Crescent International
Over the past several weeks international news headlines have frequently featured bitter political friction among Western regimes.
France’s spat with Australia over its submarine deal with Washington and London sidelining Paris is one example.
This was followed by France threating to impose sanctions on Britain over fishing rights.
And finally the EU threatening Britain over its renegotiation of trade issues at the Irish border clearly point to the fact that not all is well in the neo-colonialist camp.
Taken separately, these political differences do not appear serious.
They nevertheless underline the lack of cohesiveness among states which have made it their mission to take on China and prevent the unraveling of the West-centric global order.
In the post-Covid world where China’s economic predominance is undeniable, other countries cannot afford to ignore Beijing, especially developing countries.
A couple of years ago it could be argued that China’s frictions with Western regimes were of tactical economic nature and mostly confined to Donald Trump’s amateurish understanding of the world.
The continuation by Joe Biden regime of many of Trump’s policies has transformed the tensions with China to a strategic level.
Beijing understands that today no significant economic strides can be made without its direct or indirect participation.
Therefore, China will utilize the materialistic nature of Western realpolitik to its advantage by skillfully utilizing its carrots and sticks.
The primary politico-economic competition between China and the Western regimes will not be confined only to the developing countries, but will encompass developed countries as well.
China is one of the largest foreign direct investors in Germany, mainly focusing on transport and technology sectors.
This shows that for many Western economies, especially in Europe, their continued prosperity is reliant on Chinese money.
Surely, Beijing will not dish out money to states that join Washington’s artificial policy of strategic containment of China.
While the West-centric policy centers are still trying to argue that China’s economic growth is dependent on Western economies, the same policy centers admit that many Western economies are in turmoil.
In this situation, instead of trying to put down China and defeat it politically, Western regimes would be better served if they were to create a framework where they could have their institutions and mechanisms adopt to a multipolar world order.
This, however, is unlikely to happen.
Arrogance is a difficult vice to shed, a phenomenon now evident to many Americans as well.
In a recent commentary published by the Cato Institute, Ted Galen Carpenter pointed out that “Washington has always tried to play its role as benevolent global leader. The reality is decidedly less savory and far more self‐centered. Washington’s actual attitude since World War II is one of arrogant national narcissism, and the problem persists in our own era.”
At the broader level, China’s economic and geopolitical success in Western markets depends on its cooperation with Russia.
Russia’s significant advantage on Western energy markets and China’s strong lead in the manufacturing sector, if fused together, offer a strategic recipe for global economic dominance.
Currently relations between Beijing and Moscow seem to run a lot smoother than between NATO members.
Both Moscow and Beijing seem to have learned from their experience during the Cold War era that their hostility will only benefit NATO and are determined not to repeat this mistake.
Ironically, China’s best facilitator to increase influence in the developing world is aggressive interventionist Western policies, which seem to be determined to maintain their usual destructive course.
It seems that NATO regimes overestimate their economic and political capabilities to retain their global dominance.
Instead of acknowledging a multipolar world order and building new mechanisms, they cling to old paradigms which no longer apply.
