Jump to content

If there must be a global Hegemon… what nation should it be? Should it be a Nation?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you're saying two competing hegemons is better than one hegemon I absolutely agree.  Never said otherwise

And I'm not quite disagreeing with you either. ;) Just pointing out that in a sense, the respective merits of the US and China are irrelevant, and that underlining them is in fact an American perspective.

Though I don't agree that "this is the worst form of an international order, except for all the others." The Soviet Union democratizing under Gorbatchev and turning into a truly socialist model was my ideal scenario.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're playing pretty fast and loose with your "facts" here.

It's more that I'm comparing things that can't (shouldn't) really be compared. The sufferings of millions should never be used as a talking point.
As far as facts go, I remember my source as being pretty solid (can't find it now, not sure it matters).
Anyway, the point was that for some peoples around the world, any superpower standing up to the US will end up being the "good guy," even if the US is a better model.

I've met people in the US, who had emigrated there from a Southern country, and who absolutely loathed US foreign policy.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure!  Not clear how this contradicts anything I said, other than some type of variation on the devil you know is better/worse than the devil you don't.

Infrastructure. You said China isn't "in any way preferable" to the US, but according to what I read, Chinese loans do allow to develop national infrastructure more than Western ones.
I'd rather talk of the West though (if we're talking finance, it's not just the US).
For instance, France is struggling with its share of responsibility as we speak, in Mali, where Russia is supporting the alternative to French neo-colonialism. And troups are being pulled out, not so much because French soldiers can't stand up to Russian mercenaries, but because France is hated by the people of Mali.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Denmark.

Your topic/question offered a free choice. 

Ask Greenland if they favor that.

Honestly if we must have a Hegemon.  must strip the permanent members if the UN Security Council of their Veto and empower the UN with its own dedicated military force.  Why should any one nation be a global Hegemon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hadn't even seen the title of the thread (was answering to DMC in the other).

I don't know if there must be one hegemon. But I know it really can't be a Western nation-state. Centuries of colonialism and neo-colonialism mean that no Western nation-state will ever be trusted by the entire world. Any hegemon from the West would mechanically turn some peoples against it.
If there is to be a leadership, it will have to come from the "South."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd question why any hegemon would ever act any different to the US if they were put in that position. Surely the main goal of a hegemon is to retain power and solidify their position. I struggle with the idea that if you put any other country as the world leader you would get a better, or even different outcome. The incentives would still be the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Just pointing out that in a sense, the respective merits of the US and China are irrelevant, and that underlining them is in fact an American perspective.

I really don't think it is.  At least, it's not a "US-ian" perspective.  I've had this discussion with numerous Latin American (and Asian, for that matter, albeit they have their own very well-founded biases against China for the most part) cohorts.

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Though I don't agree that "this is the worst form of an international order, except for all the others." The Soviet Union democratizing under Gorbatchev and turning into a truly socialist model was my ideal scenario.

Yep.  I'd file that under the Plato's Republic etc. examples I mentioned.  If wishes were horses.

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It's more that I'm comparing things that can't (shouldn't) really be compared. The sufferings of millions should never be used as a talking point.

Well then don't use it as a talking point.  I certainly didn't.

14 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Infrastructure. You said China isn't "in any way preferable" to the US, but according to what I read, Chinese loans do allow to develop national infrastructure more than Western ones.

I'm skeptical of this argument but open to being convinced otherwise.  Of course, ya know, with evidence.  Cuz I haven't seen anything to suggest China isn't any less exploitative than the west.

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't know if there must be one hegemon. But I know it really can't be a Western nation-state. Centuries of colonialism and neo-colonialism mean that no Western nation-state will ever be trusted by the entire world. Any hegemon from the West would mechanically turn some peoples against it.

Yeah I think this is why we're always gonna butt heads on this.  It's an extension of our normative v empiricist perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yeah I think this is why we're always gonna butt heads on this.  It's an extension of our normative v empiricist perspectives.

I really don't see what's "empirical" about trying to dismiss the past (and current) actions of the West and the resentment that they have fostered. The evidence about the impact of such resentment is overwhelming.

To minimize or dismiss it can only be a blind spot when trying to understand the world we live in.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Cuz I haven't seen anything to suggest China isn't any less exploitative than the west.

Since you're obviously being lazy about this (and insidiously putting the burden of proof on me), I'll be lazy as well, and just copy-paste something I found with google that -I think- sums it up nicely:

Quote

[...] figures also demonstrate that China’s role as a key development financier is not through what we count as aid, but primarily through the enormous lending programs from Chinese state-owned, especially the Export-Import Bank. Through these loans, China finances the bulk of its huge infrastructure investments, builds harbours, railways, roads, power plants, and prestigious public buildings. The publicly available information about the conditions attached to these loans vary. As more information is collected and published, they – unsurprisingly – paint a picture that is somewhere between the official rosy “no conditions attached story” and the ugly picture of a creditor that unscrupulously secures infrastructure as collateral for its loans. The combination of very substantial loans and economic challenges in many developing countries presents China with the well-known challenge of creditors – what to do when loans are not repaid as agreed.

Comparing Western and Chinese policies is difficult, because it's not clear how China will behave in the future with its debtors. But it should be easy to see that, for people on the ground, who ends up owning the infrastructure doesn't matter that much, as long as it's being built and they benefit from it.
The point being that China is starting massive programs of development that may have some strings attached, but are not being done at gunpoint. Nor has China tried to make ideological demands (like "structural reforms") of its debtors so far.
These two points (no military invasion or pressure, and no ideological demands) should be enough to make China "less exploitative than the West" in anyone's book, at least so far.
Combined with resentment toward the West (which is not universal, to be clear, but still widespread), which means China has a rather low bar to clear in the first place, this helps explain why China becoming the new hegemon is not a scary prospect for much of the world.
And btw, we both know why you were careful to talk about "Biden/Obama's US."

All this merely to explain why the idea that "this is the worst form of an international order, except for all the others." is not an idea everyone will agree with.
Though needless to say, I do agree with it when it comes to my own self, at least as long as Biden is your president.
 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

At least, it's not a "US-ian" perspective.  I've had this discussion with numerous Latin American (and Asian, for that matter, albeit they have their own very well-founded biases against China for the most part) cohorts.

Dude, I wouldn't say half of the things I'm writing here if I were face to face with an American. :P
It's the type of conversation that doesn't end well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I really don't see what's "empirical" about trying to dismiss the past (and current) actions of the West and the resentment that they have fostered. The evidence about the impact of such resentment is overwhelming.

To minimize or dismiss it can only be a blind spot when trying to understand the world we live in.

Right, because that's totally what I'm trying to do.  I'm not sure how many qualifications or hoops I have to jump through for you to engage with an actual argument instead of just flippantly accusing me of a position I never took.  

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Since you're obviously being lazy about this (and insidiously putting the burden of proof on me), I'll be lazy as well, and just copy-paste something I found with google that -I think- sums it up nicely

I'm sorry I was "insidiously" asking you for evidence for an assertion I am unfamiliar with.  Let the hate flow through you.

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

All this merely to explain why the idea that "this is the worst form of an international order, except for all the others." is not an idea everyone will agree with.
Though needless to say, I do agree with it when it comes to my own self, at least as long as Biden is your president.

Ok, but I don't see why you need to be a dick about it and repeatedly cast aspersions.  I'd expect that from many other posters but not you.  Oh well, congrats, I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...