consequence of deglobalization and shortening of supply chains as a consequence of the Russian-Ukrainian war and prolonged anti-covid blockades. But is that for sure?
In this article we will not compose about Russian aggression in Ukraine, we will focus our attention more on the substance of the US-China dichotomiy (Pax Americana – Pax Sinica). This dechotomia corresponds to the basic geopolitical categories that the strategies of the maritime states (talassocracy) argue the strategies of the land states (tellurocracy). While the erstwhile include Anglo-Saxon states specified as the USA and the United Kingdom, the second belong to the alleged second country. Eurasia called by Halford Mackinder The large Island or the Heart of Land. It is simply a block of countries from Europe to the Far East, integrated into 1 full present through the large investment task of the Central State of the alleged fresh Silk Road. There is no place for detailed discussion of this dichotomia, as it has a immense literature of the subject, both in the field of geopolitics (including transport), discipline of civilization or religion.
Who offers more freedom?
However, it is worth focusing on 1 aspect. Well, there's something about the thesis on the promotion of multipolarism by modern China, as well as – after all – Russia and organizations like Eurasian economical Union or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Unlike the US and the EU, which had and inactive have claims to regulation the planet through a single universalist ideology. Finally, there is something about the thesis that the Euroasia block led by China (although this is simply a very informal leadership) offers to another countries, especially those developing more subjectivity on the global stage, and especially against aggressive global corporate strategies. Russia, China, another east bloc states do sometimes have cruel and bloody wars (China, of course, much little than Russia), but these are old-style wars between 2 national states. As part of these clashes, the stronger state frequently reports imperialistic pressures and subjugates the weaker neighbour. However, land empires do not represent universalistic tendencies, in specified a way as sea empires.
The political strategies of the second are a consequence of the missionary spirit, which was dominated by Renaissance sailors, who, while exploring fresh territories as part of the maritime expeditions, spread Christianity throughout the world, which did not exclude colonial practices. Today, the naval powers no longer advance Christianity but the secular religion of human rights, but the missionary drive and the desire to recolonize the planet remained and even intensified.
The Anglo-Saxon desire to submit to the remainder of the planet can be viewed on a cultural or ideological level. It will be expressed by a tendency to spread free postmodern culture by Western intellectual and massmedia environments, as well as global corporations controlling subliminal human needs through the promotion of hedonist and permissive attitudes. It is simply a tendency to unify all the diversity of national and cultural identities, the momentum to put past in museum cabinets or textbooks to make the planet a safe and separate greenhouse that respects the principles of political correctness. That's most likely what he means. Alexander Dugin, erstwhile he writes that marine civilizations are conformism, materialism, modernism, individualism, chaos and capital, from where the Russian thinker in the spirit of Dostoevsky or Konstantina Leontyeva considers the West rotten and decadent. By the way, Leontjew in the text "The Average European as a weapon of universal destruction" identified Western civilization with a conflict that annihilates and absorbs all cultural differences.
But let us look at economics. Since the 1980s, the United States has been recommending to another countries, especially developing and undergoing transformation (mainly Latin America but besides Central and east Europe) directives consistent with the planet Bank, the global Monetary Fund and the US Treasury Department. These indications, referred to as the Washington Consensus, mention to the slogans of trade liberalisation, financial discipline, privatisation, the elimination of barriers to abroad direct investment, privatisation of state-owned enterprises and deregulation of markets.
It is hard not to announcement that the application of these akin adjustment strategies – according to the popular maxim, that capital has no nationality – by developing or undergoing transformations countries have not proved to be beneficial to their economies, on the contrary, it has increased their petrification for rich countries, as a consequence of the liberalisation of capital markets resulted in the movement of capital from developing countries to countries that imposed consensus, which showed the effects of many reforms of countries of Central and east Europe, including Poland, under the regulation of law. Leszek Balcerovich. Hence the Washington Consensus met with extremist criticism of many economists, among others Nobel laureates Joseph E. Stiglitzwho argued that the economical improvement of a country undergoing transformation should be conditional on taking economical policy into its own hands, alternatively than complying with the pre-imposed programming documents.
Chinese Multipolarity
This has led to a turn of the subject-matter approach to the economy with the effective function of intervention instruments at the disposal of national countries and another public actors. In times of global marketplace fluctuations and natural flows resulting from the technological revolution, only a subjective approach can be an chance to regain control. It is surely not guaranteed by liberalisation of markets and the blind chance of request and supply forces, as shown by the lamented effects of the global financial crisis 2007-2009. Thus, in many countries of the world, there was a reversal of neoliberalism, as well as the principles of liberal democracy, which the unfavorable and left-wing press called populism. To the fullest extent, this model was implemented in China's Xiaoping era, and in peculiar Xi Jinpinga, there besides contributed to the top success, on a global scale. Hence, the word Peking Consensus was coined, although the Chinese themselves negated the universalism of their model, claiming that in 2 different places the same prescription could not be applied. This is where the concept of controlled globalisation, besides referred to as "Going Global 2", was born.
The second component of the Chinese strategy alongside subjectivity is supporting the thought of a multipolar world. The word "multipolicity" counterbalances the attempts to universalise the American model both politically, culturally and economically, as we have late observed under the aegis of the gendarme of the planet – the United States. According to the Beijing consensus, the planet is polycentric, diverse, diversified and polarized into different national identities. Chinese elites do not say that democracy is better than dictatorship or vice versa. It is more about creating shore conditions for everyone without exception, and how the state will usage them depends on its historical tradition and preferences. The initiative depends on the entity – whether it is the state, local government or the company that needs to realise that destiny lies in its hands, as Stiglitz said.
This strategy is somewhat akin to the alleged identity policy promoted by modern political philosophy. likewise to success, both economical liberalism, interventionism and even Marxism can contribute, as shown by the successes of the KPC. These ideologies are just formulas (identities – as I wrote above) of our thinking, depending on the historical circumstances of a given territory or territory of the world. Thus, as the Chinese proverb says, “No substance what colour the cat is, it is crucial that mice catch.”
According to the Indian investigator Parag Khanna The Asian doctrine of success is pragmatic and technocratic, free from specified a European tendency to moralise. This doctrine is utilized by the Chinese and to any degree by another Asian countries in practice supporting the cultural identities of individual countries and their economies. This does not mean, of course, that the Central State is not taking over European companies' capital. However, the concept of "wine-win" is important. Chinese investors, taking over local companies, effort to respect the autonomy and work of the directors, as well as safeguard the interests of number shareholders. This is the thought of a multipolar world.
Chinese elites of power to legitimize their own model and make it more user-friendly besides like to appeal to the thought of peace, cooperation, partnership, prosperity or security, as shown by Xi Jinping's speeches in his book “Chinese Dream” be the pronunciation of the last 20th national convention of KPCh. The frequent motive is to callback the phenomenon of the Silk Road, which functioned between the 3rd century BC and the 17th century, which was not only a commercial road that was transported from China to Europe and the mediate East, silk, but besides a form of cooperation, communication, which contributed to tolerance, common understanding, as well as learning from each another different cultures and civilizations: an example of the export of technology, discipline and religion (Buddhism and Confucianism), as well as doctrine (Leibniz, Voltaire). Although the abuse of pacifistic rhetoric may offend and match times before 1989, this thought may sound insincere (there was quite a few aggression, interest and insurgency in Chinese history), on the another hand, it is hard to say that peace and cooperation are well included in the Beijing consensus, hence the usage of the word "pax cynica" in the title of this paper is not accidental.
Of course, just due to the fact that the Chinese support the multipolar planet model does not mean that they do not carry out their own interests in a thoughtful and consistent way, encumbering the full planet with tentacles of subtle and "soft" influences, especially as a mill of the world, they produce their inexpensive products on the markets of the full globe. The main instrument of the Chinese government with which the mediate State wishes to strengthen its influence worldwide is – the large transport task fresh Silk Road, besides referred to as the initiative of 1 Belt, 1 Belt (One Belt, 1 Road), to which China wants to spend as much as $2 trillion. Many transport and energy investments have already been implemented, thanks to which any countries on the trail, specified as Kazakhstan, managed to modernise their economies.
New Silk Road Initiative...
It first appeared in 2013, erstwhile the secretary-general of the Communist organization of China and its president Xi Jinping visited Kazakhstan. The task has many branches moving through Siberia or the Transcaspian trail. Polar pathways are besides planned to be activated in the future. Let us remember that the most goods (approximately 90% of the trade relations with China) are carried by sea of the fresh Silk Road utilizing ports called "stun pearls" (Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan), hence the Chinese government is very curious in investments in seaports, logistics centres and terminals located on the trail, e.g. in Greece (Pireus) or in Poland (the Gdynia port and its BCT container terminal). After the first pessimistic diagnosis, it turns out that the war in Ukraine will not have specified a negative impact on the NJS as it initially seemed, although the individual branches will undergo their reconfigurements, part of the production will be placed closer to the final recipient, which marks the shortening of supply chains.
Western governments, especially the US, are taking strategies to counter or limit China's role. Hence, the US regulations (National safety Act 2007) and EU efforts to monitor abroad investment targeted at Chinese investors, mainly the technology industry, all the more so as many of them apply intelligence practices. As a consequence of the war in Ukraine, the transfer of technology to Chinese Huawei, among others, was blocked by American Qualcomm, which owns the licence to produce semiconductors.
However, Chinese direct investment is inactive supported by banks specified as the People's Bank of China, which buys bonds from another countries. State banks besides lend to developing countries for infrastructure projects which are then implemented by Chinese companies. The issue is at a advanced stake, as ensuring the safety of the communication routes leading to the mediate East energy centres would mean that Beijing would gain full economical and militarisation dominance in selected maritime areas, in addition to taking control of the centre points on land that would prosecute the interests of the Chinese fleet.
The author of this article does not intend to convince anyone to be superior to “Pax Sinica” over “Pax Americana”. Both orders have their disadvantages and advantages, although working in the service of both ideas politicians and analysts for apparent reasons whitewash the intentions of their own politicians, by arguing that it is the opponents who do not respect freedom, the right to self-determination of nations and the subjective independency of individual national states on the global stage.
However, there is something about the fact that it is the states of the Eurasian bloc, although most likely not so educated in the Western liberal patterns, in fact they have little tendency to unify and unify the world. It was in the West that the tendency to demoliberous pride and the resulting colonial submission of others was more acute. Although motivated differently, in different ages, there has always been an argument here that this is done for the good of a given country, in order to help, raise, civilize and rip out of the chaotic barbarity. It is hard not to see in the above logic a sense of superiority and a desire to objectify a partner.
However, ‘Pax Sinica’?
I so believe that the "pax cynic" model is worth considering at least at the level of alternate and intellectual challenge. We do not request to support Chinese investment at all times and everywhere, I recommend, in the course of bilateral interests, that we pay close attention to the Chinese's hands, and that, as part of the agreements concluded, we place a state safety clause. However, it is hard to deny that the mediate State has built its own economy in large kind in fresh years, that it is the mediate State that is laying billions of dollars in building the infrastructure of many poorer countries located on the fresh Silk Road, although of course nothing happens unselfishly.
In addition, it is here that the foundations of a multipolar planet were built, in which the strength of a given state, a given company or organization depends on the ability of a subjective game aimed at carrying out its own interests (especially national ones) against the natural trends of global and aggressive global strategies, mainly American corporations. It is not adequate to take the invisible hand of the marketplace as advised by economists of the Washington Consensus, it is essential to know what kind of planet we live in and to have a strong public intervention.
I am writing about this due to the fact that after February 24, 2022, the Polish intellectual debate increases the tendency to unpolarness – to short the ranks and close the discourse. It is said that we are in war and there are clear indications of our sympathy and alliances. It's either authoritarianism or democracy, and that's why there must be rules on not only politics and security, but besides the economy. It's a very dangerous trend, and I hope it's time to think about it.
Michael Graban
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 9-10 (26.02.5.03.2023)
