China, a world leader soon?

[terranMarine]

I think the quoted "experts" in this article are full of BS. How is ditching the TTP is a bad thing? Are they paid by Soros (Soros standing for the neocon PNAC crap)?

Anyway, I don't think China is stupid enough and interested to take over the US role anytime soon or ever.

TPP anyway you are absolutely right that China is not a stupid country that's for sure . US has brought death and destruction upon the world after WW2 when Europe, Asia were busy rebuilding our economies and China still has a long way to go as it is not a fully developed country comparable to Western Europe, Japan standard due to its geographical size and the immense population. Even if one day China truly becomes a complete developed country (which i doubt due to the massive land and population) it's not our nature to copy a certain type of US behavior. China does not want to dictate, meddle foreign domestic affairs, bomb the world , instead China will keep on contributing to UN peace keeping missions, help other developing countries to develop, more global trade (that's right it's not gonna be China first, China first). America can keep that job, it's like playing Russian roulette

 

[yantong1980]

World leader? Sound like mass media. It's non-existent, big huss-huss non-sense. It's American job not China duty.

 

[TaiShang]

TPP anyway you are absolutely right that China is not a stupid country that's for sure . US has brought death and destruction upon the world after WW2 when Europe, Asia were busy rebuilding our economies and China still has a long way to go as it is not a fully developed country comparable to Western Europe, Japan standard due to its geographical size and the immense population. Even if one day China truly becomes a complete developed country (which i doubt due to the massive land and population) it's not our nature to copy a certain type of US behavior. China does not want to dictate, meddle foreign domestic affairs, bomb the world , instead China will keep on contributing to UN peace keeping missions, help other developing countries to develop, more global trade (that's right it's not gonna be China first, China first). America can keep that job, it's like playing Russian roulette

Interventionism and giving out security guarantees left and right in return for accruing political subjugation (and then thinking this suggests soft hard, or smart power, somehow) is unsustainable in the long run.

The US international governance model has shown us it is inherently contradictory, why copy a failing model? Why want to become like a failing and internally ill "global leader?"

China did not get its present achievements easily and the national rejuvenation project is far from being complete. The best it can offer a win-win, as @long_ . It really cannot be the savior or guarantor.

 

[terranMarine]

Interventionism and giving out security guarantees left and right in return for accruing political subjugation (and then thinking this suggests soft hard, or smart power, somehow) is unsustainable in the long run.

The US international governance model has shown us it is inherently contradictory, why copy a failing model? Why want to become like a failing and internally ill "global leader?"

China did not get its present achievements easily and the national rejuvenation project is far from being complete. The best it can offer a win-win, as @long_ . It really cannot be the savior or guarantor.

Just look at US financial contribution to NATO, Trump has been complaining about it even before he took office. Demanding European members to contribute more, SK and JP should pay more for US protection. Basically it's a huge financial burden when you look at this model. Though unsustainable to US it's a price she is willing to pay for. Containment of Russia and China doesn't come cheap