On April 20, 2024, the United States Congress passed a ninety-five billion dollar funding package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It was confirmation that the country is engaged in another world war. On one side is the United States with Europe, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Israel and a few other countries which I suppose you could call the West. On the other side is Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, which I call the Eurasian Alliance. The current war, which I call World War V,[1] is in its early stages having by my estimates commenced with the Russian Special Military Operation into Ukraine in February, 2022. Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary and also former president of Harvard University, said on May 3, 2024 during the taping of Bloomberg’s Wall Street Week that the United States was facing the “most dangerous geopolitical moment in two generations.”
At the heart of this world war is the reality that China and the United States are locked in what is known as a great power struggle. The winner will become the leading country on the planet. Life for the loser will change in many ways both domestically and internationally. Therefore, this world war is likely an important test of whether the American Century continues, or whether it ends.
Coupled with this geopolitical power struggle between great powers is the internal situation in the United States. Essential to maintaining the American Century is the ability to both successfully export the American Proposition around the world, and to maintain its credibility at home with the US citizenry. Belief in the American Proposition is declining in the US and has been for a while given wars, vast economic inequalities, the promulgation of damaging ideologies like LGBTQ, CRT, DEI and more, as well as growing anomie.[2] Acceptance of the American Proposition by the great powers of the Eurasian Alliance – Russia, China – appears blunted, and these powers are setting forth their own view of social organization which may be gaining some support around the globe.
When it comes to China, we see the economic interests, the powerful private interests or the plutocrats, as I call them, seeking to further penetrate and develop that market. These efforts come as realization dawns that many of these same economic interests facilitated the rise of China, while at the same time contributing to the weakening of the United States. American business and innovation often lead the world and with American finance served as a bulwark to defend the country, at least until recently with the rise of China. This state of affairs highlights the power of the powerful private interests domestically and also internationally, and it calls into question their loyalty to any one country. The immediate question appears to be whether or not the powerful private interests will be able to penetrate China, thereby effecting change in Chinese society. It is logical that these interests would want to put pressure on China to open up, and that pressure could include waging war, if history is a guide.
Beginnings
In February, 1941, Henry R. Luce, founder of Time, Inc. and publisher of Time and Life magazines, famously announced the beginning of the American Century in an opinion piece by the same name in Life. Writing that for “the first time in history,” the planet is “one world, fundamentally indivisible,” Luce went on to say that the Twentieth Century must be an “American Century” if the world is to “come to life in any nobility of health and vigor.”[3]
An “American Century” meant “It is for America and for America alone to determine whether a system of free economic enterprise – an economic order compatible with freedom and progress – shall or shall not prevail in this century. We know perfectly well that there is not the slightest chance of anything faintly resembling a free economic system prevailing in this country if it prevails nowhere else.” America would insure “freedom of the seas” and become a “dynamic leader of world trade” since these allowed for “the possibilities of such enormous human progress as to stagger the imagination.”[4]
The best of America was to be on display and in effect as she sent “out through the world its technical and artistic skills” to be the “Good Samaritan of the entire world.” Americans must keep a “vision of America as a world power” that “includes a passionate devotion to great American ideals.” These included “a love of freedom, a feeling for the equality of opportunity, a tradition of self-reliance and independence and also of cooperation.” These ideals were to lift “the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the Psalmist called a little lower than the angels.” Americans inherited and would spread “justice, the love of Truth, the ideal of Charity” which are “the great principles of Western civilization.” At the root of all of this was the “triumphal purpose of freedom” that wove together all the “manifold projects and magnificent purposes” that graced North America.[5]
To achieve all of this, the Liberal Order was to be shipped around the world in the packaging of American values. This was “a vision of Freedom under Law. Without Freedom, there will be no abundant life. With Freedom, there can be.” In the section entitled “America’s vision of our world…. How it shall be created” Luce wrote that there must be “a sharing with all peoples of our Bill of Rights, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our magnificent industrial products, our technical skills. It must be an internationalism of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Americans had to advance an ideal that was meant to make “the society of men safe for freedom, growth and increasing satisfaction of all individual men.” This was the heart of the American Proposition. Along with all of this, American culture would be exported and that culture included “American jazz, Hollywood movies, American slang, American machines and patented products.”[6]
To Luce, it was a patriotic duty for Americans to advance the American Century. Americans, he wrote, should “accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”[7]
The US involvement in World War II began about eleven months after Luce’s article. The clear winner of that war was the United States which went on to ship its goods, ideas, financing, culture and more around most of the world. Included with all of that is the creation of the world order that came about with the United Nations, creation of other associated international bodies, and principles such as those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
American success was predicated on unity, the same kind of unity that Thomas Paine urged in 1776. That unity also required loyalty to a country, or patriotism as we know it. Unity and patriotism were required not just for World War II, but also to sustain the American Century.
If the American Century is supposed to be one hundred years, and the clock started ticking in 1941, then time is up in 2041. We are in 2024, so seventeen years remain. If the American Century ended with the Twentieth Century, as Henry Luce said, then we are well past time for the ending of the American Century. We are, in any event, at “an inflection point in history” as said by President Joe Biden in his address to the nation on October 20, 2023.[8]
Ray Dalio and the Decline of the US
About seventy years after Luce announced the start of the American Century, Time magazine recognized Ray Dalio as one of the “100 Most Influential People in the World.” A “very ordinary middle-class kid” from Long Island, Dalio started Bridgewater Associates, an “industry-leading institutional investment firm” that became the “largest hedge fund in the world.” At one point, it held over $ 160 billion under management, but recently it came under severe criticism for its “lackluster five-year run” and investors are now pulling their money out.[9] Dalio went on to become an “advisor to top policy makers” and earned the title of the “Steve Jobs of investing.” He is a billionaire currently worth about $ 15 billion.[10]
Dalio turned to writing books in his late 60s, and one of these was The Changing World Order which examined the factors explaining the rise and decline of the great empires since the time of the Dutch and British continuing into the American rise and decline and finishing with the Chinese rise. Dalio, as a hedge fund operator, has to forecast with some certainty events or else he stands to lose a lot of money. In writing the book, he claims to have used rigorous methods in examining macro history. This included setting forth clear definitions, accumulating and analyzing reams of data, and checking his work with scholars in various disciplines. Dalio’s book certainly sets forth and reinforces perceptions that the geopolitical landscape is changing at a critical time. Whether he intended to influence thinking on the topic is a matter of further discussion, but publishing such a work is likely to affect people’s thinking and perceptions while revealing what the plutocratic class is thinking themselves.
Dalio developed 18 factors[11] that he used to assess a country’s strength. He also came up with something called cycles to measure where a country was in terms of its rise and decline. These were the Big Debt/Money/Capital Markets/Economic Cycle, the Big Cycle of Internal Order and Disorder, and the Big Cycle of External Order and Disorder. They key dynamic is whether the various factors interact with each other to reinforce the rise or reinforce the fall of a great power. When it comes to national power, he is of the view that the most important factors of national power are innovation and inventiveness. Dalio is admittedly proceeding from a capitalist world view in his analyses. He notes that the “biggest thing affecting most people in most countries through time is the struggle to make, take and distribute wealth and power” though ideology and religion have been sources of struggle.[12] We are witnessing an “archetypical big shift in relative wealth and power and the world order that will affect everyone in all countries in profound ways” writes Dalio.[13]
According to Dalio, the United States is in decline, and China is on the rise.[14] The US peaked around 1950 and gradually declined after that with the decline more pronounced after 2000. The one area in which the US still maintains great power is in the financial arena as the US has huge and well-functioning capital markets even if there is a burgeoning debt crisis and threats to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.[15] The US is about 60 % to 80 % through its “Big Cycle” of rise and decline as Dalio puts it, and reversing decline is difficult. The domestic situation is in stage five of six possible stages due to divisions in politics and divergent values that came about as a result of the concentration of wealth.[16] Things have not gotten to the point of outright physical conflict in America, but civil war would put an end to US hegemony. Writing in late 2021, Dalio put the chances of a US civil war in the next five to ten years at 30%.[17]
History has shown that a rising power will overtake a declining power as a result of a civil war in the declining power. It is not hard to see the depth of the division in the United States between “left” and “right” or Republican and Democrat, or MAGA and everyone else. There is evidence that the Chinese Communist Party is fueling this division as well as moral corruption if not also political corruption,[18] while at the same time Chinese economic power, military might and diplomatic initiatives are expanding.
Wars between states lead to the rise and fall of empires, and a common reason for these wars has always been trade. The Dutch Empire ended when defeated by the UK in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in 1784, after which the UK became the great power. World War II bankrupted the UK, caused the loss of its colonies, ended its status as a hegemon, and lead to the rise of the US as the hegemon. A war between the US and China is underway according to Dalio[19] and so it is reasonable to conclude that it will determine the next global power especially if there is internal conflict in one of the powers.
The Rise of China
Per Dalio, all of China’s determinants, except for competitiveness, are rising, and China has strong internal dynamics meaning cohesion, strong leadership with a vision that sees China rising to its rightful place in the world, and a strong, homogenous culture. Recent evidence independent of Dalio’s work indicates that the US still keeps a lead over China, but in many areas China is fast approaching parity if it has not already achieved superiority.
When it comes to economic might, China produces about 28% to 30% of the world’s goods.[20] They produce so many goods in fact that complaints are surfacing that they are flooding the world markets.[21] While the Chinese have vast industrial capacities, they are employing strategies that include government subsidies and theft of intellectual property as well as free labor (read, slave labor).[22] As to the last point, China violated, and continues to violate, human rights with its treatment of the Uighurs, something the UN has condemned for a long time.[23] Added to all of that is the repression, often brutal, of dissidents, dissenters, and opponents of Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Chinese government even obtained a modicum of control over who the Catholic Church appointed as bishops[24] undoubtedly recognizing the danger posed by Catholics as carriers of the American Proposition or of Liberal ideals condemned by the CCP.
China produces most ships in the world (over 58%) with at least 20 shipbuilding facilities[25], and as a result its navy is larger than the US Navy with capabilities on parity with the US Navy while its air force is fast approaching parity with the US Air Force. China has a much larger army, and its weapon systems are rapidly improving. Its nuclear arsenal is better and can reach farther than just 10 years ago while conventional weapon systems are also better.[26]
One flashpoint of the great power struggle is Taiwan, though there are any of a number of other locations in Asia that could provide an opportunity for armed conflict between China and its neighbors if not also with the United States. Taiwan is perhaps most important as it is a center of the semiconductor and electronic chip making industry of the world, but there is an ongoing struggle in the Spratley Islands off Indonesia and the Parcels not far from Vietnam. The issue is the positioning of bases for military purposes as China seeks to break out of the island chain that runs from Japan to the South China Sea. China is encountering push back from Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, and the US has solidified relations with the Philippines and Japan. Perhaps most surprisingly, in a move reminiscent of the Portuguese from the time of Hugo Grotius, the Chinese are claiming ownership or sovereignty of most of the South China Sea. The seas belong to no one though territorial waters are recognized as belonging to each country meaning that each country has jurisdiction over a patch of the ocean which can be up to 200 nautical miles. In 2016, an arbitral panel, invoking the provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), which itself contains principles of law going back millennia or at least to the time of Justinian, ruled against China’s claim to the South China Sea. China disregarded the ruling.
China has weaknesses, of course. Its Belt and Road Initiative, which builds infrastructure in a number of countries around the globe, and is supposed to advance Chinese goodwill to a point, is encountering some push back.[27] The Chinese expect to be repaid, and in some cases there are rumblings against the Chinese already by the client countries. China has trouble feeding its own population and so it imports up to 23% of its food by some estimates, and the US is perhaps the biggest single provider of those imports.[28] Unlike the US which is energy sufficient, China imports 59% of its oil, with most from Saudi Arabia.[29] Natural gas is coming from Russia as is some oil, and those capacities are increasing. Glutting the world with cheap Chinese goods is causing a backlash with developed and developing countries. The Chinese economy is in a slump and domestic consumption is flat, but there is a high savings rate that prompts some to say China is in transition,[30] a transition which the Western financial capitalists are interested in exploiting or managing.
Despite this situation, China has a good strategy and solid messaging. The strategy is to blunt Western influence as Rush Doshi explains, followed by building capabilities and finally by expanding influence.[31] China seeks “smokeless conquests” like the Americans, and in that regard it has employed economic and diplomatic initiatives aimed at the developing and the developed world. An essential part of this approach is a right message, or a message that at least resonates with target audiences. China portrays itself as leading the community of nations to a better place economically and working to reform the international order to make it a “more just and reasonable new international order.” This involves reforming the global governance system so as to reflect China’s “concern for the common good of humanity.”[32] Such a message reflects Xi’s own view of proper messaging which is to utilize “great power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics….[to] promote the building of a new type of international relations and the building of a community of common destiny for mankind.”[33]
As this is being written, China is stockpiling resources, namely raw materials, apparently in preparation of war. China’s strategic oil supply is around 400 million barrels or about 30 days’ supply and imports from Russia are up to about 2 million barrels a day which is one seventh of the daily requirements of the country. China was working to control one third of all global lithium by 2025, but China has massive resources of aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, copper, galium, germanium, iridium, tantalum, tin, tungsten, zinc and zirconium and rare earth elements. Gold is being bought by Chinese sending the price higher. Some view this build up of resources as a lesson learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[34]
Dalio predicts a 35% chance of war between the US and China in 10 years with Taiwan being the flashpoint. It is believed that China will go to war starting in 2027 though there is disagreement in the US about whether or not that decision has actually been made. In any event, it is believed that the Chinese military was ordered to be ready to go to war by that date. [35]
Blunting the American Proposition While American Interests Build China
The Chinese leadership opened up to the West after President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit. However, over time, Chinese leadership changed and the new leadership came to see the West as an enemy. Beginning in 2010, the CIA’s spies and sources in China were systematically imprisoned or executed effectively blinding the US.[36]
In 2012, the CCP issued a document in which it called Liberalism and the Liberal Order a great enemy and its principles hostile to the best interests of the Chinese people as well as the Chinese government.[37] Facebook, Google, YouTube and others are all censored or banned in China while the government provides its own version of these social platforms in the form of Wechat and Douyin.[38] American media is heavily restricted. The American Proposition is blunted as the Chinese develop, or resurrect, an ethnic society with mercantilistic economics. [39]
Increasingly, the Chinese government required US businesses to comply with their directives concerning the use, ownership and possession of business secrets and information. In addition to stealing intellectual property, the Chinese were increasing surveillance of American businesses. The environment was turning hostile to businesses, and China lost American businesses and much American investment.[40]
None of this entirely stopped the American financial and industry elites from doing business with China. Congressional hearings in February, 2024 revealed that McKinsey Group and other US consultants were regularly assisting foreign countries, including the CCP.[41] In a report released late in April, it was revealed that US financial firms, especially BlackRock, despite their protestations to the contrary, were funding the Chinese rise in technological and nuclear capabilities: “The reality is that BlackRock holds stock in Chinese companies pursuing an aggressive buildup of nuclear warheads meant to hold United States territory at risk.” [42] BlackRock is like other financial firms that employ index funds to make profits, increase savings, and enhance retirement funds for Americans. They do that by pulling together all the small, individual investors who are incapable of investing economically and productively on their own. The essence of BlackRock is to turn the weaknesses of others into their strength, a truly ingenious strategy.[43] These investment firms, managing enormous sums of money,[44] have inordinate influence over stock markets, companies, and societies around the world.[45]
It is at this point we observe a break in American unity. One cause is the pursuit of objectives by the powerful private interests that are at odds with the objectives needed for right ordered domestic and international societies. The second is a structural matter that is present in Liberal Orders particularly as they evolve, and the international order as it has been effected by the rise of Liberalism with capitalism.
The Plutocracy and A World System
The Liberal Order allows for the rise of the powerful private interests so they can become the real authorities in any society. This was certainly the case with the United States where the First Amendment could be used, or manipulated, to allow the elites to exist in relative freedom from fear of a strong government, a strong church and an angry populace that just realized it had been exploited. The Constitution itself provided protections to property while establishing a large market and institutions that were favorable to a financial system that could support and grow capitalism.
Over time, the interests of the elites diverged from those of their fellow countrymen and they not only grew restless but they grew less loyal to the land, people and system that gave them all they had. The American Century gave these elites a great opportunity to commence and grow their own global hegemony sometimes in conjunction with others and sometimes in conflict with others. Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum is such an example of the global elites – finance, industry, media, governments – coming together to plan and manage.
The central dynamic of human history is the struggle between the love of wealth and the love of God, the latter which manifests itself in the form of solidarity with one’s fellow man. The government or civil authorities of any society play a crucial role in moderating these two contradictory loves.
Dalio recognized that the innovative, the wealthy, the ambitious, the talented all work with the political authorities to achieve their goals. He explained:
“Throughout time and in all countries, the people who have the wealth are the people who own the means of wealth production. In order to maintain or increase their wealth, they work with the people who have the political power, who are in a symbiotic relationship with them, to set and enforce the rules…this dynamic leads to a very small percentage of the population gaining and controlling exceptionally large percentages of the total wealth and power, then becoming overextended, and then encountering bad time, which hurt those least wealthy and least powerful the hardest, which then leads to conflicts that produce revolutions and/or civil wars. When these conflicts are over, a new world order is created, and the cycle begins again.”[46]
This may be the closest Dalio comes to saying that the elites are ultimately responsible for the turmoil and division in societies, the rise and decline of great powers, and the great power competition that often takes the form of war. It is a significant statement all the same and should alert us to the real powers in society.
The late political scientist, advisor, and author, Samuel Huntington identified disloyalty of the American elites to their own people about twenty years ago. He wrote
“The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security, but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability – within acceptable conditions for evolution – of existing patters of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home.”[47]
The base of the power of the American elites, and a very safe one at that, is the United States. One would think that the elites would want to keep the place fairly quiet and orderly, but that does not appear to be the universal view among the plutocracy. One reason could be because of a realization of a greater vista – the entire globe – which affords them greater opportunities, and profits. Another reason could be simply to distract people from the real issues in society which is the inordinate accumulation and improper use of wealth by the few to the disadvantage of the many.
Immanuel Wallerstein was an academic and research scholar at Yale, and he was known for his world systems theory. He explained that the world is organized to serve capitalism, and that the “capitalist system cannot exist within any framework except that of a world-economy.” Wallerstein wrote:
“A capitalist system requires a very special relationship between economic producers and the holders of political power. If the latter are too strong, as in a world-empire, their interests will override those of the economic producers, and the endless accumulation of capital will cease to be apriority. Capitalists need a large market (hence mini-systems are too narrow for them) but they also need a multiplicity of states, so that they can gain the advantages of working with states, but also can circumvent states hostile to their interests in favor of states friendly to their interests. Only the existence of a multiplicity of states within the overall division of labor assures this possibility.”[48]
If all the world is a stage for the capitalists or the global plutocracy, then one of the largest prizes is China. The struggle with China is the age old one – who controls society? Is it the private interests, or is it the civil authorities?[49] The American system favors the former. While there was a dispute on this point for several years shortly after American independence, America resolved it with power resting primarily with the powerful private interests when it adopted the United States Constitution in 1788. These interests gained more power over the years. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, billionaires’ contributions to political campaigns have quintupled which means their power and influence has vastly increased. [50] Their involvement in selecting political leaders is incontrovertible. Their interests are to advance their own wealth and power primarily, and all else serves that goal. This is possible as the roots of the ideology supporting this reality can be found with Thomas Paine who said that civil society knows better than government. Dalio echoes it somewhat when he says that innovation and inventiveness are key to national power and are best achieved by capitalism working within the Liberal Order. These financial and economic interests have the power, means, motive and opportunity to make and break regimes.[51] Seeking the free flow of goods, services, people, capital and information across borders, and without an effective domestic and international authority capable of reining them in, they become the authority in society. The results have been less than heartening to many people, and hence the critiques of the Liberal Order with calls for its reform or its replacement.
The Chinese leadership witnessed these developments, and in China, power in society rests with the civil authorities. Billionaires like Jack Ma are silenced, retired, or worse. Often successful business leaders are charged with and convicted of crimes. Wealthy cabals are broken up in China, and the ruling regime, a nationalist regime, is the primary object of loyalty of the people.
The private interests work with political authorities all over the globe to advance their power, their wealth, and their control. They need to keep on the offensive, and that appears to include choosing hegemons to maximize their interests. Wallerstein wrote:
“As a hegemonic power declines, there are always others who attempt to replace it. But such replacement takes a long time, and ultimately another `thirty years’ war.’ Hence hegemony is crucial, repeated, and always relatively brief. The capitalist world-economy needs the state, needs the interstate system and needs the periodic appearance of hegemonic powers. But the priority of capitalists is never the maintenance, much less the glorification, of any of these structures. The priority remains always the endless accumulation of capital, and this is best achieved by an ever-shifting set of political and cultural dominances within which capitalist firms maneuver, obtaining their support from the states but seeking to escape their dominance.”[52]
In other words, the private interests pit countries against each other, and they pick and chose the leaders of the world. But things are not always that smooth. What if the new, the prospective, hegemon is one that is unwilling to cede real power to the private interests? What if the prospect refuses to grant the elites the desired market access and societal control they crave? What if the Chinese leadership is wise to the tricks of plutocrats?
The logical response is for these economic interests to remain with the current hegemon, at least for a while, and then set the stage for war between the two countries as a lever of sorts to coerce some change in the prospective great power. War – whether won or lost — changes every society that engages in it, and China has been, and would be, no different.
American plutocrats and their trade organizations wooed Xi Jinping in San Francisco on November 15. The guest list was impressive.[53][54][55] These were billed as America’s “most prominent companies” and they were rubbing elbows with ministers of a country that did nearly $ 760 billion worth of trade with the US in 2023. The US Secretary of Commerce kicked off the dinner with comments that characterized the essence of US foreign policy since the start of the American Century: “All of you here this evening remain keenly interested to do business in China, and to find ways to advance our bilateral economic relationship…I know that, because half of you have come to see me to tell me that.” Xi said “The number one question for us is, are we adversaries or partners?….If one sees the other side as a primary competitor, the most consequential geopolitical challenge, and a pacing threat, it will only lead to misinformed policymaking, misguided actions and unwanted results.”[56]
In March, global businessmen met with Xi Jinping in Beijing. The reported attendees consisted of a dozen US CEOs and academics in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.[57] Xi, according to CNN, said that he wanted US businesses to “continue to invest in China” while pledging “further reforms to open the country’s markets to foreign firms” because “China’s growth prospects are bright, and we have the confidence…the country’s economy has not yet peaked.” Xi went on to say that he wanted a “better future between China and the US whether `it is traditional fields such as economy, trade and agriculture, or emerging fields such as climate change and artificial intelligence.” He said “China and the United States should help boost each other’s development.” This contingent of US businessmen was part of the 30 who attended the annual China Development Forum which attracted around 100 global CEOs and the leaders of international organizations like the IMF and the World Bank. All of this came about as Foreign Direct Investment dropped 20 percent from the year before with an 82 percent decline in “direct investment liabilities” from the previous year. The American Chamber of Commerce said that “57% of US firm lacked confidence China would further open its markets to foreign companies.”[58]
The language between the US business interests and the Chinese leadership was one of doing business, and apparently little else. No reference to human rights violations or Xi’s crackdown on any dissent. From the looks on all their faces, things seemed to be going well, or at least hopeful. The question was, for whom?
John Mearsheimer and A Chinese Dilemma?
John Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar of the realist school.[59] He is well known, if not best known, for his book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a 2007 book he co-authored with Stephen Walt which created a firestorm of controversy because it substantiated the influence of the Zionists on US foreign policy during the Global War of Terror, most of which was fought in the Middle East, or near Israel. One of the principles that came out of that book and that Mearsheimer carries with him is that politics trumps economics. He sees the primary purpose of the state being its survival which requires it to make strategic calculations and conduct strategic actions consistent with being rational actors on a world stage that he considers anarchic. In the case of China, rationality dictates that China become a regional power in Asia, which in turn translates into a world power.[60]
This brings China in conflict with the United States which is a superpower and a global power as well as a regional power. The United States secured its status as a global power by first becoming a regional power when it secured the Western Hemisphere by 1898. China is seeking to do the same in Asia, and so in that regard is conducting the military and industrial build up mentioned above, while waging a “smokeless war” for influence, as well as hearts and minds around the world.[61] The “pivot to Asia” by the United States is viewed as an offensive move by the Chinese who seek to assert their national interests as a regional power.
The economic ties between those two countries will not determine the outcome according to Mearsheimer, but, still, economics plays a crucial role in the great power struggle. China’s economy is struggling, or transitioning as some say, and that makes it vulnerable to the plutocratic class. The Chinese Government may be playing for time by producing goods for export and flooding foreign markets while at the same time hoping to increase positive perceptions of their power. Chinese consumers are estimated as having a very large amount of savings which they are not or cannot spend on consumer goods, and it is fair to assume that the American and global businessmen are targeting these people with their savings in their dialogue with the Chinese government. American financial capitalists would like that Chinese money to be invested in the capital markets of the West, particularly the US. That all leads to Mearsheimer’s point that China could be a superpower, the likes of which the world has never seen given its large population if the economics were right as they were with Hong Kong and as they are with South Korea. That means China has to become more capitalistic and that causes changes in societal values which, given Chinese history, looks a lot like colonization.
This presents a dilemma for the Chinese leadership. For China to ascend to world dominance greater than anything in the past, China has to change its internal dynamics, its internal economics, and that means changing its society to adopt more of the Liberal Order, which in 2012 it declared to be subversive and a danger. Greater domestic economic growth would result if the society opened to Liberalism , but that threatens Chinese society and an essential national interest, even a national security interest. Right now, China has a mercantilist system in an ethnic society. Economic interests are controlled by the Government which is authoritarian, and wealth returns to the Chinese people. China is engaged in a struggle with a country of the Liberal Order, the United States, which has a capitalist system where the powerful private interests hold the real power in society. Whether authoritarian, ethnic, mercantilist societies can defeat democratic, Liberal, capitalistic societies remains to be seen, but it is an essential part of the global struggle that became apparent more than two years ago when shots were first fired in Ukraine by Russian soldiers.[62]
Failing Diplomacy
American diplomacy and American business always worked together and served the same ends of advancing national interests and providing national security of sorts. American economic might has always been a powerful defense of the United States, and a great way to advance United States national policy. This was especially true during the Cold War when the US was rebuilding Europe and the rest of the world was participating in the “Revolution of Expectations” as described by C.D. Jackson. With these for-profit industries providing products finely tuned to the human psyche and appetites comes a re-ordering of social relations, values, and viewpoints in any group of people that receive these goods and services.
By 2023, American diplomacy and business seemed to be working together to ostensibly help China with its economic problems thereby maintaining American hegemony and national defense, but they were not succeeding. The missions of the American businessmen meeting with Xi Jinping therefore had to have two core purposes: first to find markets for their goods and services and second to offer markets for the Chinese citizenry sitting on a lot of cash. In either case, they were likely intent on gaining power in if not also over Chinese society. Providing something to fill a need or want is real power, and the Americans were expert at that given the commercial ethos that permeated American society. And while this is a tool of United States national power, it is also a tool for amassing private power and wealth. How the business meetings with Xi went we really are not sure other than smiles and good words and media reports as indicated earlier.
When it came to diplomatic initiatives, the US was getting nowhere. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen shuttled to China early in April but the results looked dismal with only a promise by China to continue to engage in talks with the United States. More distressing than those results were her comments that revealed cheap goods may not be the best thing for countries. She realized the model of free trade which allowed for each country to excel at its relative advantages hollowed out the US and put this country at a disadvantage that did not encourage the Chinese to comply with current terms that she demanded.[63] Free trade gave power to the private interests and weakened the country.
Secretary of State Anthony Blinken met with even less success. He just seemed to lecture the Chinese about what they should and should not do especially in regard to the war in Ukraine, but the Chinese did not listen to him. The look on his face and his demeanor told the story. The Chinese took a belligerent and demanding stance to the American position.[64]
The Chinese missive required American submission, something that Blinken was not giving. But would someone else submit? Would the Owners, the real powers in American society, counsel submission? In doing so they would relegate the US, at least for a while, to being the home of great capital markets for the world. Or would the Owners seek to push back by re-building the country from which they gained so much? That would make us more competitive in basic industries and maintain our power, much of which rested with the industrial base anchored firmly in healthy ethnic cultures. Or would the Owners seek to build up the US for war, and in doing so hope to break China open for their investments, goods, and services? Or, is it possible that political leaders in the US will take seriously their mandate and act in accordance with the general welfare of society, even if the Owners don’t like it? This too is possible. In any event, US hegemony was being tested. Already, many were saying that the world had become multi-polar after a period of uni-polarity, as US values and the Liberal Order could not penetrate the Eurasian Alliance. This itself pointed to the close of the American Century.
Strategies to counter the Chinese are being discussed. One strategy is containment and management, another is disengagement, and a third is regime change. Discussions are under way to re-industrialize in the US, and plans put in place to build up the key chip manufacturing industry in the US while moving advanced chip manufacturing out of Taiwan. Infrastructure is the purpose of a one trillion dollar plus funding initiative, and many US businesses are re-shoring their supply chains and manufacturing centers. Over 300 F-35 aircraft, or half of the inventory, were repositioned to the Indo Pacific as the US looks to pivot to East Asia. It appears that the stage is being readied for conflict. At the same time, some signals point the other way — to a retreat by the US. Just this morning the report came in that the U.S. Army, without explanation, is unofficially removing its prepositioned stocks from East Asia.
Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo sounded an honest and plaintive note. Recognizing that semiconductors are a “key battleground” between the US, Russia, and China and that the chips are “imperative for almost every type of technology out there today,” Raimondo noted that while the US designs the most advanced, none of them are made in the US. They are made in Taiwan. She said this poses a national security threat and that “the market failed to get it right” in the case of semiconductors. She went on to say “We allowed manufacturing in this country to wither on the vine in search of cheaper labor in Asia, cheaper capital in Asia, and here we are. We just pursued profit over national security.”[65]
American manufacturing in particular had been hollowed out since the opening of China to the detriment of our ability to wage war with a major power like China.[66] Everything was monetized and the most important consideration was the bottom line. Private interests, long the source of American innovation and power, put profits over security, and were allowed to do that by the government and the political class which in large measure is comprised of those at least approved by the socio-economic elites. During the same period, the world increasingly became the stage for capitalism, and the playground for the financial capitalists. But that was changing. China was pursuing its own national goals in expanding its industrial and technological capabilities while denying US industries access to its markets and rejecting American demands.
How things turn out we cannot predict with certainty. Wars can be long things and they may take directions that one cannot always anticipate. The United States has a lot of levers of power at its disposal as does China. Both have weaknesses and strengths. Wars are not over until wars are over. They can be occasions to bring people together. Unity is what made possible the American Century, but disunity, especially disunity between the elites and the rest, will not serve to continue the epoch announced by Henry Luce.
Indeed, we live not just in interesting times, but in epochal times.
[1] The United States is faced with its third global conflict since 1945. The Cold War was waged from 1946 to 1991 and it ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which was a resounding American success. After a ten year respite, the Global War on Terror commenced in 2001 and ended ignominiously in August, 2021 with the hasty US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
[2] Notre Dame Professor Patrick Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed which appeared in 2018 played an important role in crystallizing dissatisfaction and critique of the Liberal Order. My book, John Courtney Murray Time/Life and the American Proposition came out in its first edition in 2015, pointed to the harm caused by Liberalism, and went a long way to explaining how the Liberal Order puts real power in the hands of the powerful private interests who work closely with the intelligence agencies and the media.
[3] David Wemhoff, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition (Wagon Wheel Press, 2022), Volume I, 15-24; Henry Luce, The Ideas of Henry Luce (Atheneum, 1969), 115-116.
[4] Ibid.; Luce, 118-119.
[5] Ibid.; Luce, 119-120.
[6] Ibid; Luce, 116-117.
[7] David Wemhoff, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition (Wagon Wheel Press, Granger, Indiana 2022), Volume I, 15-24; Luce, 110-113.
[8] Joe Biden, “Remarks by President Biden on the United States’ Response to Hamas’s Terrorist Attacks Against
Israel and Russia’s Ongoing Brutal War Against Ukraine,” October 20, 2023, White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-unites-states-response-to-hamass-terrorist-attacks-against-israel-and-russias-ongoing-brutal-war-against-ukraine/#:~:text=THE%20PRESIDENT%3A%20Good%20evening%2C%20my,morning%2C%20I%20returned%20from%20Israel.
[9] Justina Lee, “Investors are losing faith in Ray Dalio’s risk strategy after a lackluster five-year run, and pulling out their cash — `it’s been disappointing for a long time,’ “ April 23, 2024, Fortune.
[10] Ray Dalio, Principles for Dealing With The Changing World Order, (Avid Reader Press, New York, 2021); The Tim Ferris Show, “# 264: Ray Dalio, The Steve Jobs of Investing,” at podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/264-ray-dalio-the-steve-jobs-of-investing/
[11] The Eight Measures of Power as he calls them are education, Innovation and technology, cost competitiveness, military strength, trade, economic output, markets and financial center and reserve currency status. Additional Determinants are geology, resource allocation efficiency, acts of nature, infrastructure and investment, the character/civility/determination of the population, the presence of governance and rule of law in society, and gaps in wealth, opportunity and values within the population.
[12] Dalio, 24
[13] Dalio, 26
[14] The latest information showed the US declining in the following areas: education, trade, competitiveness, economic output, innovation and technology, military, and foreign reserve status.
[15] Dalio, 332
[16] Dalio, 352-261.
[17] Dalio, 482.
[18] See, as a sample: Rebecca Beitsch, “FBI Warns of Efforts by China, Russia, Iran to Influence Election,” May 9, 2024, The Hill; “Comer: The Bidens Sell Joe Biden,” March 20, 2024, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-the-bidens-sell-joe-biden%EF%BF%BC/; Joshua Kurlantzick, “China’s Growing Attempts to Influence US Politics,” October 31, 2022, Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/article/chinas-growing-attempts-influence-us-politics; Miranda Wright Creative, “Tiktok corrupts ethics and morality,” May 16, 2022, Medium; Brian Duffy and Bob Woodward, “FBI warned 6 on Hill about China money,” March 9, 1997, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf030997.htm;
Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, Zach Dorfman “Exclusive: Suspected Chinese Spy Targeted California Politicians,” December 8, 2020, Axios; numerous anecdotes of how TikTok suppresses anti-feminist messages, ethnic cleansing of Uighurs in China; numerous anecdotes about how Chinese money targets certain politicians.
[19] Dalio, 424-455. These wars include trade or economic war which is ongoing and far advanced, technology war, geopolitical war, capital war, military war, and the culture war.
[20] “China Accounts for 30% of global manufacturing output in 2021,” June 15, 2022, The State Council Public Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, http://english.scio.gov.cn/m/pressroom/2022-06/15/content_78271432.htm#:~:text=China’s%20manufacturing%20output%20expanded%20from,to%20a%20press%20conference%20Tuesday; “Top 10 manufacturing countries in 2023,” September 15, 2023, Safeguard Global, https://www.safeguardglobal.com/resources/top-10-manufacturing-countries-in-the-world-2023/#:~:text=China%20makes%20up%2028.7%25%20of%20the%20total%20global%20output%20for%20manufacturing.
[21] See, for example: Christian Shepherd, “United States will not accept flood of cheap Chinese products,” April 8, 2024, The Washington Post
[22] See for example: F. Bickenbach, D. Dohse, W.H.Liu, “Foul Play? On the Scale and Scope of Industrial Subsidies in China,” Kiel Policy Brief 173, Kiel Institute of the World Economy.
[23] See, for example: Louis Charbonneu, “UN Member countries condemn China’s crimes against humanity,” October 23, 2023, Human Rights Watch.
[24] See, for example: Francis X. Rocca, “Pope Francis Accepts Bishop Unilaterally Installed by China,” July 15, 2023, Wall Street Journal.
[25]See, for example: “China claims 58% of all shipbuilding orders,” December 6, 2023, Steel Orbis.
[26] See, Jim Garamone, “DOD Report Details Chinese Efforts to Build Military Power,” October 19, 2023, US Department of Defense; “Chinese space, nuclear development is ‘breathtakingly fast,’ DOD officials warn Heads of STRATCOM, Space Command discuss growing nuclear, space dangers,” February 29, 2024, Defense One.
[27] See, for example: Jeune Afrique, “DRC: Tshisekedi wants to renegotiate Kabila’s ‘contract of the century’ with China,” May 21, 2023, The Africa Report.
[28] See, for example: Genevieve Donnellon-May, “China’s Food Dilemma,” March 29, 2023, The Interpreter; “How is China feeding its population of 1.4 billion,” https://chinapower.csis.org/china-food-security/#:~:text=Between%202003%20and%202017%2C%20China’s,running%20a%20food%20trade%20deficit.
[29] See, for example: “China Oil,” Worldometer; Hannah Reale, Emma Bingham, Kara Greenberg, “Where Does China Get Its Oil?” Energy Policy, Columbia University.
[30] See, for example: Lynn Song, “China’s Economy is not in a Great Decline but in a Great Transition,” March 27, 2024, LNG; James H. Nolt, “China’s Economic Slump Is Here to Stay,” March 4, 2024, Time.
[31] See, Rush Doshi, , The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order (Oxford University Press, 2023).
[32] Rush Doshi, The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order (Oxford University Press, 2023), 280-281; Col. Qiao Liang, Col. Wang Xiangsui, Un Restricted Warfare, (Echo Point Books and Media, 1999), 189-191.
[33] See, “Ten Definites,” April 12, 2022, China Media Project.
[34] Peter Apps, “Is China Stockpiling resources in case of future war?” April 29, 2024, Bangkok Post.
[35] Peter Apps, “Is China Stockpiling resources in case of future war?” April 29, 2024, Bangkok Post.
[36] See, for example: Mark Mazzetti, Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo, “Killing C.I.A. Informants, China Crippled U.S. Spying Operations,” May 20, 2017, The New York Times; Warren P. Strobel, “American Spies Confront a New, Formidable China: CIA lost network of agents a decade ago and has struggled to rebuild in the surveillance state America calls its top security priority, `no real insight into leadership plans,’,” December 26, 2023, Wall Street Journal.
[37] See, Rush Doshi, The Long Game, (Oxford University Press, 2021), 309; I also seem to recall there were various statements from the 18th Communist Party Plenary in late 2012 that reflected Chinese concern that Liberalism was a tool or weapon.
[38] See, “Why Facebook Is Banned In China and How to Access It,” Investopedia. The article states: “The Great Firewall prevents users from accessing foreign news sites such as the BBC, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, among others….Foreign web services that are blocked include Facebook, Google, X, Instagram, Snapchat, Yahoo, Slack, and YouTube.”
[39] See, Clyde Prestowitz, The World Turned Upside Down: America, China, and the Struggle for Global Leadership (Yale University Press, 2021).
[40] See, Geoff Colvin, Ram Charan, “The China Dilemma,” February/March, Fortune.
[41] See, “Consulting Company Executives Testify on Foreign Influence,” February 6, 2024, C-Span.
[42] Bill Gertz, “BlackRock in China: Nuclear buildup underwritten in part by leading Wall Street firm, report says
U.S. financial firms funded sanctioned Chinese defense companies and rights abusers, Hill panel told,” April 30, 2024, The Washington Times.
[43] John Coates, The Problem of 12: When a Few Financial Institutions Control Everything, (Columbia Global Reports, 2023).
[44] BlackRock is currently estimated to have $ 10 trillion under management and at one point I estimated the top 10 index fund firms having a combined total of about $ 45 trillion under management. These sums are more than the GDP of many countries.
[45] See, David Wemhoff, “Notre Dame’s Global Citizen and Global Reach,” January 8, 2024, The American Proposition.
[46] Dalio, 24-25.
[47] Samuel P. Huntington, “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite,” March 1, 2004, The National Interest accessed at https://nationalinterest.org.
[48] Immanuel Wallerstein, World Systems Analysis (Duke University Press, 2007), 24.
[49] George Soros said as much in his August 13, 2021 editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which he called Xi Jinping the enemy. This is discussed in my two part piece, ”Ukraine Is About China” from March, 2022 on The American Proposition.
[50] John McCrank, “How Wall St and billionaires have donated to U.S. elections,” November 8, 2022, Reuters.
[51] This is really not a new story. I wrote of it in my book, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition. Also, see Guido Preparata’s Conjuring Hitler, Antony Sutton’s many works, James Perloff’s excellent work, William R. Rhodes, Banker to the World: Leadership Lessons from the Front Lines of Global Finance, William D. Cohan’s Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, all for starters.
[52] Wallerstein, World Systems Analysis, 59.
[53] In November, the guest list consisted of host organization representatives and representatives of corporate sponsors. The former consisted of the Chair of the US China Business Council (Marc N. Casper, Chairman, President and CEO of Thermo Fisher Scientific), National Committee on US China Relations (Mr. Evan Greenberg CEO, Chubb Limited/Chubb Group), US China Business Council (Honorable Craig Allen), National Committee on US China Relations (Stephen A. Orlins) Asia Society (John L. Thornton), Council on Foreign Relations (Hon. Michael Froman), US Chamber of Commerce (Susanne P. Clark). The Corporate Sponsors were Amway (CEO Milind Pant), Apple (CEO Tim Cook), BlackRock (Laurence Fink), Blackstone (Stephen Schwarzman), The Boeing Company and Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Stanley Deal President and CEO), Broadcom, Inc. (Hock Tan, President and CEO), Fulgent Genetics (Ming Hsieh Chairman and CEO), Gilead Sciences (Daniel O’Day, Chairman and CEO), Honeywell (Darius Adamczyk Executive Chairman), KKR (Joseph Bae, Co-Chief Executive Officer), Las Vegas Sands (Robert Goldstein, Chairman and CEO) and Mastercard (Meril Janow, Chair). Other guests at the dinner (Elon Musk attended the reception) were CEO Raj Subramiam of Visa, Ryan McInerney of Bridgewater Association, Ray Dalio, Pfizer chair and CEO Albert Bourla, Mark Benioff of Salesforce as well as CEO Stan Deal of FedEx. See FN 54 and 55 for sources of the names.
[54] This is taken from a copy of the meeting agenda available on Twitter or X.
[55] Eamon Javers, Christina Wilkie, “Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Steve Schwarzman spotted at Xi Jinping dinner with U.S. CEOs,” November 16, 2023, CNBC.
[56] Ibid.
[57] The US side included CEOS from Qualcomm (Cristiano Amon), FedEx (Raj Subramaniam), and Blackstone Group (Stephen Schwarzman).
[58] Laura He, Wayne Chang, “China’s Xi meets American CEOs to boost confidence in world’s second largest economy,” March 27, 2024, CNN.
[59] Andre Munro, “John J. Mearsheimer,” as of December 10, 2022, Encyclopedia Britannica.
[60] References are to a talk that Mearsheimer gave earlier this month and it can be found at Scott Ritter Latest! On Youtube and entitled “John Mearsheimer: Can America Decline Peacefully At This Time?” and posted May 4, 2024.
[61] As this is being written, Xi Jinping is planning on visiting Hungary and Serbia, two ethnic states. In the eyes of the world, a story line is developing which is that the West represents the Liberal Order with power to the elites, and the Eurasian Alliance signifies an ethnic block where national preservation and development is primary thereby subordinating the elites.
[62] See, David Wemhoff, “The Ukraine is About China,” (Parts I and II) March, 2022, The American Proposition.
[63] Andrew Duehren, “Janet Yellen Missed the First `China Shock.’ Can She Stop the Second?” April 3, 2024, Wall Street Journal.
[64] Global times, “China to make solemn representations and demands during Blinken’s visit onTaiwan, South China See and technology restriction,” Global Tmes, April 23, 2024: “The US is stubbornly advancing its strategy to contain China, continuously engaging in actions and rhetoric that interfere in China’s internal affairs, tarnishing China’s image, and harming China’s interests, to which we resolutely oppose and counteract………
“The first objective is establishing correct recognition. We urge the US to implement Biden’s commitments, together with China, to turn the “San Francisco vision” into reality, rather than continuing to contain and suppress China in the name of ‘competition.’…..
“……The US is obsessed with roping in allies to form an anti-China clique, which is completely against the trend, unpopular, and a dead end, the Chinese official said. ….“China’s determination and will to protect its national sovereignty, security, and development interests are unwavering, with a focus on clarifying firm positions and making clear demands on matters such as the Taiwan question, economic and technological trade, and the South China Sea, the Chinese official said.
“The official also emphasized that the Taiwan question is the first and foremost red line in China-US relations. Taiwan is part of China, and the Taiwan question is China’s internal affair. `Taiwan independence’ and peace in the Taiwan Straits are incompatible. …..
“China resolutely opposes the recent wrong actions and rhetoric of the US on the Taiwan question, urges the US to adhere to the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, implement Biden’s statement of not supporting `Taiwan independence’ into actions, oppose `Taiwan independence,’ stop arming Taiwan, stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, and support China’s peaceful reunification.
“On trade and technology issues, the Chinese official said the US has intensified its measures to suppress China, constantly adopting new measures in export controls, investment reviews, and unilateral sanctions, seriously harming China’s interests……
“Behind it lies the malicious intent to contain and suppress the development of Chinese industries, aiming to seek more advantageous competitive positions and market advantages for the US, which is a blatant act of economic coercion and hegemonic bullying, the official said.
“The previous Trump administration initiated a 301 investigation against China and imposed additional tariffs on China, which has been ruled by the World Trade Organization as a violation of WTO rules, opposed by many WTO members. The US’ launch of a new 301 investigation out of domestic political considerations is a mistake repeated.
“China also resolutely opposes the politicization of economic and technological issues by the US, and warns the US that suppressing Chinese technology is to contain China’s high-quality development, deprive the Chinese people of their legitimate development rights, and China will resolutely respond.
“On the South China Sea issue, China resolutely opposes the US’ involvement in the South China Sea issue and its attempts to sow discord between China and ASEAN.
“China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and their adjacent waters and is willing to continue properly handling maritime issues through dialogue and consultation with relevant parties, jointly maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea.
“Meanwhile, China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests are inviolable, and China’s determination and will to defend its legitimate rights are unwavering…”
[65] Lesley Stahl, Aliza Chasan, Richard Bonin, Mierella Brussani, “Tiny piece of technology emerges as a source of U.S. tensions with China, Russia,” CBS News, April 21, 2024.
[66] See, James Clad, “The Perilous State of America’s Defense Industry,” November 27, 2018, AFPC.