In his new essay for the New York-based International Affairs journal, Mearsheimer argues that the US and China are locked in a harmful safety competitors, extra perilous than the primary Chilly Warfare. In essence, as soon as China grew rich, a US-China chilly struggle was inevitable. Had US policymakers understood this logic within the early Nineties, they might have tried to decelerate Chinese language progress and maximise the ability hole between Beijing and Washington.
Nevertheless, the US did the other: it pursued a coverage of engagement, which aimed to assist China develop wealthier – based mostly on the idea that China would develop into a democracy and a accountable stakeholder, which might result in a extra peaceable world. As an alternative of fostering harmonious relations between China and the US, engagement led to an intense rivalry.
Is Australia and the world in serious trouble? Absent a significant inner Chinese language disaster, Washington and Beijing are consigned to waging a harmful safety competitors. Can we handle on the margins to stop catastrophe?
John Mearsheimer is professor of political science and worldwide relations on the College of Chicago and writer of The Tragedy of Nice Energy Politics (2001). He was a visitor on the Centre for Impartial Research in 2019.
Host: Tom Switzer is govt director of the Centre for Impartial Research.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free alternative and particular person liberty and the open trade of concepts. CIS encourages debate amongst main lecturers, politicians, media and the general public. We purpose to ensure good coverage concepts are heard and critically thought of in order that Australia can prosper. Observe CIS on our Socials;
Twitter –
Fb –
Linkedin –
📖 Learn extra from CIS right here:
💬 Be part of within the dialog within the feedback.
👍 Like this video if you happen to loved it and need to see extra, it actually helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click on the bell to look at our movies first:
⏲️ Missed this occasion stay? Subscribe to CIS to be updated with all our occasions:
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list-
💳 Help us with a tax-deductible donation at –
source
Dr. Mearshimer forgot to mention (or, maybe, this concept escaped him): USA went into China to get access to cheap labor and cheap way of doing business, while extracting huge profits. Sure, China gained and its population benefited. But, come on, let's not forget the fact that USA industries made huge profits, its elite became wealthier beyond imagination, and its stock holders made money.
So basiclly, just be a good lapdog for the US papa
This presentation makes the false assumption that China and Russia will allow themselves to be contained in their region of the world. The Monroe Doctrine will never be accepted by these two superpowers because the U.S. disregards this doctrine when it is applied to them. This is precisely why China is rapidly expanding its blue water navy and just successfully tested a hypersonic ICBM. Mearsheimer keeps disparaging Russia as a declining power but this ignores a key indicator of the strength of a country. The ability to innovate. I don't see how a country can be labeled as in decline when it still has the means to develop and deploy weapons systems like Avangard, Kinzhal, and Tsirkon hypersonic missile systems that the U.S. has no answer for. Also, I don't understand why Mearsheimer is looking at alleged population decline in China as a form of social pressure. The U.S. has been harping about Japan's population decline as a ticking time bomb for decades. Apparently, this bomb doesn't have a fuse. U.S.' own population, especially Whites, are also flatlining, and going into decline. Guess this explains why a mob of "White Nationalists" assaulted their own capital, an attack which one of their two parties actually encouraged, and maybe had a hand in orchestrating. Instead of vigilantly scanning the horizon for enemies, maybe they should instead focus within.
Lee Kuan Yew – When the American CIA tried to bribe him and a Singapore official Aug 1965
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNQXLhIcPrc
What is up with these sino simps and bots in every single one of John Mearsheimer's lectures?
The first few minutes are poppycock. US corporations saw the opportunities for cheap production of goods in China that contributed to the major economic boom in the 1990s in the US. What means would he have suggested to slow down China, war?
Sorry to find John Mearshimer supported for new Cold War.
I have a message for John. It was said almost 100 years ago – Capitalist sales you the rope and lubricant to make sure loop worked fine, so you can hang him on that rope. There is another famous K. Marx quote that "at 300 percent there is no crime that it would not risk, even on pain of the gallows."
KING SOLOMON KING DAVID KNIGHTS TEMPLAR FREEMASONS
US FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WORLD WAR I WORLD WAR II ISRAEL
I usually like his lectures but this one is below par. I see him trying hard to stir up fear. When was the last time China invaded another country or dropped any bombs?
Is a discussion on how China could avoid military conflict and use its economic power worth consideration?
The most complicated aspect of contemporary geopolitics is trying to convince the hundreds of millions of progressive citizens across NATO member nations one thing: When it comes to geopolitics, they've been running the show this whole time. Progressives are convinced that is impossible, because if the goal of invading the middle east (for example) was really to spread "liberal democracy", then in their minds it would have worked. Progressives are true believers in social engineering, and whenever it fails they have to come up with a conspiracy about the US simply wanting to exploit foreign countries for their natural resources or cheap labor. Progressive ideology invaded and conquered the realm of foreign policy within the Republican party in the 20th century, there are only a few holdouts like congressman Rand Paul who is a critic of NATO's position on Ukraine. But when an idea is so dominant, and yet fails so consistently, eventually something has to give.
Looks like his prediction about Afghanistan was wrong. Wondering how Mr. Mearsheimer feels about the way U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan?
You used China to make your cheap goods and they knew what you were all doing but now everyone's been caught with their pants around their ankles. You yankee pollies and so called intellects disgust me.
Give Afghanistan back it's money you stole, so children are not starving.
Mearsheimer is right. I don't see China coming out on top in any attempt to take Taiwan through military actions. The only possible outcome is for the United States to diminish to an extent that its Pacific allies start cutting security deals with China, but even considering the internal situation of U.S politics, it's not going away any time soon.
"That may be true but, who cares"
Beautiful
Back to 80s, US eagerly needed China's help for the sake of defeating Russian. In the 90s, and the New century, US needed China to keep the inflation in check while having wars in gulf and Afghanistan. US policy makers were not stupid. People always need to put things in different priority in different stage. US and China indeed needed each other in the last 40 years. If you were put in the position of US president 20 years ago, you would definitely do the same thing.
Western greed with importing jobs to China strengthened it. Then China perfected and further enhanced engineering and production techniques to create those products and utilized it for itself and monopolized. The west created it's enemies. By design, greed or pure idiocy.
This is wonderful for me at this stage in my widom. "He talks like the United Nations has 20 divisions to enforce the rules" Napoleon said to his general who said the Pope was against something– "How many division does the Vatican have"? No this guy is dead right–we are at the end of the day governed by our DNA–and we like soldiers power and being number 1. That will never change even with all the CRT 23 bathrooms and equity and UN votes. Liberal democracy may even be on the way out.
As a Chinese,I would appreciate John's speech which consistently fool the west and let them make wrong policy
My difficulty with Mearsheimer is he is American to the core. His entire argument is supremist. WE made China great. No China made China great. All we have to do is learn to live with others. It's called cooperation. China may well be intent on being a regional hegemon. SO! The planet is not ours to run. However, like the local bar room bully, it's tough to become one of the crew.
Great watch. thanks
China is not controlled by a huge military-industrial-congressional complex as is the U.S.A. The case Prof J. M. makes here about the "China danger" as well as the strong possibility of a hot war breaking out much more easily now, should come as music to the ears of the bosses of the MIC complex.
this discussion shows that the USA is a criminal state, led by a terrorist GOVERNMENT, they only go to war to destroy and rob. Australia's policy shows that it wants to follow the United States in creating a military and genocidal conflict against the Chinese people.
Prof didn't hear about the recent Evergrand disaster. Much of the impressive Chinese growth has been generated by real estate and infrastructure investment which are about to explode as we speak.
60 trillion dollars the most powerful bomb ever created.
Soft power
Even this is waning. With more Chinese traveling aboard, they realise the ‘american dream’ is just a myth. One does not need a microscope or magnifying glass, just look at the world record death of Americans under covid. The last straw is broken.
Realism tells you what's going to happen, but that only matters turns into a "should" with a goal. Is preventing this cold war really worth keeping a billion people poor?
Don't read the comments here, that'll only make you dumber.
Yale university China opening supported the rise of Mao
My studies have led me to believe our"elected" officials and the dark forces that implement policies actually truly believe in the authoritism idealism of communism and willingly volunteer sensitive info to China ISREAL and Russia amongst other foreign entities
Do you believe like I do that there is a greater narrative than even stated by professor mearsheimer who I greatly respect?
What is the basis that Mearsheimer to assume that China will do what US does if it becomes the dominating power in East Asia? China never built colonies in East Asia at its peak of power in its history as Greeks, Roman Empire, Europe, UK or US did.
And what is the reason that Australia will be worse off China becomes the dominating power?
Putin laughs at Johnson desperate Ukrainian TV appearance.
Johnson and his clown show here in the Banana Republic of London, have
been kept well out of the Ukraine loop for safety by the EU, Nato, UN and
the U.S. You may remember Johnson's candid photo at Stansted airport
after seeming to have slept in the Easy Jet baggage hold, on his return
from his fourth attendance at the oligarch's favorite son's drug addled
'Russian Bonga Bonga' style party in 2016 at Lebedev's palace in Perugia, which is
"so camera'd up that shots can be taken from ten angles at a time for
"extra clarity" where "everything is on the menu" and
according to MI5,6,7,8 and 9 "all who attend are compromised by Putin's
dubious friends"
It appears that in the corridors of Brussels,
they haven't forgotten either. "We don't want Johnson, the fat,scruffy
liar, to spill the beans again to Putin in exchange for a further delay
in publishing the "Italian party pictures in HD" regarding our actions
and our plans to help in Ukraine" said Šefčovič to Zelensky
Admittedly, indulging China in the hope of liberalizing them has mostly failed as the CCP under Xi Jinping has taken a much more powerful China back to the days of the Cultural Revolution under Mao. But, the story is not necessarily over. While we do need an economic and security posture that can keep China from dominating the world, we must be realistic about our own abilities in that regard. I believe in the long run we must recognize that our values are our most important interests. Defending liberal democratic values anywhere they are threatened may be beyond our power militarily, but it is not beyond our power philosophically or diplomatically. Perhaps the war in Afghanistan was unwise from the beginning, but is it ever wise to make a deal with theocratic terrorists while ignoring an elected government we helped form and support for 20 years? More than 50,000 Afghans gave their lives for that government and the Taliban has not finished hunting down and killing others who collaborated with us. Should we similarly stab the Ukrainians in the back because their democratic aspirations offend the comfort of a corrupt, dictatorial power? And, are these betrayals the price we must pay to devote sufficient resources to the defense of Taiwan, which has always been, after all, a province of China? In my mind, the freedom of every single individual on this planet is in our interest. Abandoning that belief suggests that some people are worth saving from tyranny while others are not. Even if we can't literally "pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe for the survival and the success of liberty", should we not continue to cherish that commitment as an ideal upon which our country was founded? We have succeeded most when we fought to make the world safe for democracy, not so much when we started worrying about falling dominoes.
I think his assessment is accurate, but the steps he’s suggesting the US should take are… psychotic. Geopolitics isn’t a board game, and peoples lives are materially affected by these decisions. Asserting that the US should have curtailed Chinese economic growth in the 90s would have meant keeping standards of living down for Chinese citizens. If your only end goal is maintaining US hegemony I guess his advice is sound, but I would like to think we would want to focus on improving human welfare globally.
Disagree with his alternate history. It was not very realistic for the US to slow China's rise. If US companies did not enter China, then European companies would have done so. And these European companies would have gained an edge over their US and Japanese competitors.
That's why all advanced countries do business with China: if they don't, then their competitors will, and they'll just fall behind. Like if GM and Toyota boycott China, then they just concede market share to the likes of VW and Daimler. And China would still develop an auto industry.
Some of you should watch more of Mearsheimer's lectures. He does not claim moral high ground nor is he in support of US atrocities or supportive of US interference abroad. He's been saying the same things for years.
Realists are the apostles of a zero-sum game.
The US realists not only slowing down China's economy but also building up other regional power (India) to maintain the struggle for power-of-balance. An analogous policy the US had adopted in western Europe
"I'm glad to be back" he says…. ha, ha, ha… and the presenter doesn't seem to get it:
"Back in black… I hit the sack… I bet you know I'm glad to be back…"
The entire financial architecture in China is a lattice work that is still very much dependent on the US financial institutions/markets. It can be dismantled/cut off relatively quickly. Venture capital that incubates and cultivates Chinese high technology companies could be redirected back to the US mainland. That's why the Chinese are frantically trying to reduce their reliance on consumer product exports, and build out their middle class domestic markets. It would so easy for the US navy to cripple both Russia and China's merchant sea going fleets. Both countries are extremely reliant on exports via ocean transport. Russia's navy is a joke. China's navy is designed to defend it's coast. It wouldn't stand a chance against the US navy if it ventured out to the mid Pacific. Russian oil and LNG tankers wouldn't even think of trying sail through the US navy. It would be a suicide mission.
Believe or not USA can’t declare a3th war against China and Russian, because America has created a lot of enemies around China. Maybe they tell America that they are going to help America simultaneously they let it sink in a dirty lack. The enmities are India Pakistan Japan both korian. Iran and most Arabs countries. They shouldn’t forget South America they will not let that opportunity to be lost. Regardless of what I said they shouldn’t forget the inside forces movement whom the are thursty to David America. For that America won’t declare a 3th war.
Wake up Tom, its China/Russia we are dealing with . .