Great analysis Noah. I might add the report today about possible FSB document leaked discussing Xi's intention at invading Taiwan this past fall. It's incredibly relevant, if true. Especially to myself, as I'm situated in Taiwan.
Xi looks likely to push China down the strongman route. It’s the rare authoritarian who doesn’t get high off their own supply. Sad (and, frankly, irrational) as that may seem.
"As for Xi Jinping, he seems to have been getting a bit high on his own supply of propaganda"
I fear that most American and western leaders have fallen into the same trap. Mr. Smith's foreign policy analysis certainly mirrors the viewpoint of every western leader I've seen.
To start: Mr. Smith's description of the "liberal global order" ought to show why China has never bought into it.
* China has never had a respect for universal human rights; historically it has supported a strong government as a bulwark against chaos and warlordism. If respect from "the world" requires respect for human rights, China is willing to live without it.
* Rightly or wrongly, it sees "inviolability of national borders" as a recent and selectively applied value, applied when serving Western interests and ignored when inconvenient. We see most of the post-1990 border changes (German reunification, collapse of Soviet Union, collapse of Yugoslavia, partition of Serbia) as voluntary and therefore good, but China probably views these as the march of Western supremacy against its rivals.
* The "taboo against wars of choice" should be seen as risible, even outside China. The US and our allies have embarked on wars of choice (either openly or by proxy) in Egypt, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria (maybe others, but I think this is enough to make the point). Whether or not you think these interventions were justified, they make a mockery of the claim that the liberal order, or international leadership, demands renouncing military action.
* "Preference for democracy as a system of government" has certainly been an explicit and implicit part of American foreign policy, and more broadly Western foreign policy. This is one reason that leaders of China and Russia, as well as smaller authoritarian states, are convinced that our goal is to overthrow their governments.
* "The right of small nations not to be dominated by big ones" is mainly honored in the breach. Aside from the military examples above, Western countries haven't been bashful about using military and economic means to coerce other countries to do things in our interests.
I don't say any of this to defend China, or to criticize the US. The US has generally done what is in our interest (also, I believe, in the interest of most of the people of the world). But Chinese leaders don't see a world dominated by rules, morality, and legality, and they're not wrong - this world exists only in the imaginations of Western elites. One of John Mearsheimer's videos on YouTube mentions conversations he had several years ago with Chinese foreign policy scholars about China's relationship with the US, and the advisability of China's maintaining good relations with the US; these scholars' view was that, no matter what China does, the US is coming after them next.
The most unfortunate thing about the current international situation is that Russia is our natural ally against China, but our arrogant idealistic hegemonism has pushed Russia and China together.
V good analysis, Noah. We do seem to be at important pivot point that will determine how the next few decades will go.
Couple of additional points:
a. Chinese policy chair Hu Wei offers his analysis on the choice for China and how balance of power will shake out following the Ukraine war. His conclusions, in short:
1. The US will regain leadership in the Western world.
Hmmmm. I don't think it's an epic crossroads to be honest because by definition, epic crossroads are extremely rare. I recall when we called 2008 and 2020 epic crossroads as well: the chance for a great reset.
It didn't happen in either case. And while it might be too soon to judge with regard to the pandemic, all I can currently see is accelerated remoteness in work ( a good thing), relationships ( a bad thing), and businesses( it depends).
There will always be new crises and so there will always be new 'crossroads'.
But, Noah is extremely right about China experiencing an unprecedented moment of weakness. They have not handled the pandemic well in the long term, their real estate market has been at inflated prices for a long time, and Xi's crackdown on technology companies, while one of the few wise things he's done in my opinion, would definitely come with certain negative consequences.
But there are two things to point out: one, China and the West are very different. The West is obsessed with absolute freedom, property, and sovereignty. China is obsessed with reciprocal obligations, community, and hierarchy. So, the idea that China would simply discard its own cultural history for the sake of leading the way in the world is a ludicrous suggestion.
And nor should it do so. Westerners tend to believe that what worked for them will work for everyone else, which explains their consistent proselytization: they spread their religions, ideas, cultures, people, etc, often by violence.
But it's an untrue assumption to imagine that there's only one way. Solution space is always vast.
Two, China would be making a massive mistake if they bit the hands that fed them i.e globalization.
What I've found is that while previous Chinese regimes were very willing to learn from the West and discard what they felt should be discarded as was their right to, Xi's regime is unwilling to do any such thing, which is precisely the same arrogance on the other side of the divide.
But the West can afford that arrogance, and is in several respects, legitimately entitled to it. China can't, not yet and not soon for good measure.
Humility is a tiresome burden on the journey to succeed Xi's China have clearly discarded it.
A lost traveler in a desert who throws away his water bottles will definitely have a lesser burden to bear on the journey ahead.
But he most likely will not reach his destination.
Thanks for the beautiful piece Noah. Hopefully reason will prevail.
But for all the risk of bad outcomes, there's something about the parallel to the 1930s that we should not forget. Back then the world's resources (oil et al.) were in the ground of European colonies. The view that force was the only way to get to them resonated strongly in Germany and Japan.
This in no way an excuse to their crimes, but just saying the situation is different today. Russia exports these resources. African or middle-eastern countries are free to sell to whom they whish. In the 1930s there were countries with growing populations and economies starving for resources, now the upcomers have stable or decreasing population and can access resources peacefully.
So the path to peace is hopefully more likely than a century ago. But of course, human stupidity has a habit of winning the day against all odds.
Little control on what happens in other countries. But for its part the west probably should restrain from using illegitimate means, even for good ends. Some of the sanctions like freezing countries' foreign reserves, or abusing dominant positions in financial transaction systems, may unfortunately give plenty of fodder for those screaming that things are unfair and only force can save the world. It would be far more legitimate that us European would just stop buying gas - more painful in the short run, definitely safer in the long run.
Always fascinated when big picture observations like this exclude the accelerating climate crisis. How do multiple breadbasket failures in the coming years, accelerating sea level rise, sequential weather disasters, mass migration and more play into China’s Strategic choices ?
In terms of the Covid, I cant agree more about what you said.The fact is that the ordinary people cant go to work because of the pandemic prevention policy.Now Im in Jilin povince, above 1000 people are infected per day recently, so we cant go anywhere just stay at home. Thus many people get no income and lead a hard life. We are physically and mentally exhausted and really want to go back to normal life,but we cant. Because this is the order,we must obey.
I'm an old school wargamer, and I've run any number of scenarios involving Taiwan. You'd flat have to be out of your mind to try and invade Taiwan. That would be like trying to invade Switzerland, if Switzerland were 100 miles offshore.
First, China would have to build a LOT of landing / transport ships which they don't have. Which takes a lot of time and puts everyone on notice that you're coming. And which are in range of shore batteries for hours as they close in waters infested by submarines from multiple nations.
Second, the Taiwanese have been expecting and planning for an invasion for 75 years. They've dug in like you can't believe. Think 'Okinawa' or 'Iwo Jima' in terms of digging in, only doing it for decades.
Third, their military is first rate and they have seriously good equipment. Plus they train with US and allied forces, so they're not going to make the kind of boneheaded errors like we're seeing with the Russians.
Fourth, the Chinese supply line for an invasion consists of the Strait of Formosa. Transport vessels are easy pickin's. Setting up an air bridge for resupply is not an option.
Fifth, there is only one landing beach on the whole bloody island, and it's their main port. Not to mention the terrain absolutely sucks for any kind of airborne assault.
And sixth, the Taiwanese will fight back just as hard as the Ukrainians. Only more so. They've got nowhere to go.
If China tries a grab with Taiwan, they'll pull back a bloody stump.
Xi and others should step back and take a look around them. They would see that an awful lot of China resembles the West. They should know that if they had to rely only on what is original to their country and not what is made there, a lot of it would still look like it did at the start of the twentieth century. Mao's effort to change China was largely a repudiation of the old China. The CCP should also take note of the fact that everything China does not travel well in the world, and it never has and never will. It's an important distinction and one they dismiss at their peril.
I would add that our liberal order has grown a lot less free. That our leaders look good next to Putin and Xi doesn’t make them good. And they use every crisis, be it war, recession or pandemic to grab more power.
The inability of rising powers to bide their time and make nice seems to be a recurring theme. 21st century China is a lot like 20th century Germany. Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. China’s military is much less tested than Russia’s and look at what a hash the Russians are making of things. An amphibious assault across 100 miles of contested water is a really complex operation. A lot could go wrong.
I think China has already made the big choice, and subconsiously the US has as well.
Is Russia really the make-or-break here? The Uighur genocide (call it by a softer term if you insist) probably has a much larger death toll. China has border conflicts with half the neigbourhood, and the Party probably can't afford to withdraw from most of them. As for the US, countries have habits just like people. The US is used to its place, and will not let itself be quietly replaced by an illiberal state, and the Cold War script would have shown itself even earlier had America not been distracted by 9/11.
This, however, does not quite decide China's behaviour in the current crises. I suspect Xi is thinking this:
A) What Russia does for China is irreplaceable. Not merely guaranteed resource access, but control of most of Central Asia and a Northern route to Europe. Not merely an alliance, but bringing a few other (weak) countries with it.
B) This alliance probably requires a Russian regime like the current one. A liberal Russia would immediately join the West*. Trying to replace Putin while keeping the regime is too complicated, so China needs Putin, at least for now.
C) However, Ukraine is Putin's obsession, not Xi's. Putin can probably repress his way to stability given just enough success (whether imaginary or true success). Xi just needs Putin to keep his position. There's no need for an immediate crisis with the West, that should be done when China is ready.
What Xi probably wants is to give just enough support so Putin keeps his power, but enough to not completely alienate the West. I think this is doable? Removing Putin is not anyone's official wargoal. The West doesn't want to confront China now either. There are probably ways to give Russia just enough support while telling it to not press on too much. For example, there must be some leftover Russian-made weapons in PLA's warehouses, just say these weren't China's or blame corruption.
Now if Putin is headstrong, and Ukraine becomes a grueling stalemate, the calculus may change. Say the Russians can't advance but the Ukrainian army can't kick them out, while Russia keeps bombing cities. That would be a complicated situation, but China has levers.
* Leaving aside definitional questions of how the define 'West'.
I always find it interesting that questions about which path China should take are always posited as if they have a unilateral decision to make. China could become the “global leader of liberalism” without asking the next question “will America allow this?”. And, given the rhetoric coming from western nations, I feel confident in saying that the US will never allow this to happen. Their people will never allow a government to acknowledge “we’re number 2”.
So, it’s nice to state China has this option and its only because the chinese government is despotic and unenlightend and “getting high on their own propaganda”. Maybe the last five years of anti china actions have shown them that this really isn’t an option and therefore they are being rational actors.
Would be interesting to see you write an article about “America’s fateful decision” without an recognition of the impact chinese choices have on their thinking.
Great analysis Noah. I might add the report today about possible FSB document leaked discussing Xi's intention at invading Taiwan this past fall. It's incredibly relevant, if true. Especially to myself, as I'm situated in Taiwan.
Keep up the great work, cheers.
Xi looks likely to push China down the strongman route. It’s the rare authoritarian who doesn’t get high off their own supply. Sad (and, frankly, irrational) as that may seem.
"As for Xi Jinping, he seems to have been getting a bit high on his own supply of propaganda"
I fear that most American and western leaders have fallen into the same trap. Mr. Smith's foreign policy analysis certainly mirrors the viewpoint of every western leader I've seen.
To start: Mr. Smith's description of the "liberal global order" ought to show why China has never bought into it.
* China has never had a respect for universal human rights; historically it has supported a strong government as a bulwark against chaos and warlordism. If respect from "the world" requires respect for human rights, China is willing to live without it.
* Rightly or wrongly, it sees "inviolability of national borders" as a recent and selectively applied value, applied when serving Western interests and ignored when inconvenient. We see most of the post-1990 border changes (German reunification, collapse of Soviet Union, collapse of Yugoslavia, partition of Serbia) as voluntary and therefore good, but China probably views these as the march of Western supremacy against its rivals.
* The "taboo against wars of choice" should be seen as risible, even outside China. The US and our allies have embarked on wars of choice (either openly or by proxy) in Egypt, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria (maybe others, but I think this is enough to make the point). Whether or not you think these interventions were justified, they make a mockery of the claim that the liberal order, or international leadership, demands renouncing military action.
* "Preference for democracy as a system of government" has certainly been an explicit and implicit part of American foreign policy, and more broadly Western foreign policy. This is one reason that leaders of China and Russia, as well as smaller authoritarian states, are convinced that our goal is to overthrow their governments.
* "The right of small nations not to be dominated by big ones" is mainly honored in the breach. Aside from the military examples above, Western countries haven't been bashful about using military and economic means to coerce other countries to do things in our interests.
I don't say any of this to defend China, or to criticize the US. The US has generally done what is in our interest (also, I believe, in the interest of most of the people of the world). But Chinese leaders don't see a world dominated by rules, morality, and legality, and they're not wrong - this world exists only in the imaginations of Western elites. One of John Mearsheimer's videos on YouTube mentions conversations he had several years ago with Chinese foreign policy scholars about China's relationship with the US, and the advisability of China's maintaining good relations with the US; these scholars' view was that, no matter what China does, the US is coming after them next.
The most unfortunate thing about the current international situation is that Russia is our natural ally against China, but our arrogant idealistic hegemonism has pushed Russia and China together.
Great analysis as always. One or at most two "truths" in most writing. You are willing to put your logic on the line and connect the dots. Thank you.
V good analysis, Noah. We do seem to be at important pivot point that will determine how the next few decades will go.
Couple of additional points:
a. Chinese policy chair Hu Wei offers his analysis on the choice for China and how balance of power will shake out following the Ukraine war. His conclusions, in short:
1. The US will regain leadership in the Western world.
2. China will become more isolated.
3. The power of the West will grow significantly.
https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1503068421155610625?s=20&t=dJFvwsC90MGhPSsJcen-9g
b. Another challenge for China: demographics.
Change in working-age population:
Last 30 years: +30%
Next 30 years: -20%
https://www.collaborativefund.com/uploads/Three%20Big%20Things.pdf
(page 7)
Hmmmm. I don't think it's an epic crossroads to be honest because by definition, epic crossroads are extremely rare. I recall when we called 2008 and 2020 epic crossroads as well: the chance for a great reset.
It didn't happen in either case. And while it might be too soon to judge with regard to the pandemic, all I can currently see is accelerated remoteness in work ( a good thing), relationships ( a bad thing), and businesses( it depends).
There will always be new crises and so there will always be new 'crossroads'.
But, Noah is extremely right about China experiencing an unprecedented moment of weakness. They have not handled the pandemic well in the long term, their real estate market has been at inflated prices for a long time, and Xi's crackdown on technology companies, while one of the few wise things he's done in my opinion, would definitely come with certain negative consequences.
But there are two things to point out: one, China and the West are very different. The West is obsessed with absolute freedom, property, and sovereignty. China is obsessed with reciprocal obligations, community, and hierarchy. So, the idea that China would simply discard its own cultural history for the sake of leading the way in the world is a ludicrous suggestion.
And nor should it do so. Westerners tend to believe that what worked for them will work for everyone else, which explains their consistent proselytization: they spread their religions, ideas, cultures, people, etc, often by violence.
But it's an untrue assumption to imagine that there's only one way. Solution space is always vast.
Two, China would be making a massive mistake if they bit the hands that fed them i.e globalization.
What I've found is that while previous Chinese regimes were very willing to learn from the West and discard what they felt should be discarded as was their right to, Xi's regime is unwilling to do any such thing, which is precisely the same arrogance on the other side of the divide.
But the West can afford that arrogance, and is in several respects, legitimately entitled to it. China can't, not yet and not soon for good measure.
Humility is a tiresome burden on the journey to succeed Xi's China have clearly discarded it.
A lost traveler in a desert who throws away his water bottles will definitely have a lesser burden to bear on the journey ahead.
But he most likely will not reach his destination.
Thanks for the beautiful piece Noah. Hopefully reason will prevail.
But for all the risk of bad outcomes, there's something about the parallel to the 1930s that we should not forget. Back then the world's resources (oil et al.) were in the ground of European colonies. The view that force was the only way to get to them resonated strongly in Germany and Japan.
This in no way an excuse to their crimes, but just saying the situation is different today. Russia exports these resources. African or middle-eastern countries are free to sell to whom they whish. In the 1930s there were countries with growing populations and economies starving for resources, now the upcomers have stable or decreasing population and can access resources peacefully.
So the path to peace is hopefully more likely than a century ago. But of course, human stupidity has a habit of winning the day against all odds.
Little control on what happens in other countries. But for its part the west probably should restrain from using illegitimate means, even for good ends. Some of the sanctions like freezing countries' foreign reserves, or abusing dominant positions in financial transaction systems, may unfortunately give plenty of fodder for those screaming that things are unfair and only force can save the world. It would be far more legitimate that us European would just stop buying gas - more painful in the short run, definitely safer in the long run.
Always fascinated when big picture observations like this exclude the accelerating climate crisis. How do multiple breadbasket failures in the coming years, accelerating sea level rise, sequential weather disasters, mass migration and more play into China’s Strategic choices ?
In terms of the Covid, I cant agree more about what you said.The fact is that the ordinary people cant go to work because of the pandemic prevention policy.Now Im in Jilin povince, above 1000 people are infected per day recently, so we cant go anywhere just stay at home. Thus many people get no income and lead a hard life. We are physically and mentally exhausted and really want to go back to normal life,but we cant. Because this is the order,we must obey.
I'm an old school wargamer, and I've run any number of scenarios involving Taiwan. You'd flat have to be out of your mind to try and invade Taiwan. That would be like trying to invade Switzerland, if Switzerland were 100 miles offshore.
First, China would have to build a LOT of landing / transport ships which they don't have. Which takes a lot of time and puts everyone on notice that you're coming. And which are in range of shore batteries for hours as they close in waters infested by submarines from multiple nations.
Second, the Taiwanese have been expecting and planning for an invasion for 75 years. They've dug in like you can't believe. Think 'Okinawa' or 'Iwo Jima' in terms of digging in, only doing it for decades.
Third, their military is first rate and they have seriously good equipment. Plus they train with US and allied forces, so they're not going to make the kind of boneheaded errors like we're seeing with the Russians.
Fourth, the Chinese supply line for an invasion consists of the Strait of Formosa. Transport vessels are easy pickin's. Setting up an air bridge for resupply is not an option.
Fifth, there is only one landing beach on the whole bloody island, and it's their main port. Not to mention the terrain absolutely sucks for any kind of airborne assault.
And sixth, the Taiwanese will fight back just as hard as the Ukrainians. Only more so. They've got nowhere to go.
If China tries a grab with Taiwan, they'll pull back a bloody stump.
Nice article. However you left out the most important item. Food. That weakness will require a good bit of attention in the coming years.
Xi and others should step back and take a look around them. They would see that an awful lot of China resembles the West. They should know that if they had to rely only on what is original to their country and not what is made there, a lot of it would still look like it did at the start of the twentieth century. Mao's effort to change China was largely a repudiation of the old China. The CCP should also take note of the fact that everything China does not travel well in the world, and it never has and never will. It's an important distinction and one they dismiss at their peril.
I would add that our liberal order has grown a lot less free. That our leaders look good next to Putin and Xi doesn’t make them good. And they use every crisis, be it war, recession or pandemic to grab more power.
The inability of rising powers to bide their time and make nice seems to be a recurring theme. 21st century China is a lot like 20th century Germany. Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. China’s military is much less tested than Russia’s and look at what a hash the Russians are making of things. An amphibious assault across 100 miles of contested water is a really complex operation. A lot could go wrong.
I think China has already made the big choice, and subconsiously the US has as well.
Is Russia really the make-or-break here? The Uighur genocide (call it by a softer term if you insist) probably has a much larger death toll. China has border conflicts with half the neigbourhood, and the Party probably can't afford to withdraw from most of them. As for the US, countries have habits just like people. The US is used to its place, and will not let itself be quietly replaced by an illiberal state, and the Cold War script would have shown itself even earlier had America not been distracted by 9/11.
This, however, does not quite decide China's behaviour in the current crises. I suspect Xi is thinking this:
A) What Russia does for China is irreplaceable. Not merely guaranteed resource access, but control of most of Central Asia and a Northern route to Europe. Not merely an alliance, but bringing a few other (weak) countries with it.
B) This alliance probably requires a Russian regime like the current one. A liberal Russia would immediately join the West*. Trying to replace Putin while keeping the regime is too complicated, so China needs Putin, at least for now.
C) However, Ukraine is Putin's obsession, not Xi's. Putin can probably repress his way to stability given just enough success (whether imaginary or true success). Xi just needs Putin to keep his position. There's no need for an immediate crisis with the West, that should be done when China is ready.
What Xi probably wants is to give just enough support so Putin keeps his power, but enough to not completely alienate the West. I think this is doable? Removing Putin is not anyone's official wargoal. The West doesn't want to confront China now either. There are probably ways to give Russia just enough support while telling it to not press on too much. For example, there must be some leftover Russian-made weapons in PLA's warehouses, just say these weren't China's or blame corruption.
Now if Putin is headstrong, and Ukraine becomes a grueling stalemate, the calculus may change. Say the Russians can't advance but the Ukrainian army can't kick them out, while Russia keeps bombing cities. That would be a complicated situation, but China has levers.
* Leaving aside definitional questions of how the define 'West'.
I always find it interesting that questions about which path China should take are always posited as if they have a unilateral decision to make. China could become the “global leader of liberalism” without asking the next question “will America allow this?”. And, given the rhetoric coming from western nations, I feel confident in saying that the US will never allow this to happen. Their people will never allow a government to acknowledge “we’re number 2”.
So, it’s nice to state China has this option and its only because the chinese government is despotic and unenlightend and “getting high on their own propaganda”. Maybe the last five years of anti china actions have shown them that this really isn’t an option and therefore they are being rational actors.
Would be interesting to see you write an article about “America’s fateful decision” without an recognition of the impact chinese choices have on their thinking.