The real Q should be: *CAN US DECLINE PEACEFULLY*

The headline should be "Can US ever be peaceful with China's Rise"

Aussie here. Guys we like to talk ourselves up a bit too much sometimes. We are not a middle power by any stretch. The markers of middle power status include more than just economic output. Population size, GDP and military power are all critical inputs that decide international status. True middle powers are the likes of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan and South Korea. These countries all have populations well in excess of 60 million people with the exception of South Korea, are global manufacturing powerhouses and have sizeable military, naval and air forces. Australia can not compete with these countries in any of these metrics. The Commonwealth of Australia is a light middle power at absolute best, but in reality is a heavy light-power. We shouldn’t be in the habit of kidding ourselves that we’re more than we actually are.

It is a a pity that most of the China experts had little knowledge of Chinese history and culture, not to mention they all view China with typical wrong Western perspective and analysis. Very few people like Jacques, Kishore or Rudd have good understanding of Chinese philosophy and culture. Learn humbly about Chinese culture, language and history. The world will be a better world if China continues to rise peacefully, just any one who benefits from China, the factory of the world.

Cooperation is always better and superior than confrontation to improve the standard of livings of the Australians, Americans , Chinese and Aseans.

Tell the people of East Timor. Australia stealing 2 billion USD of oil from them. Bad intentions indeed.

The real question is :can the west let China peacefully?

Whether you agree or disagree with the man, he's a realist and he doesn't sugarcoat reality

China has been much more peaceful than the United States for the last 50 years. I realize most Americans have very limited attention spans and memories, but it would be nice if most of us had some basic level of self-consciousness when it comes to international relations.

I agree with John's assessment on how the US and western powers have dominated throughout history but I doubt his assumptions that China will mirror the US. why? because: 1. China HAVE acted very very differently throughout history and currently. throughout history, the Europeans were conquerers and colonizers and expansionists while the Chinese were not and never were (despite having some internal wars and being the biggest economy prior 18th century, especially in the 15th century). 2. China has already experienced a peaceful rise. in the past 40 years, China has transformed from a country that's poorer than Africa to the 2nd largest economic power without firing a single bullet or instigated a single regime change...this is unfounded in all the rise of prior superpowers for example the British empire, Japanese empire, American empire, dutch empire.....etc. going all the backt to the roman empire. very bold of him to assume China is the US but asian

13:32 'The United States doesn't tolerate peer competitor' meaning there is room only for 1 number one.

It’s not your fight l, Australia. But feel free to participate and pay a heavy price for it.

Whether China can grow peacefully would depend on the western powers. It’s true, no one knows what would happen in 10-15 years time but we have centuries of history to help us to gauge.

China rises peacefully, on the other hand, competitors rise angrily. Jealousy is the words, no further comments.

Just think of how much economic and human toll this will cost on both sides, it's very clear to everyone: all this struggle for supremacy is a pure tragic and non-sense.

Prof Mearsheimer has been brutally honest and realistic. I've always respected him. I can only hope that he is wrong about China, that there might be other possible models of great power politics, other than the American way. For one thing, even if China would seek its own version of Monroe Doctrine, it would have to be drastically different from the American one, simply because China's geopolitical location within the Eurasian continent is totally different from that of North America. Would it be not possible if China find in a multipolar balance against US's unipolar hegemony a more realistic option than an old US style of regional hegemony in East Asia? Why would it be the fate of human societies that democracies can only survive under a hegemonic world order? Btw, why CIS has to ruin their otherwise valuable occasios with that libelous and ridiculous Falun Gong practitioner? She represents the one kind of drugs that the West has got addicted to, just for some useless hallucinations.

There is the urgency for Australia to invite Martin Jacque to share his view about China and Asia. Listening to the supercilious Mearsheimer without also listening the other side is not wise.

The proper question is can the u.s. decline peacefully.

Back to John's presentation about the US single-handedly beating Imperial Japan... Russia did most of the fighting in Europe lost 24 million, In Asia China lost 20 million lives, ROC + Communist Chinese military losses were 3.5-10.0 million and it cost Japan 2-3 million lives. I think that had a pretty considerable influence on Japan losing WW2. In contrast USA lost less than 0.5m... It is SUCH a shame an organisation like CIS who wants to be seen as unbiased would invite a Falun Gong cult member to instil her own brand of hardly-subtle China-hatred poorly disguised as a "vote of thanks".

Do you understand the Chinese saying 以小人之心度君子之腹？

Switzerland able to stay neutral in WWII, Singapore stay neutral now. China consistently communicate focus on trade and business, win-win, betterment of humanity.

All empires based on rent seeking usually come to an end. Don't think India and Japan can't threaten Australia.

John is asking Australian to go fight a war with China for the US. Not for Australia. Is he willing to let his children or love ones join in the war and come back home in body bags? Of course the rich and powerful in US were exempted from going to Vietnam? As the saying goes, "talking is cheap..." ...Once the body bags starts to pile up only then can one see the fallacy of his argument. Victory or defeat in a war does not depend on fire power alone. ... If ever Australia were to join in the war with the US, it is to contain China. But for the Chinese in China, they are fighting for their survival. Which is more powerful? Furthermore, Australia is geographically close to China wheres the US is more than 3000 miles away? Does it make sense for Australia to make China, your close neighbour an enemy? When push comes to shove, I agree with Prof Hugh White the best strategy for Australia is to stay neutral....Don't allow US nor China to push you around. Pursue your own security and foreign policies for the interest of Australia. This view is also shared by Prof Kishore.

Great talk. Only thing wrong is "single-handedly defeating Imperial Japan". China held down 1 million soldiers in Japan.

Can a desperate US decline peacefully? ...should be the question posed instead.

It’s not even about if China or US have bad intentions to cause war, just the doubts and questions that if that big guy will hit me with a club when I sleep is enough to cause the war, dark

As an East Asian, I'm grateful to John for sharing his realist views, which I take to be that of a typical American but possibly not of the Chinese because he doesn't seem to understand the nuance and differences between China's history as a relatively benign regional hegemon and its culture. However, he's clearly an in-the-know and this is why I think Kishore's preferred outcome of multilateralism will not be fulfilled, at least not in this decade. I just hope there won't be any Hot War. I also hope his speeches will not be used by extremists on either side to justify one.

This was given 3 years ago. Now three years later, the economy and demographics of China are in a different state. Plus there are now more doubts about the real GDP numbers of China being accurate at all. Even the "silk and belt road" of China is now somewhat in tatters. Consequently there are very strong doubts that China will overtake the U.S. economically and by extension militarily at any time in the future.

Man, what a honest presentation. At least, Mearsheimer is much better than those who talk about democracy in vain.

John: the fact that US is so rich that it can fight the forever wars and still be ... American people: 😭 now I know why we don’t have infrastructure as good as China’s and why lots of us are starving

The only Japanese force to land in Australia during World War II was a reconnaissance party that landed in the Kimberley region of Western Australia on 19 January 1944 to investigate reports that the Allies were building large bases in the region.

He is brutally honest. I will give you that.

This turned out way truer than I expected. AUKUS

The host made me laugh at the beginning. It is clear to those outside Australia that Australia is very willing and blatantly willing to act as a "frontline sentinel" in defending the white Christian world, and sees itself as a "frontline country" against the non-white world.

I found out about John Mearsheimer recently. I love his talks. Is there any other American intellect who is as honest as him when talking about America? Haha.

Lol, what? Francis Fukuyamas stupid book "End of History" is considered important? That guy was proven so wrong, its embarrassing.

Tom Switzer seems typical Aussie - feeling self-important without reason to be. Glad John Mearsheimer able to indirectly put him down.

The big bully will do her best to stop the one she is bullying so she can continue her old ways. Only this time her lies no longer have the same effects as before. All the others that she bullied before are starting to speak up. Like all bully, her little entourage will still stand behind her until the very end and say, it wasn't me.

Lovely debate. The Q&A was very throught provoking, and possibly more insightful than the presentation itself!

where can I find this debate between John Mearsheimer and Kevin Rudd that they mentioned?

John Mearsheimer's basic theory of international politics: 1. The ideal situation for any great power is to be a hegemon in its region of the world and to make sure that it has no peer competitor. To make sure there is no other hegemon in any other area of the world. 2. There has only been only one regional hegemon in world's history and that is the US in the Western hemisphere. 3. Why? Because there is no higher authority in international politics to call upon if you get into trouble and nobody can ever know the intentions of other countries.

Some people are still thinking of containing China instead of trying to solve its domestic problem like gun crime, homeless people, broken infrastructure, etc. Considering the future of economic growth is largely in Asia, especially SE Asia. What USA can offer to attract these countries and people to side with USA to contain China? Many Asian countries still feel the pain to be robbed by USA financially when in difficult time? Can USA still whip other countries into submission? What is the best for Australia in dealing with USA and China?

Very Interests and Great work.

It's interesting to listen this talk three years later with the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal, about how will Australia think about the American missiles.

bandit is talking about civilization

What stopped the Japanese from invading Australia? This plan was presented to the Emperor by Prime Minister Hideki Tōjō and in effect ended discussion of invading Australia. The FS Operation was not implemented, however, due to Japan's defeats in the Battle of the Coral Sea and Battle of Midway and was cancelled on 11 July 1942. There was a big battle. America only lost one carrier but the Japanese lost four aircraft carriers. The Americans won. Australia was spared from the Japanese invasion.

I had three points and of them were brought up by the guests: 0. Australia has nothing to gain from being Washington's pawn in a China Containment strategy except a bunch of missile targets on its cities, a complety counterproductive military spending rampup, and a decline in Australian economic pivot room and likely growth. 1. Aus has the option of sitting out a particular conflict that the US may engage in just as India, Turkey and Egypt often do. 2. The US is comically overextended, decaying from. within and has less and less influence and reach with each passing year... and it cannot win a single overseas war. It absolutely will not prevail in a Taiwan war. REMEMBER: the weakest link is cut first. China will seek to unravel the containment program by punishing Australia and other manageable allies of the US, while the US in a bind - such as economic crisis during the middle of a conflict with China in a moment when China has targeted the weakest link in the containment chain - will leave Australia out to dry.

Lol....the US doesn't need to push Australia into picking a side. China practically pushed Australia into AUKUS--via trade sanctions, bellicose diplomacy, and sailing its navy along Australia's coast.

The speaker looks at and understands China with a typical Western mentality which can result in a very wrong idea about the current political and military situation. I do not see that China is competing with the US with a view to replace it to become a new hegemon. China has been trying to put its own house in order and in the process becomes quite rich and powerful, and that created the problem because the US does not like to see that. Bear in mind that for about 40 years now China never fired a single shot outside it's border. It is not an aggressive country by nature and it is better not trying to provoke it.

"US is a very big and very wealthy country…" Yet some how it struggles to keep its government functional without borrowing more money.

Chinese signed a treaty with the Solomon Islands. They want to dominate East and South-east Asia and Pacific Island chains. John Mearsheimer is right on point.

Brilliant, as always.

China's Nationalism is the traditional variety that is concerned with national strength, national culture and territorial security within the peripheral of its borders. On the other hand, America's Nationalism in practice is a form of supersized globalist imperialism that has nothing to do with nation building at home or even securing its own borders. It's mostly about projecting absolute power abroad. This projection of power requires trillions of dollars in continuous "defense" spending which could have benefited the average Americans if such money were actually spent at home, but instead, the only true and disproportionate beneficiaries of such immense spending and projection of global power have been multinational corporations with large private assets around the world, and the 1% wealthy elites while the American middle-class continues to be impoverished and embittered due to a lack of long term domestic investments. Mearsheimer's analyses have two major flaws: 1. his inability and refusal to distinguish between China's traditional nationalism and America's globalist imperialism; he disingenuously wanting to treat the two as the same; 2. his insistence on projecting American globalist imperialism and motives unto China and its garden variety nationalist policies.

Historically, before WWII, Britain was the world dominant power. After 1776, the USA gradually took over. She focused on domestic economic development, and was contented to leave the world alone until December 7, 1941 with the Pearl Harbor attack. Since then, she began to play a more active role and gradually began to dominate the world. Initially, she tried to keep world peace. As economic profitability becomes more and more important, her focus changed and she becomes more arrogant & cunning at meddling in weaker countries domestic affairs or bullying countries for their oil or preventing them from developing into their own nations. China does not have a history of world domination. No one help China rebuild during her most difficult years (although Russia did) after WWII. By her own people's sweat, toil, and sacrifices, China managed to develop and her people's lives gradually improve. She sold products at very cheap prices so that developed countries' businesses can make profits off of her. Now that China has become stronger, the US realizes that she cannot order China about. Why should China or any other country need to listen to the US? Unlike the US, China desires to to build economic co-operation, not political domination. This annoys the U.S. of course.. China is a free country and so can develop militarily to protect herself. The 2nd amendment in the US Constitution protects and allows her citizens to bear arms. China have just as much right to bear arms too. Imperial Japan was like Hitleristic Germany. After WWII, despite Japan's constitution that prevented her to increase her military spending, she has consistently supported US political aggressions against China. We all in Asia remember Japan and none of us trust her, (not her politicians anyway) - not South Korea, nor most Southeast Asian nations whose countries were occupied and our ancestors butchered. We don't forget these things. Depending on what the US President's agenda is/are, he either conveniently forgets about the American Revolution of 1776 or the 2,403 lives lost in the Pearl Harbor attack and drums up lies about this or that country so that his armament, oil or economically greedy buddy friends can profit from those lies and propaganda. What does this tells us about US politicians after WWII? Self centered, Machiaevallistic, prejudiced at will etc. who gives no thoughts about his citizens. Still, countries like the U.K., Australia, New Zealand take the U.S. lead and do whatever the latter asks of them againt China without thinking about the dire economic consequences their actions would bring them. China has no quarrel with Australia nor New Zealand. Why then does your politicians side with the US's attempt to bully China politically? When they do this, this is what you get. If your politicians are so foolish, to take those actions, have they negotiated with the US to reimburse you for the businesses you will be losing? Have they even think about this? And you would surely expect such consequences, right? If neither your politicians nor you have considered these factors, perhaps the people of Australia or any country for that matter should start thinking: Must we always follow what the US says and do? How does it benefit us, benefit my business, my employees, my country. If it doesn't, then the next step is to vote those people out, and vote in politicians who can think for your own country. There are so much lies about China put out by conservatives and Trump supporters. Can't you even tell truth from lies? Even that about the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The World is changing. We don't need the US to be Big Brother anymore. They should solve your own domestic problems first. Focus on improving the lives of Americans living below poverty level& illegal immigrant issues, and the widespread Trumpet lies instead. ABC in-depth news videos too have continually helped to promote, distort and report lies to everyone .To the US, anyone who does not want to be controlled by Uncle Sam is always bad. Have you forgotten why your ancestors revolted against the British Empire back in 1776? Because the latter tried to control you. You didn't like it, So you revolted against it. China and many other countries feel the same way too. We in Asia don't want the US to control and tell us what we can or cannot do in this world. The World belongs to us all, not just you. ABC and other media outlets, politicians and even certain journalists in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand along with other similar groups colludes to put China and other countries down. All these serve no productive purposes other than to prolong conflicts, continually causes inter-country disputes, inter-racial divisiveness and the deliberate instigation of deep hatred in humanity. Are you going to let these politicians and media use their skillful manipulation to promote their own interests, ruin your businesses or run your lives? Please be neither naïve nor quiet. Speak out in order that they may shut up. We want governments that will make positive contributions to her people and genuine friendships between countries so that this world can actually becomes a much better place.

“Feed the beast” Emotive language.

Never tired listening to JM

Being a country more geographically close to China, it's much more wise for Australia to cooperate with China for the benefits of the people of Australia just as the people of ASEAN.

The guy truly believes what he says. At least give him that.

If I got to ask quesion, I would ask "What makes you asserting Ukraine being neutral is do-able while Australia, sitting thousands of KMs away from both continents has to take side so firmly or US will point its gun point at AUS?"

Tom Switzer did an amazing job moderating the Q&A section. Excellent pace and content. The presentation was obviously effective, both on an emotional as well as on an intellectual level, as the flow of questions shows. Main takeaway: “Just don’t bet against me!”. Brilliantly put! Biggest surprise: no one in the audience mentioned Australia’s big leverage. They kept reformulating a leitmotive “why do we have to pick up a side?” Finally, the professor got tired and spelled it out to them😊

even if my english not perfect ,, this guy talk in interesting way, and all his talks are understood

USA is a brutal bully but as John took a threatening slap at Australia, Australia have to stay quiet and subservient. This is because Australia fear the hegemonic USA which writes the USA RULES BASED ORDER and Australia has learnt its lesson of being attacked by USA before when it tried to be independent of US commands. It is very fearful and in awe of USA ability to inflict pain and sufferings on non consenting weaker nations.

3 years later, John is not quite right. China just cut off everything to do with Australia. So just continuous and hence Australia lives happily and the Chinese happily without each other. America will be happy, Australia will be happy and the Chinese will be happy

Professor Mearsheimer is such a great intellect. The U.S. leadership should have listened to him more.

Dam watching this in 2020 what a difference one year can with a huge ass black swan event.

The debate in Australia is very parochial...

What a captivating Professor - he makes learning fun!

The best moderator.. 🎉

Excellent discussion and well done to the CIS for putting this on! Only quibble would be the quality of the audio! When the discussion is this interesting you don't want to mishear anything!

I’m beginning to notice, once you see one Mearshiemer speech, you’ve seen them all. He says some interesting stuff, but doesn’t add to it very often.

Wow one of the best lecture, speech, debate ever. Undeniable truths of the realist. Smarter people have disagreements with his theory until you hear his realist answers.

I am so impressed with those who asked questions which are thought provoking.

Third country Malaysian observer here. Interesting to hear Mearsheimer utter (on behalf of the US?) a coercive threat to Aussies that Aussies must fall in line with respect to their foreign policy orientation or else a nasty US will turn nasty towards Australia! So will Australia obediently jump into Washington's lap?

Interestingly, Mr. John Mearsheimer has difficulty to understand two words, defense and offense.

Americans always believe everyone is looking upon them and going to follow their path because they are exeptional. They are God's favorite son and their way is the one and only destined way.

No greater power? I'd like to see John Mearsheimer in debate with Chris Hedges.

The real Q is CAN US DECLINE PEACEFULLY

Professor John has been neglected for so long, he predicted global political reality clearly. Imagine what is going on now in regards to Taiwan and the solomon Islands. More to come

To the speaker Lin, what make you think it would be 100% better for Australia to align to the US? Just a lapdog?

I would like to ask him what would happen to Americas hegemony if the US dollar ceased to be the world currency. How could America pay for its 750-1000 military bases around the world?

Professor made a rare misstep when he said the US “single handedly” defeated Japan. Australia fought bravely in the Pacific war.

Australia has a strategy? Really?

Regardless of the political system adopted, the responsibility of the government is to "make people's lives better"! Here the Chinese government has done it !

The theory of hegenomy no more applies after the US... The Chinese believe hegemony will fail. Its an era of multi lateralism.

It can. But we won’t allow it.

China and the US have different military objectives and different views of what expansion means. China is not interested in invading countries nor exporting its political system. Therefore, it is quite feasible that the dominant power could negotiate peacefully with the emerging power, to share their experience and know how. Only the US hawks want war

What a great audience with thought provoking questions. Great session!

"No higher authority that you can call upon when a country gets in trouble". But Mr Good Professor, what about the United Nations?

He left off at the US destroyed the British Empire as well

The largest "hegemon competition" when USA started to become the world power was not Germany, nor Soviet Union, nor Spain, nor Japan. It was the United Kingdom. I was really expecting this to be more open & honest at 12:45 ... Actually it was the US who helped to release Nazi Germany from the post-WWI restrictions. USA was the true reason of WWII (yes, the war started in 1939, not in 1941). The goal was to contain the Brits, and to weaken other European colonial states: most importantly France and Netherlands. The plan worked very well in that area, all colonial states lost their possessions - the only problem was that the Soviets became too powerful in the process, too successful in Europe - and communism started to spread...

John is on fire

America has been trying hard not to allow this as they don’t want to let go!

Listening to what he said makes me sick. It reveals American’s lack of morality and the ambition to win at all costs. He is sick to the core.

The limiting factor is and has always been what the West would allow as regards geopolitics...let me borrow a few from my Malaysian brother... I’m from Malaysia. China has traded with Malaysia for 2000 years. In those years, they had been the world’s biggest powers many times. Never once they sent troops to take our land. Admiral Zhenghe came to Malacca five times, in gigantic fleets, and a flagship eight times the size of Christopher Columbus’ flagship, Santa Maria. He could have seized Malacca easily, but he did not. In 1511, the Portuguese came. In 1642, the Dutch came. In the 18th century the British came. We were colonised by each, one after another. When China wanted spices from India, they traded with the Indians. When they wanted gems, they traded with the Persian. They didn’t take lands. The only time China expanded beyond their current borders was in Yuan Dynasty, when Genghis and his descendants Ogedei Khan, Guyuk Khan & Kublai Khan concurred China, Mid Asia and Eastern Europe. But Yuan Dynasty, although being based in China, was a part of the Mongolian Empire. Then came the Century of Humiliation. Britain smuggled opium into China to dope the population, a strategy to turn the trade deficit around, after the British could not find enough silver to pay the Qing Dynasty in their tea and porcelain trades. After the opium warehouses were burned down and ports were closed by the Chinese in ordered to curb opium, the British started the Opium War I, which China lost. Hong Kong was forced to be surrendered to the British in a peace talk (Nanjing Treaty). The British owned 90% of the opium market in China, during that time, Queen Victoria was the world’s biggest drug baron. The remaining 10% was owned by American merchants from Boston. Many of Boston’s institutions were built with profit from opium. After 12 years of Nanjing Treaty, the West started getting really really greedy. The British wanted the Qing government: 1. To open the borders of China to allow goods coming in and out freely, and tax free. 2. Make opium legal in China. Insane requests, Qing government said no. The British and French, with supports from the US and Russia from behind, started Opium War II with China, which again, China lost. The Anglo-French military raided the Summer Palace, and threatened to burn down the Imperial Palace, the Qing government was forced to pay with ports, free business zones, 300,000 kilograms of silver and Kowloon was taken. Since then, China’s resources flew out freely through these business zones and ports. In the subsequent amendment to the treaties, Chinese people were sold overseas to serve as labor. In 1900, China suffered attacks by the 8-National Alliance(Japan, Russia, Britain, France, USA, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary). Innocent Chinese civilians in Peking (Beijing now) were murdered, buildings were destroyed & women were raped. The Imperial Palace was raided, and treasures ended up in museums like the British Museum in London and the Louvre in Paris. In late 1930s China was occupied by the Japanese in WWII. Millions of Chinese died during the occupancy. 300,000 Chinese died in Nanjing Massacre alone. Mao brought China together again from the shambles. There were peace and unity for some time. But Mao’s later reign saw sufferings and deaths from famine and power struggles. Then came Deng Xiao Ping and his infamous “black-cat and white-cat” story. His preference in pragmatism than ideologies has transformed China. This thinking allowed China to evolve all the time to adapt to the actual needs in the country, instead of rigidly bounded to ideologies. It also signified the death of Communism in actually practice in China. The current Socialism+Meritocracy+Market Economy model fits the Chinese like gloves, and it propels the uprise of China. Singapore has a similar model, and has been arguably more successful than Hong Kong, because Hong Kong being gateway to China, was riding on the economic boom in China, while Singapore had no one to gain from. In just 30 years, the CPC have moved 800 millions of people out from poverty. The rate of growth is unprecedented in human history. They have built the biggest mobile network, by far the biggest high speed rail network in the world, and they have become a behemoth in infrastructure. They made a fishing village called Shenzhen into the world’s second largest technological centre after the Silicon Valley. They are growing into a technological power house. It has the most elaborate e-commerce and cashless payment system in the world. They have launched exploration to Mars. The Chinese are living a good life and China has become one of the safest countries in the world. The level of patriotism in the country has reached an unprecedented height. For all of the achievements, the West has nothing good to say about it. China suffers from intense anti-China propagandas from the West. Western Media used the keyword “Communist” to instil fear and hatred towards China. Everything China does is negatively reported. They claimed China used slave labor in making iPhones. The truth was, Apple was the most profitable company in the world, it took most of the profit, leave some to Foxconn (a Taiwanese company) and little to the labor. They claimed China was inhuman with one-child policy. At the same time, they accused China of polluting the earth with its huge population. The fact is the Chinese consume just 30% of energy per capita compared to the US. They claimed China underwent ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang. The fact is China has a policy which priorities ethnic minorities. For a long time, the ethnic minorities were allowed to have two children and the majority Han only allowed one. The minorities are allowed a lower score for university intakes. There are 39,000 mosque in China, and 2100 in the US. China has about 3 times more mosque per muslim than the US. When terrorist attacks happened in Xinjiang, China had two choices: 1. Re-educate the Uighur extremists before they turned terrorists. 2. Let them be, after they launch attacks and killed innocent people, bomb their homes. China chose 1 to solve problem from the root and not to do killing. How the US solve terrorism? Fire missiles from battleships, drop bombs from the sky. During the pandemic, When China took extreme measures to lockdown the people, they were accused of being inhuman. When China recovered swiftly because of the extreme measures, they were accused of lying about the actual numbers. When China’s cases became so low that they could provide medical support to other countries, they were accused of politically motivated. Western Media always have reasons to bash China. Just like any country, there are irresponsible individuals from China which do bad and dirty things, but the China government overall has done very well. But I hear this comment over and over by people from the West: I like Chinese people, but the CPC is evil. What they really want is the Chinese to change the government, because the current one is too good. Fortunately China is not a multi-party democratic country, otherwise the opposition party in China will be supported by notorious NGOs (Non-Government Organization) of the USA, like the NED (National Endowment for Democracy), to topple the ruling party. The US and the British couldn’t crack Mainland China, so they work on Hong Kong. Of all the ex-British colonial countries, only the Hong Kongers were offered BNOs by the British. Because the UK would like the Hong Kongers to think they are British citizens, not Chinese. A divide-and-conquer strategy, which they often used in Color Revolutions around the world. They resort to low dirty tricks like detaining Huawei’s CFO & banning Huawei. They raised a silly trade war which benefits no one. Trade deficit always exist between a developing and a developed country. USA is like a luxury car seller who ask a farmer: why am I always buying your vegetables and you haven’t bought any of my cars? When the Chinese were making socks for the world 30 years ago, the world let it be. But when Chinese started to make high technology products, like Huawei and DJI, it caused red-alert. Because when Western and Japanese products are equal to Chinese in technologies, they could never match the Chinese in prices. First world countries want China to continue in making socks. Instead of stepping up themselves, they want to pull China down. The recent movement by the US against China has a very important background. When Libya, Iran, and China decided to ditch the US dollar in oil trades, Gaddafi’s was killed by the US, Iran was being sanctioned by the US, and now it’s China’s turn. The US has been printing money out of nothing. The only reason why the US Dollar is still widely accepted, is because it’s the only currency which oil is allowed to be traded with. The US has an agreement with Saudi that oil must be traded in US dollar ONLY. Without the petrol-dollar status, the US dollars will sink, and America will fall. Therefore anyone trying to disobey this order will be eliminated. China will soon use a gold-backed crypto-currency, the alarms in the White House go off like mad. China’s achievement has been by hard work. Not buy looting the world. I have deep sympathy for China for all the suffering, but now I feel happy for them. China is not rising, they are going back to where they belong. Good luck China. 98

Excellent and entertaining analysis.

GO IN PEACE & SPREAD the GOOD NEWS to the Whole WORLD.,( SHALLOM )"

Hi Prof John, I like your deduction theory but apparently you do so with a result that suits the American digestive system. China on the other hand is giving American lots of economic digestion and constipation without having to have fire and bullets flying hitherto.

What Mearsheimer says is common sense - I don't understand those who don't get it. At any rate, go Mearsheimer!

How can you go to war with a country that you depend on immensely for trade and then go to war against them and expect no repercussions these people are delusional

What lesson people forget is the *Battle of Chongqing* (1938-41) where it was practically like a proxy war btwn China+USSR vs Japan+USSA; in fact the USA didn't cease material support for the expansionist Empire of Japan until mid1941 w/the Petrol+Steel Embargo against Japan... which should've been in place right after the *Rape of Nanjing*... indeed had the USA sincerely helped China beat-back the Imperial Japanese at the **_*Battle of Chongqing_* (aka Bombing of Chungking), then the *attack on Pearl Harbor* would've NEVER HAPPENED.