Why Is China the New Enemy of the US?

Summary

The discussion centers around U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding China and Russia. One speaker argues that America's actions have driven Russia closer to China, and there's a growing assumption of inevitable conflict with China. The conversation contrasts two viewpoints: one prioritizing economic prosperity through trade (Jeff's view), and the other focusing on security and survival in a competitive, anarchic world (John's realist perspective). John explains that China's rise in economic and military power is pushing them to dominate Asia, much like the U.S. dominates the Western Hemisphere.

Takeaways

• 🌐 The speaker suggests that pushing Russia closer to China might have been a strategic misstep.
• 🔍 There's a common belief that the U.S. is already in a state of conflict with China, which is not limited to political parties but spans across various spectra.
• 📚 John predicted in 2001 that as China grows, conflict with the U.S. would arise due to a perceived threat to American global dominance.
• 💡 John's theory is based on the idea that the U.S. views power as a zero-sum game, where a rising China is seen as an enemy to American aspirations.
• 🤔 The discussion highlights a difference in perspectives between economists like Jeff, who view the world through a lens of trade and economic potential, and realists like John, who focus on the balance of power and security.
• 🌎 Jeff and John agree on many issues such as Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict, but they fundamentally disagree on the approach to China.
• 🏰 John argues that in an anarchic international system, the best way for a state to survive is to be as powerful as possible, drawing an analogy to being the 'biggest and baddest' in a New York City playground.
• 🚀 China is translating its economic might into military power and is attempting to dominate Asia, which is perceived as a threat to U.S. interests.
• 🛳️ China's ambition is to push the U.S. naval presence beyond the first and second island chains, mirroring U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
• 🤝 Despite their disagreements, both Jeff and John are open to dialogue, with John inviting Jeff to explain his opposing viewpoint.

Q & A

Why is it widely assumed that the U.S. is in conflict with China?

The assumption of conflict arises from the perspective that as China grows economically and militarily, it threatens the U.S.'s position as a global power. This aligns with the view that powerful states inevitably come into conflict over influence and dominance.

What did John predict in 2001 regarding China?

John predicted that as China became more powerful, conflict with the U.S. would be inevitable. His theory is based on the idea that as China grows, it will challenge the U.S. globally, particularly in terms of power and influence.

How do the perspectives of Jeff and John differ on China?

Jeff, being an economist, views the world through a lens of positive-sum games, focusing on trade and prosperity. John, however, sees the world in zero-sum terms, where increasing power for China means less power for the U.S., especially in security matters.

Why does John prioritize security over prosperity?

John believes that in an anarchic international system, where there is no higher authority to enforce peace, survival depends on power. He argues that the most effective way for a state to secure its survival is by being powerful enough to deter threats.

What does John mean by the term 'regional hegemon'?

A regional hegemon is a country that dominates its geographical region in terms of military, economic, and political influence. John describes the U.S. as the regional hegemon of the Western Hemisphere and suggests that China is striving to become the regional hegemon of Asia.

What is China's goal according to John?

China's goal, according to John, is to translate its economic power into military power and dominate Asia. It seeks to push the U.S. out of the first and second island chains in the Pacific, mirroring the U.S.'s dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Why does John not blame China for its actions?

John argues that if he were advising China, he would recommend the same strategy—building power and dominance in Asia. He believes that China is simply acting in its own national security interests, as any powerful state would.

What is the difference between a zero-sum and positive-sum view of international relations?

In a zero-sum view, like John’s, one country’s gain is seen as another country’s loss, especially in terms of power. In a positive-sum view, like Jeff’s, international relations can be mutually beneficial, with countries gaining from trade and cooperation.

What role does military power play in the international system according to John?

Military power is crucial for survival in the anarchic international system. John argues that being powerful militarily ensures that other states will not challenge or threaten you, which is essential for a state's security and survival.

What is the significance of the first and second island chains in U.S.-China relations?

The first and second island chains are key strategic areas in the Pacific. China seeks to push the U.S. beyond these chains to reduce American influence in Asia, while the U.S. aims to maintain its presence and counter China's growing military power.

Outlines

00:00

🤝 Pushing Russia Towards China

This paragraph discusses how the West, particularly the U.S., has indirectly pushed Russia into forming closer ties with China. The speaker questions why conflict with China seems inevitable across political lines. It mentions that John (likely referencing a scholar) predicted that as China grows in power, conflict with the U.S. would arise, stemming from American foreign policy's approach to power dynamics.

🌍 Diverging Views on China

Here, the conversation shifts to a debate between two individuals, Jeff and John, on the nature of U.S. relations with China. Jeff, being an economist, believes in a more positive-sum perspective focused on trade and prosperity, while John takes a more realist, zero-sum view rooted in power struggles. The paragraph sets the stage for a deeper exploration of these contrasting viewpoints.

🔐 Security vs. Prosperity

John explains the core of his disagreement with Jeff on China. He argues that the crux of the issue lies in prioritizing either security or prosperity. While economists like Jeff focus on maximizing economic growth and prosperity, realists like John prioritize state survival and power in an anarchic international system, where no higher authority exists to ensure safety. John emphasizes the importance of being powerful to avoid threats.

💪 Survival in an Anarchic World

John delves deeper into his realist perspective, using the metaphor of being the 'biggest and baddest dude on the block' to illustrate the need for power in a chaotic world. He points out that the U.S. has maintained dominance in the Western Hemisphere as a regional hegemon, and now China is following a similar path in Asia, using its economic power to build military strength. John does not blame China for seeking this dominance, as it mirrors the U.S.'s own strategy.

Keywords

💡Conflict with China

The video discusses the perceived inevitability of conflict between the United States and China. This conflict is rooted in the expansion of Chinese influence, both economically and militarily, and the US's response to this rise. The speaker argues that American foreign policy views China as a threat due to its growing power, which challenges the US's dominant position in global politics.

💡Realism

Realism is a school of thought in international relations that prioritizes the survival and security of the state over other considerations, such as economic prosperity. The speaker identifies as a realist, emphasizing the need for the US to remain the most powerful actor to ensure its security. This contrasts with a more liberal or economic viewpoint, which might prioritize global cooperation and trade over power politics.

💡Security vs. Prosperity

The speaker contrasts two different priorities in international relations: security, which is about ensuring the state's survival and dominance, and prosperity, which focuses on economic growth and cooperation. While economists and others might prioritize prosperity, the speaker, as a realist, views security as the primary concern, especially in an anarchic international system.

💡Regional Hegemon

A regional hegemon is a state that dominates the power structure in its geographical area. The speaker describes the United States as the only regional hegemon in the world, controlling the Western Hemisphere. He explains that China is attempting to become a regional hegemon in Asia, mirroring the US's strategy in its own region.

💡Anarchic International System

The speaker refers to the international system as 'anarchic,' meaning that there is no central authority or higher power to regulate state actions. In such a system, states must rely on their own power to ensure survival, which often leads to power struggles and competition. This view justifies the speaker’s emphasis on the need for the US to maintain its dominance.

💡Balance of Power

The balance of power is a concept in international relations where no single state is dominant enough to impose its will on others. The speaker highlights that China's rise is disrupting the balance of power, particularly in Asia, as it seeks to challenge US influence. This shift is viewed as a threat to the US's position and stability in the region.

💡Economic Might into Military Might

The speaker explains that China is leveraging its economic growth to build military capabilities. This transformation is seen as part of China’s broader strategy to assert itself as a regional power, pushing the US out of the 'first and second island chains' in the Pacific and reducing American influence in the region.

💡First and Second Island Chains

The first and second island chains are strategic geopolitical concepts in East Asia. The first chain includes territories such as Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands, and the second extends further out into the Pacific. China’s strategy, according to the speaker, is to push US influence beyond these chains, securing its dominance in the region and limiting US military presence.

💡John's Theory

John's Theory refers to the prediction made by the scholar John Mearsheimer in 2001, where he argued that as China’s power grows, it will inevitably come into conflict with the US. This theory, rooted in realism, views the US as seeing any rising power as a potential threat. The speaker argues that this theory accurately describes the current state of US-China relations.

💡Survival

Survival, in the context of the speaker's argument, refers to the primary goal of a state in the international system. For a realist, ensuring the state's survival means maximizing power and security. The speaker suggests that, in an anarchic world without a higher authority, being the most powerful state is the best way to guarantee survival.

Highlights

Pushing Russia into China's arms due to global tensions.

Universal assumption of conflict with China across political and ideological spectrums.

John's 2001 prediction: Conflict with China as it grows larger due to American foreign policy views.

The U.S. views China as an enemy due to conflicting global aspirations.

Different perspectives on China: Jeff as an economist vs. John's realist, power-driven view.

Jeff sees the world through trade and economics, with a focus on prosperity.

John views the world through power dynamics, emphasizing security and survival.

In an anarchic international system, power is the key to survival, according to John.

The United States is a regional hegemon and dominates the Western Hemisphere.

China is converting its economic power into military might and wants to dominate Asia.

China’s goal is to push the U.S. beyond the first and second island chains.

China wants to be the hegemon in Asia, similar to the U.S. in the Western Hemisphere.

John doesn’t blame China for pursuing this strategy and would advise the same.

The fundamental difference in the debate: Prosperity vs. security as the core priority.

There’s no higher authority in international relations; power ensures safety in a lawless global environment.

Transcripts

but what we have done in effect is we

have pushed Russia into the arms of the

Chinese so why has it become so

Universal to assume that we are already

in a state of conflict with China on not

just party lines but like almost any

Spectrum you could kind of like consider

John said it exactly right and he

predicted it better than anyone in the

whole world in 2001 he said when China

becomes large we're going to have

conflict because that's John's Theory

and it's right as a description of

American foreign policy that we are for

power they are big therefore they're an

enemy they're an enemy of our aspiration

to Global City tra City let's let John

jump in here do you want you want me to

is it okay if I talk about this yeah

yeah I mean I think um I think that um

what's interesting I mean you and Jeff I

think arrive at similar conclusions

about Ukraine but uh but different ones

on China right because Jeff is an

economist and I think sees the world in

fundamentally positive some ways based

on the potential for trade economics

basically whereas you see the world as

more of a zero sum game based on the

balance of power why don't you just

explain that difference I okay uh it is

very important to emphasize as David was

saying that Jeff and I agree on all

sorts of issues including Ukraine and

Israel Palestine but we disagree

fundamentally is he just made clear on

China and let me explain to you why I

think that's the case and then Jeff can

tell you why he thinks I'm wrong

uh it has to do with security whether

you privilege security or survival or

whether you privilege prosperity and

economists and I would imagine most of

you in the audience really care greatly

about maximizing prosperity for someone

like me who's a realist what I care

about is maximizing the state's

prospects of survival and when you live

in an anarchic system and in are speak

that means there's no higher authority

there's no night Watchmen that can come

down and rescue you if you get into

trouble and this is the International

System there's no higher authority in

that anarchic world the best way to

survive is to be really powerful we used

to say when I was a kid on New York City

playgrounds you want to be the biggest

and baddest dude on the Block and that's

simply because it's the best way to

survive if you're really powerful nobody

fools around with you the United States

is a regional hedgemon it's the only

Regional hegemon on the planet we

dominate the Western Hemisphere and what

China has begun to do as it's got

increasingly powerful economically is

translate that economic might into

military might and it is trying to

dominate Asia it wants to push us out

beyond the first island chain it wants

to push us out beyond the second island

chain it wants to be like we are in the

Western Hemisphere and I don't blame the

Chinese one bit if I was the National

Security advisor in Beijing that's what

I'd be telling xping we should be trying

to do