Why Is China the New Enemy of the US?

Summary

在这段讨论中，发言者探讨了美国与中国的关系，并解释了为什么中美之间的冲突似乎不可避免。一位现实主义者认为，国家在无政府的国际体系中必须依赖强大的军事力量来生存。中国正在利用其经济力量转化为军事力量，并试图在亚洲取得主导地位，类似于美国在西半球的地位。尽管经济学家倾向于专注于繁荣和贸易，现实主义者更关注安全与生存，这也是导致中美分歧的关键原因。

Takeaways

• 😮 推动俄罗斯与中国结盟是意外后果。
• 😯 当前与中国的冲突已成为普遍假设，超越党派界限。
• 🤔 2001年预测中国崛起将引发冲突的理论被证明正确。
• 💡 美国的外交政策将中国视为大国，因此成为潜在敌人。
• 🛡️ 区别在于经济学家强调贸易和经济繁荣，而现实主义者强调安全与生存。
• 🌏 国际体系是无政府状态，没有高于国家的权威，因此强国才能保证生存。
• 💪 美国是唯一的区域霸权国家，主导西半球的地位。
• 🛡️ 中国将其经济实力转化为军事力量，试图主导亚洲。
• 🌐 中国的目标是将美国逐出第一和第二岛链，像美国在西半球一样主导其区域。
• 🤷 中国的行为可以理解，从国家安全角度看，这是合乎逻辑的策略。

Outlines

00:00

🤝 推动俄罗斯与中国结盟的背景

这一段讨论了美国通过其政策实际上将俄罗斯推向中国的怀抱。它探讨了为何人们普遍认为美国与中国之间的冲突已成定局，不仅仅是基于党派立场，而是基于更广泛的政治和经济谱系。

🔮 约翰的预言：中国崛起与冲突

本段引用了约翰在2001年的预言，他认为随着中国的崛起，美国与中国之间的冲突将不可避免。约翰的理论是基于美国的外交政策：美国作为全球大国，视中国的崛起为对其全球主导地位的威胁，因此将其视为敌人。

🛡️ 安全优先与经济优先的分歧

该段讨论了约翰和杰夫对中美关系的不同看法。杰夫作为经济学家，认为世界的运作基于贸易和经济增长的正和博弈，而约翰则从权力平衡的角度出发，认为这是一个零和博弈，国家的生存取决于其安全和实力。

🌍 无政府国际体系中的生存策略

约翰进一步解释了他的现实主义观点，他认为在一个无政府的国际体系中，没有高于国家的权威。因此，最好的生存方式是确保自己强大。他引用了童年在纽约的经验，认为成为最强大的国家能确保不受他国威胁，美国正是通过成为区域霸权确保其安全。

💪 中国的崛起与军事力量的扩展

约翰解释了中国如何将其经济实力转化为军事力量，试图在亚洲建立主导地位。中国希望将美国推离其沿海地区，建立类似于美国在西半球的霸权地位。约翰认为中国的这一战略是合理的，如果他是中国的国家安全顾问，也会建议中国这样做。

Highlights

The speaker argues that pushing Russia into China's arms has been a consequence of current foreign policy.

It has become universal to assume that the U.S. is in a state of conflict with China across political lines.

John's prediction from 2001 is highlighted, emphasizing that as China grows larger, conflict is inevitable.

The theory describes that when one nation becomes powerful, it becomes a threat to other dominant powers, like the U.S.

The United States views China as an enemy of its global aspirations due to its growing power.

Economist Jeff emphasizes a positive-sum approach to global relations, driven by trade and economic growth.

In contrast, John’s realist view focuses on survival and security in a zero-sum international environment.

John explains that in an anarchic system, without a higher authority, the best strategy for survival is to maximize power.

The U.S. has maintained its power by being the only regional hegemon, particularly dominating the Western Hemisphere.

China, leveraging its economic growth, is now translating that power into military might.

China seeks to dominate Asia and push the U.S. out of the first and second island chains.

John states that if he were advising China's leadership, he would recommend pursuing dominance in Asia, mirroring the U.S. strategy in the Western Hemisphere.

The discussion highlights a fundamental difference between prioritizing prosperity (Jeff’s view) versus prioritizing security (John’s view).

The balance of power theory suggests that as China becomes more powerful, the U.S. will inevitably see it as a competitor or adversary.

John justifies China's strategy to push U.S. influence out of Asia, framing it as a rational move for national security.

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