The question as to whether or not we 'really want to pal up with the more militarily aggressive US' seems to be quite starkly a choice between a world dominated by an, as you term it, aggressive - 'one-world super-power hegemon' (which face it, is in many ways on a steadily more troubled and declining slope), or on the other hand a multi-nodal world in which every country can choose the form of government that suits its own circumstances, society and traditions, and also have a choice of trade payment systems, not necessarily denominated only in a single currency. Thus, the question is essentially, Which of these two choices is the more healthy and free situation for humankind as a whole to thrive?
The balancing act of NATO-led security and the lucrative Chinese export market is why G20 figures are mentioning "de-risking" rather than decoupling. And when Helen Clark signed the landmark FTA with China in 2008, Hu Jintao - a Dengist - was president. Hu's successor Xi is kind of a dollarshop Mao.
The Economist explains: What does “de-risking” trade with China mean?
Ngà mihi, enjoyed reading this!
Thanks for reading!
Enjoyed reading thanks! Appreciated the balanced analysis 👏
Thanks for this Henry. I’ve only made the briefest of forays into China and I don’t begin to understand, but this opens up a lot.
Great read! Going to shanghai and guangzhou soon for the first time and can't wait.
Have fun!!!! Get jian bing if you can (traditionally a northern delicacy but should be available.)
The question as to whether or not we 'really want to pal up with the more militarily aggressive US' seems to be quite starkly a choice between a world dominated by an, as you term it, aggressive - 'one-world super-power hegemon' (which face it, is in many ways on a steadily more troubled and declining slope), or on the other hand a multi-nodal world in which every country can choose the form of government that suits its own circumstances, society and traditions, and also have a choice of trade payment systems, not necessarily denominated only in a single currency. Thus, the question is essentially, Which of these two choices is the more healthy and free situation for humankind as a whole to thrive?
The balancing act of NATO-led security and the lucrative Chinese export market is why G20 figures are mentioning "de-risking" rather than decoupling. And when Helen Clark signed the landmark FTA with China in 2008, Hu Jintao - a Dengist - was president. Hu's successor Xi is kind of a dollarshop Mao.
The Economist explains: What does “de-risking” trade with China mean?
https://archive.is/kJYcI