When China and Russia join forces E-Book

Andreas Dripke

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Seitenzahl: 292

Beschreibung

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched the invasion of Ukraine. Just 20 days earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping had signed an "Alliance Treaty." This was no coincidence: Beijing and Moscow are closer than commonly perceived in the West.   The two countries are not "bosom friends," but they are united in an irrepressible desire to crush the supremacy of the United States of America. And both countries are clearly committed to a common social system, namely communism. This is diametrically opposed to the Western concept of democracy under the rule of law and individual freedom for humanity.   If the most populous state on earth, the People's Republic of China, and the largest country on this planet in terms of area, the Russian Federation, join forces against the West, our democracy, freedom and rule of law will be in acute danger. There is no way for Europe to stay out of this culture war. But there is an opportunity to take a clear stance in order to achieve maximum security for the people of Europe in an uncertain era.   In this grippingly written book, nonfiction author Andreas Dripke, UN advisor Hang Nguyen, and peace activist Jamal Qaiser vividly demonstrate what can happen when China and Russia join forces. This much can be revealed: It forbodes nothing good!

Leseprobe

Dedicated to the next generation

This work is dedicated to our children, nephews and nieces.

They all represent the next generation. May they grow up in peace and freedom and, as adults, ensure that successive generations can also thrive in peace and freedom.

Andreas Dripke, Hang Nguyen, Jamal Qaiser

Contents

Preface

First and Second World Wars

The high death tolls

Innumerable wars

"Everyone knows WW III will be a nuclear war"

The culture war

Karl Marx is Chinese and Russian

Global competition between social systems

Europe looks out primarily for itself

China and the APEC-states

Competition for the world order

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

China and the EU under fire

Global power centres

International law

Basis for a better world

China joins the Security Council

Security Council caught in the veto trap

The decisive test of the Korean War

The joint US/UN war

China versus US/UN pact

The longest war on earth

Vietnam followed Korea

Multilateralism has had its day

The end of multilateralism

The US shuns international organisations

EU "comeback" since 24 February 2022

A run on NATO

No one has declared World War III

Angela Merkel's new world order

Russia on the fence

USA vs. China: Russia gets in on the act

From G20 to G2 and back to G3

The Hague denies China's sovereignty in the region

The Thucydides Trap

The Russian worldview

Perestroika and Glasnost

Putin dreams of Great Russia

The struggle for Ukraine began in 2004

UN appeals to the OSCE remain futile

Crimea: Part of Russia since Catherine the Great

Home of the Black Sea Fleet

Russia seizes Syria

Four decades of Assad

The UN Plan for Syria

Private mercenaries on the rise

Russia's charm offensive in Africa

Putin's world history as a children's film

Operation "Iron Fist"

The Russian invasion of Ukraine

Germany soft-pedals with Russia and China

The Ukrainian-Western offensive

The West awakens

The courage of the Ukrainians and their president

All but China vote against Russia

"Alliance Treaty" between China and Russia 2022

Millions flee Ukraine

Vladimir Putin: "The weak get beaten"

Putin captures the hearts of the Germans

Bounty on Vladimir Putin's head

Sanctions against Russia: China learns its lessons

Economic and techno-war

The humbling experience

The new Silk Road – a dream comes true

China's charm offensive in the West

Italy at the helm, the European dwarfs to follow

17 plus 1

Economic warfare has long been in full swing

US stock markets without China

Big business in China from Apple to BioNTech

China's path to cutting-edge technology

Social Scoring for a better population

China takes the lead in cryptocurrencies

The world owes China six trillion dollars

"Development dictatorship" as a model of success

Tripartite war

US soldiers expect war soon

The USA falls behind militarily

China's military doctrine: Western Pacific

USA arms Taiwan against China

Hypothetical attack on Europe

The West fights back: NATO

NATO's zigzag course

Nine-Eleven – the first case of alliance

Afghanistan 2021 was like Saigon 1975

Russia and China speak out on Afghanistan

European army faces huge hurdles

The world is re-arming

Killer robots on the march

Arms race in space

Cyber war – the war on the Internet

Warning to the digital society

Secret services destabilize the cyber world

Attack on the vaccines

Hacker attack on Putin

Nuclear war: nobody wants it, right?

The war triumvirate

USA: First nuclear weapons test in 1945

Cuban Missile Crisis – the world on the brink

Exit from disarmament

Missiles against China – and back

Destruction of the earth

Abuse of the UN

The impotence of international organisations

China no longer rules out FIRST nuclear strike

Pathways to Peace

World War III can be averted

Happy place and non-place Utopia

About the authors

Andreas Dripke

Hang Nguyen

Jamal Qaiser

Books published by DC (English)

About the Diplomatic Council

References and Notes

Preface

For many years, the narrative has developed in Germany and other European countries that the attitude of Russia and China towards each other is more or less friendly. At the same time, the impression had been created that the United States of America was the aggressor that Europe had to beware of.

The Cold War, the confrontation between the West and the Eastern bloc had long ceased. After the atrocities of World War I and World War II, a Third World War seemed to be out of the question. When the media spoke of "war" in recent years, the reference has been merely to an "economic war" or a "technology war".

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 made it clear that all these "minor wars" over economics and technology harbour the danger of a real war.

With reference to American power play and the inadequacies of U.S. policy, it appeared over the years that Europe could adopt a neutral, virtually equal stance between the United States and Russia, on the one hand, and, above all, China on the other. In the highest European government circles, the idea of an independent European army was advanced in order to no longer have to play the role of junior partner in NATO, the intergovernmental military alliance.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has made all these considerations absurd. Without the economic, technological and, above all, military support of the United States of America, Europe would be lost. One may lament this but to ignore it would be fatal in the truest sense of the word, as the Ukrainian people have tragically experienced.

One must be clear that both the Soviet Union, of which "only" Russia is left at the moment, and the People's Republic of China share a fundamentally different view of humanity than the free West. The "old struggle" between capitalism and communism is by no means over, as it appeared to be after the end of the Cold War between the West and the Eastern bloc. It had only disappeared from the headlines but in the background the superpower arms race has continued unabated.

Let us take a count and assess the significance of this: There are three superpowers, namely the United States of America, Russia as the core of the former and gradually re-emerging Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China. Two of them, Russia and China, are clearly committed to communism. The only capitalist superpower is the USA. It is illusory to believe that, in the face of these power dynamics, Europe can adopt a neutral position, reap the benefits of capitalism, and at the same time be "good friends" with communism.

One may lament the excesses of capitalism – and there are undoubtedly very many. But to conclude from this that life would be better in the communist paradigm has always been and remains a fallacy.

Germany should know better: The country was divided into a capitalist West and a communist East for 40 years. The East, then known as the German Democratic Republic, was fenced off by the GDR government to prevent people from fleeing in droves. There is no clearer image to document the lack of freedom under communism than that of encaging people like animals.

This is at least one, if not the decisive difference between capitalism and communism: freedom! Capitalism presupposes the freedom of the individual as a conception of humanity. This includes the freedom to make something of one's life, to find happiness but lamentably also the freedom to "screw up" one's life, to put it casually, to perish in misery. But to conclude from this that the state can – as is the premise of communism – enforce people's happiness to help all people to a state-guaranteed good life, is inhumane.

A political regime that has to draw an actual or even an invisible fence around "its" population to prevent people from fleeing in droves is per se unjust. A state whose government monitors and reprimands "its" citizens to the utmost in respect of their loyalty to the state, without subjecting itself to independent jurisdiction, cannot claim to be a constitutional state.

If we look at the global balance of power from this perspective, there is only one constitutional superpower, and that is the USA. There are undoubtedly many and good reasons to criticise the United States of America. But the alternatives – Russia, as the core of the former Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China – are not viable options – at least not if the freedom of the individual and the rule of law of a society as an expression of justice are taken as standards.

For this reason, joint or even concerted action by the two communist superpowers China and Russia – a Sino-Soviet axis – is arguably the greatest threat to the free West, i.e. North America and Europe in particular. In this situation, it would be literally fatal for Europe to believe that it can adopt a mutual, virtually equal stance between all parties. In this camp formation, which is deplorable but hardly subject to change, Germany and Europe clearly belong to the Western camp.

However, even if there is unity, it is by no means certain that the West will be able to win an escalating conflict against the two communist superpowers. The People's Republic of China and Russia may not be "bosom friends", nor are Europe and the USA but they adhere to a similar ideology and the danger of a bloc formation is tangible. Should the Sino-Soviet cartel emerge, the West would have a tough time. It would be helpful if Europe took a clear stance in this situation.

Andreas Dripke, Hang Nguyen, Jamal Qaiser

First and Second World Wars

Wars have existed since time immemorial. But never have so many people died in such a brief time as in World War I and World War II. It is not least a terrifying prospect that in a Third World War even more people would lose their lives in an even shorter period, which is what drives peace activists as well as responsible politicians all over the world to try to prevent a third recurrence.

The high death tolls

Almost 20 million people lost their lives in the First World War, including around 9.7 million soldiers and around 10 million civilians. The losses came from many countries: Australia (61,900 dead), Belgium (104,900), Bulgaria (187,500), the German Empire (2.46 million), Denmark (720), Canada (66,900), the Republic of France (1.697 million), Kingdom of Greece (176,000), United Kingdom (994,100), British India (74,000), the Kingdom of Italy (1.24 million), Japan (415), Montenegro (3,000), Austria-Hungary (1.567 million), Ottoman Empire (5 million), New Zealand (18,000), Newfoundland (1,200), Norway (1890), Portugal (89,200 Kingdom of Romania (680,000), Russian Empire (3.311 million), Kingdom of Serbia (725,000), Sweden (870), South African Union (9,400), United States of America (117,400). In addition, an estimated 21 million people were injured as a result of the war.1

In World War II everything got much worse. The fighting began, apart from a few skirmishes on the German-Polish border, on 1 September 1939, when the liner "Schleswig-Holstein" opened fire on the Westerplatte near Danzig, and ended on 8 May 1945 at 11:01 p m. That is 2077 days or 49,842 hours and 16 minutes. During this time, around 1,000 people died every hour. Overall, World War II claimed the lives of approximately 50 million people, including 39 million civilians. Other estimates even assume around 60 to 80 million deaths in World War II.2

The victims came from numerous countries: Australia (30,000 deaths), Belgium (60,000), Bulgaria (32,000), China (13.5 million), Germany (6.355 million), Finland (91,700), France (360,000), Greece (180,000), the United Kingdom (332, 825), India (3.024 million), Italy (300,000), Japan (3.76 million), Yugoslavia (1.69 million), Canada (43,190), New Zealand (10,000), Netherlands (220,000), Norway (10,000), South Africa (9,000), Philippines (100,000), Poland (6 million), Romania (378,000), Soviet Union (27 million), Czechoslovakia (90,000), Hungary (950,000), USA (407,316).3

Well over 100 million dead and injured in two world wars within around 30 years. Soldiers, civilians, men, women, children, destroyed lives, extinguished hopes, indescribable horrors, infinite suffering – in the face of this gigantic destructiveness, the international community wanted to do everything possible with a "global peace organisation" to prevent or at least contain further killing. After the First World War with 20 million losses, the international community founded the League of Nations with a single goal: to prevent the Second World War. Unfortunately, the League of Nations failed. Around 20 years later, preparations began for the Second World War, which cost over 50 million lives.4

The United Nations Organisation was established to prevent a Third World War. 5

Has it succeeded so far? Yes, as far as no one has yet declared World War III. No, as far as more wars are raging in the world today than ever before. The global number of military conflicts has been rising steadily for years, as has the number of victims and refugees who want to escape the wars and save their lives.6 Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has highlighted how close warfare has come to Europe. But long before that, wars raged almost around the globe.

Innumerable wars

The counts by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research showed an average of 18 wars between 2011 and 2019 that took place around the globe every year.7 Thereby, the Institute referred only to "real wars", not to mere military confrontations or conflicts in which violence is occasionally deployed. The institute counted 21 wars in 2020, 15 in 2019, 16 in 2018, 20 in 2017, 18 in 2016, 19 in 2015, 21 in 2014, 18 in 2012 and 20 in 2011. Before 2011, the situation looked much better. In 2010 there were "only" six wars, in the year before that there were "only" seven wars. In addition to these "real wars", the Heidelberg Institute also recorded so-called "limited wars", which should be added to the "real" ones. Here the numbers were similarly high: 19 limited wars in 2020, 23 in 2019, 25 in 2018, 20 in 2017 and 2016, 24 in 2015, 25 in 2013 and 2012, 18 in 2011, 22 in 2010 and 24 in 2009. An order of magnitude higher by a factor of ten is obtained if one also considers conflicts in the world. The Heidelberg Institute named 319 conflicts in 2020, of which more than half – 180 – were classified as violent.8

The figures were similarly high in previous years: 385 conflicts in 2019, of which 196 were violent, 374 conflicts in 2018, of which 214 were violent, 385 conflicts in 2017, of which 222 were violent, 402 conflicts in 2016, of which 226 were violent, 409 conflicts in 2015, of these again 223 were violent, 424 conflicts in 2014, of which 223 were violent, 414 conflicts in 2014, of which 221 were violent.

Was it better in the past? The analyses by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research say "yes". In 1992, the first year the institute started its research series, the report at the time showed over 100 conflicts and five wars. In 1993 there were already 119 conflicts and 23 wars. Without presenting the Institute's methodology in detail here or discussing the question of defining the differences between "real wars", "limited wars" and "violent conflicts" in detail, one thing is certain: violence is increasing worldwide, not decreasing. People are uprooted, injured, killed. Every day 500 people are killed on average in violent conflicts, i.e. 182,000 war deaths per annum. Together that is well over 12 million deaths since the end of World War II.9

These numbers could even be too conservative. A study by Global Research suggests that at least 20 million people in 37 states have died in combat operations that can be traced back directly to the United States since the end of World War II. The countries were either attacked directly or driven into civil wars by US intelligence activities.10

All these figures are based on estimates, are subject to questions of definition and are often politically motivated. The crucial question in relation to the subject of this book is, however, simple: Will a clash between the two communist powers, China and Russia, on the one hand, and the Western camp, on the other, lead to another "really big war", a world war?

"Everyone knows WW III will be a nuclear war"

One may rightly complain about the multitude of conflicts around the globe but how much greater would the suffering wrought by a Third World War be in which nuclear weapons were used? In the Cold War between the Western nations under the leadership of the USA and the Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Union under the leadership of Russia, a nuclear conflict was successfully averted.

But there is no guarantee that in the present-day conflict between China, Russia and the United States, for example, it will again be possible to avert a battle with nuclear weapons. In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022, both a "nuclear war" and a "Third World War" were in the offing – or more precisely, both terms were used.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated bluntly: "Everyone knows that a Third World War will be a nuclear war. This question, however, is only a concern of Western politicians and not of the Russians.11 In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin shocked the world by announcing that his country's nuclear strike forces would be alerted.12 China, on the other hand, has no interest whatsoever in a global armed conflict. Not because the People's Republic is inspired by peace but simply because China is not yet prepared to face a full-scale military confrontation with the USA in the foreseeable future. That is why China has (for the time being) shifted the rivalry to other areas such as the economy and technology.

In this constellation, it is important to find an answer to the question of where Europe stands in the struggle between the three superpowers and what role Europe can play in it.

The culture war

Occasionally, the perception is that Europe is on the fence – the USA on the one side, China – and since February 2022 – also Russia on the other. Those who talk like this completely fail to realise that our German and European societies, despite all their differences, have much more in common with the United States of America than with their Chinese or Russian counterparts when it comes to their conception of the state and society. But this is by no means a general finding among the German population.

In the dispute between China and the USA, Germany seems to have maintained equal relations with both countries, at least since the coronavirus outbreak in the early 2020s. In a survey conducted at the height of the 2020 crisis, the German population was divided on the question of whether close relations with the USA or with China are more important for Germany. Asked about this, 37 per cent named the USA and 36 per cent China. Another 13 per cent bet on both countries. Only one year earlier, one in two Germans (50 per cent) had spoken out in favour of a close relationship with the USA. Just under one in four (24 per cent) had given preference to China.13 In view of this development, more than 75 years after the end of the Second World War, one surely could speak of a realignment in the geopolitical power structure in the 2020s.

Since 2021, US President Joe Biden has been trying to counter Europe's slide out of the US sphere of influence. In the first year of his term and the last year of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's term, both sides signed a "Washington Declaration" that underlines the shared values of both countries. In addition, a "German-American Future Forum" and an "Economic Dialogue" were agreed upon and a "Climate and Energy Partnership" was signed – including a general commitment to the struggle against climate change.14 However, Germany and the USA were less concerned with the global climate than with the bilateral political climate. Biden is determined to form a political bloc of free and democratic states under global US leadership against the communist power structures in China and Russia. The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine since February 2022 was convenient for the US president in that it virtually drove Europe into the arms of the USA. The question of the significance of NATO, for example, took a back seat in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Karl Marx is Chinese and Russian

It should not be overlooked that China, in its ascent, is by no means embracing capitalism but remains committed to the ideals of Karl Marx. The current state capitalism is only understood as a preliminary stage to socialism. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union of the time had introduced liberal, free-market and almost democratic elements into the Russian state system with "glasnost" (openness) and "perestroika" (restructuring). It was not in the national interest: The Soviet Union disintegrated, leaving no remnants of the former Eastern Bloc. China has learned from this development.

On 1 July 2021, the Communist Party (CP) of China celebrated its centenary. with great pomp. The CP is the only decisive political force in the world's most populous country. With about 95 million members, it is also the second largest political party in the world – only India's Bharatiya Janata Party has more. Moreover, China's CP is the last and most long-lived world-scale communist party. By comparison, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation does not even have 200,000 members.15 After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic (RSFSR) had been renamed the Russian Federation on 25 December 1991.16 In this book, the term Russia is predominantly used in this regard.

Historians argue about the question of why communism survived in China, unlike in the Soviet Union, for example. One plausible explanation is that in China, communist ideology has proven to be particularly flexible. CP co-founder Mao Zedong, as well as his most influential successors Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping in the office of party leader, added new elements to Marxist-Leninist ideology and turned it into an instrument of absolutist-style political control.17

In the propaganda narrative, the history of contemporary China is intrinsically associated with the history of the Party. In its name, Mao Zedong initiated the industrialisation of the country. Millions died in waves of purges in the 1950s, during the socalled Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping, as an absolutist ruler, liberalised the Chinese economy and suppressed the democracy movements with bloodshed.18 The incumbent Xi Jinping is now apparently determined to challenge the global supremacy of the USA and place China first among the superpowers. He has the time to do so until 2049: In March 2018, the Chinese People's Congress lifted term limits for the president.19 While Vladimir Putin can still rule until 2036 according to the Russian constitution, his colleague from the People's Republic of China can be head of state until the end of his life. And until then he obviously still has a lot to do.20

Global competition between social systems

China wants to become the world's strongest economic power even before 2050. At the latest when this goal is achieved, will the global competition of social systems arise: The Western liberal capitalism of Europe and North America will then, at the latest, probably have to brace itself for an attack by the Marxistsocialist model. From the Chinese perspective, socialism is better suited to provide wealth for most of the population than capitalism, which from this perspective only provides wealth for a fraction of the people. The Silk Road project thus certainly also harbours the political motivation to successively establish this model throughout Asia, Europe and Africa. The widening chasm between Europe and the USA over the years thus suits Chinese policy very well. The US position "America first" is opposed by the counter-model "China only", while Europe is more likely to fall into small-scale nationalisation. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, meanwhile, has strengthened the ties between Europe and the USA like no event before. It was virtually a wake-up call to the Western world not to underestimate the two communist power blocs as opponents. US President Joe Biden, who took office in 2021, has already made it clear that his country will not stand idly by and watch the rise of either China or Russia.21

The US will fiercely oppose especially China's goal of global innovation leadership. This means that the conflict with Europe is pre-programmed: In future, China will try even harder to take over companies in Europe that are particularly strong in knowhow and technology. In fact, this process has long been underway. After the former US President Donald Trump accused China of unfair trade practices and denounced the large deficit in the exchange of goods between the two countries, China in return accused the US of "trade tyranny". Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has long since identified Europe's place in this conflict and suggested that, far from being set up as part of an American trade conflict with China, Europe should seize the opportunity and side with China. "We cannot put up with being treated like an occupied country," said Gerhard Schröder, referring to the behaviour of the USA.22 It would be a departure from transatlantic friendship towards a Eurasian bridge. US President Joe Biden has been trying to counteract this rapprochement between Europe and China since 2021. He wants to forge a global alliance against China's supremacy – and to this end he apparently wants to turn the G7 countries (Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Canada and the United States) into an anti-China alliance. In essence, Biden calls on the international community to choose between China and the USA (in favour of the USA, of course), i.e. not to take a middle path or adopt a more or less neutral role. With regard to Russia, the question of any close ties has been resolved after the military invasion of Ukraine.

Europe looks out primarily for itself

However, Europe is a continent that looks out primarily for itself. European society has hardly any vision for the future of its own continent, let alone the world. European politics largely takes its cue from this lack of imagination on the part of society, the sole aim of which is to preserve today's prosperity and continue to bask in complacency. Increasingly more people in Europe, nevertheless, are beginning to suspect that this complacency and lack of vision will lead to Europe's decline. Local politicians hardly think five years ahead. Chinese politicians propose and dispose in time frames of 50 years and longer.

The best example of this is the development of a Eurasian railway network, which China is driving forward. With an investment of over 130 billion dollars, China is building a high-speed rail network between Asia and Europe. The aim is to transport goods from China to Europe within one day. In the 2020s, China wants to transport millions of containers by this overland route. Since 2020, the railways have been bringing ready-to-run cars – not just components – from China to Europe.

On 13 July 2021, the first goods train arrived in Wilhelmshaven on the new direct connection between the Chinese province of Anhui and the JadeWeserPort. The train with 100 containers had started in China on 25 June and travelled via Kazakhstan, Russia and Poland to Germany.23 Soon there will be regular rail services between China and the port.

The primary danger that China sees in Russia's military posturing is that the land connections between the People's Republic and Europe will suffer. For a stable railway network as a basis for reliable Sino-European coordination, the overland routes through Russia and partly also Ukraine play an essential role. The Chinese regime therefore does not by any means savour the warlike unrest that Russia has been bringing to its neighbouring states even before 2022.

It can therefore be assumed that China will, as it did in 2022 in the fight over Ukraine, exert a soothing influence on Russia in order to prevent the conflict from escalating too far. Wherever Moscow succeeds in restraining the influence of the USA, China is certainly happy with Russia's activities -– but not if a "major war" is launched (prematurely). For the Chinese want to exploit the next few years primarily for further economic and political networking around the globe.

China and the APEC-states

In its counter-positioning to the USA, China is trying to bind as much of the world to itself as possible. The countries of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) play a key role in this. The 21 APEC countries represent about 2.8 billion people and a good half of the world's economic output. At the 2018 APEC Summit in Port Moresby, China's leader Xi took two days to hold a special summit with eight small Pacific states that play an extremely significant role in the region. For it is precisely there, on groups of islands that US troops had partly wrested from Japanese occupation in the Second World War, that China has been building new infrastructures of immense strategic importance for some time.

The approach is as simple as it is effective: Beijing provides the predominantly weak governments with donations and loans in order to create economic and ultimately political dependencies. The model works not only in the Pacific but from Southeast Asia to Africa and increasingly in Europe, as the success of the New Silk Road shows.

Washington regards this development with mistrust. As US Vice President Mike Pence said at the 2018 APEC Summit: "Our nation's security and prosperity depend on this vital region, and the United States will continue to ensure that all nations, large and small, can thrive and prosper in a free and open Indo-Pacific". The use of the term "Indo-Pacific" instead of "Pacific" is no accident: US strategists want to make it clear that America's orientation extends beyond the Strait of Malacca to India. Together with Australia and Japan, India and the United States form the loose association of the "Quad" (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). The four countries agree on one thing above all: they harbour a deep mistrust of China.

At the same time, the US has launched a diplomatic charm offensive in all countries uncomfortable with China's growing supremacy. These include Vietnam and Malaysia but also the island republic of Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province, and which is supplied with weapons by the Pentagon. Moreover, the US launched a $60 billion financial programme to help strategically important countries. A new federal agency for US investments in developing countries was created specifically for this purpose. The 60 billion US dollars allocated for this were of course ridiculous in view of the Chinese trillions for the New Silk Road. But at least it was a symbolic act to show that US allies do not have to go away empty-handed. Whether it will be enough is doubtful.

Of all people, Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, arguably the closest US ally in the Pacific, said at the 2018 APEC Summit, which the US president himself did not attend but only sent Vice President Mike Pence: "China is there. That's a reality and America and everybody else should realize that they are there".

This is not only the attitude of the Philippines. South Korean President Moon Jae-In has long maintained close ties with China because he knows that Korean reunification will never be possible without Chinese consent – all the more or less doltish negotiations of then US President Donald Trump with North Korea were to no avail.

Japan pursued a two-fold strategy. After Trump's inauguration in 2017, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was the first head of government on the spot to personally congratulate the newly elected US President. But in October 2018, he travelled to Beijing with a delegation of more than 1,000 companies to promote Sino-Japanese economic relations.

All these countries in the Pacific had flourished under the auspices of US supremacy after World War II: besides Japan, the arch enemy from World War II, also Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and even communist Vietnam, the pawn of the Cold War. But in the face of China's unstoppable ascent, the balance of power in the region is shifting: the US is no longer the undisputed ruler.

Competition for the world order

In 2017, the then newly elected US President Donald Trump made his first state visit to China. Trump raved about Xi Jinping as a "great friend" and spoke of the "great chemistry" between him and the Chinese leader. Not even proxy wars were in sight at the time, apart from ongoing skirmishes at sea.

But just a few weeks after Trump's return from Beijing in 2017, the US administration gave the National Security Strategy an update and clearly defined the US-China relationship as a "contest between those who favour repressive systems and those who favour free societies". Shortly afterwards, the US Department of Defence followed up with an updated National Defence Strategy, in which China was classified as a "strategic competitor" to the US, ahead of Russia. The Pentagon described China as a "revisionist power" that undermines the "economic, diplomatic and security decisions" of the US.

In less than no time, the matter escalated into mutual suspicions and accusations. The FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was in office at the time, attested to China being "the broadest, most complicated, most long-term counterintelligence threat" to the USA. The former arch-enemy Russia was concerned with remaining "relevant" after the fall of the Soviet Union but "China is fighting tomorrow's battle". The comparison with Moscow is significant; for a long time, the United States of America assumed that it would ultimately be able to bring China to its knees just as it did Russia. At his first press conference in office in March 2021, US President Joe Biden referred to China saying "I see stiff competition".24

But the Chinese government is obviously just as determined to stand up to US pressure, at whatever level and of whatever kind. The Beijing newspaper Global Times expressed the state's raison d'être clearly in 2021 saying China was a great and powerful nation, and whether the confrontation turned out to be economic or military, the price would be daunting.25