Globalisation with the Chinese Face?

China is now the US’ main rival and a potential threat to US global dominance. However, this does not mean that it is an anti-globalisation force.

Without globalisation, the rapid development of the Chinese economy would not be possible, which is evident every time it has to rely on the internal market, which is huge but disproportionate to the capital and investment capabilities of Beijing, which simply have to find an outlet somewhere, and even then, they can get out of breath.

In fact, the Chinese project is based on globalisation, although not on globalism, at least not as we know it in its Anglo-Saxon-liberal version. It is also a civilisation project, so as not to use the term nationalist, lame in the case of China (in this respect, the new US strategy turns out to be just an imitation delayed by a few decades and a few thousand years). The Chinese will not send their capital around the world on condition that we become Taoists, that’s clear. BUT…

Third Clarke’s Law

The Chinese project is also based on technology, which is increasingly difficult to distinguish from ideology. Of course, one can assume that it serves primarily to increase control over one’s own society, but there are also broader practical implications. To simplify things a bit, if doing business with the Chinese ever becomes necessary with a subcutaneous identification chip, well, they won’t force anyone to have it implanted. There’s no compulsion to do business with them, right? We’ve already had one global Chinese technology/social engineering project. It was called COVID-19. There’s no denying that it was a powerful thing, but I guess no one expects a sequel. 

To better understand, in fact it doesn’t matter (especially now) whether it had been planned before or was just the accident used after being recognised. Either it does not matter whether the virus was American, Chinese, or somehow self-inflicted, leaked, etc. What is important is that the rest of the world, more or less skillfully, imitated the Chinese way of dealing with the pandemic, compared to which the current liberal authoritatrianism is a piece of cake. On the other hand, Belarus, which remains in the Chinese (economic) zone of influence, was one of the few countries that did not implement COVID rigors at all, so a certain amount of tolerance turned out to be fully acceptable for the Chinese. This is also an important difference between the Chinese and the Anglo-Saxon-liberal model of globalisation, because the globalism that drives the latter does not allow for any deviations, which also affects European-Chinese relations, as discussed below.

Considering the American point of view, it is worth noting that Donald Trump, Elon Musk and J.D. Vance, who are focused on the Chinese threat, are not accidentally devoting so much space to cooperation, but also competition in the field of AI or, more broadly, technology, data and cognitive capitalism in general. We too rarely understand that the data about ourselves (which we carelessly spread on the web almost every minute) are already… ourselves, serving not only to forecast but also to trigger our real behaviour. Americans know exactly what they are doing when they throw out the slogan of the great AI crusade because they understand perfectly well that despite the achievements of Western surveillance capitalism, the Chinese scope of collecting and processing this kind of data is even more advanced and widespread.

Russia a Partner, China a Leader?

Of course, there is also no doubt that China is an important, probably the most important anti-American factor in the world, just as the USA was the main anti-British force decades ago, not in the sense of the current geopolitical struggle, but as an increasingly obvious successor.

Let’s take Russia, somehow conducting liberation activities in the political and military dimension. Specifically, what would it have to offer Europe and what would we offer Russia? Of course, with a rationalised European economic and energy policy, Russia as a source of oil and natural gas could once again become our very important partner, but the truth is that recent years finally proved that in the world there are stronger and more reliable cooperators than the Europeans. In fact, such a scenario would require deglobalisation, enabling the conduct of politics and the “economy of fortified camps”, as the return to national economic strategies is called.  

However, Russian policy will not cause deglobalisation because it does not have the instruments for it. The reversal or collapse of globalisation seems conceivable, for now, only in the context of American-Chinese rivalry, whether as a result of digital and financial war and/or real war, or as a result of the entire project being unfolded by the Americans, who are losing their advantage. Again, unless in such a situation, it is sustained by China, which takes over the leadership of the World System. In such a case, we would be dealing with globalisation with a Chinese face.

Natural Axis China-Europe

Therefore options we could predict are:

• maintaining the status quo (the question is how expensive and for how long), 
• a change of globalisation leader or 
• deglobalisation resulting from the mutual overthrow of both rivals or from the last defensive reflex of the United States. 

Considering those we should note that for Europe-China is a natural partner for pragmatic reasons: 

• lot of the European industries have already been shifted to Asia, 
• maintaining the supply chain from there is therefore essential if capitalism is to keep its consumer character,
• it would be beneficial for both sides to strive to strengthen the Belt and Road and to unblock the Northern Passage (what is one of the reasons why America is so interested in the Arctic issues),
• Chinese technologies are also complementary to the European energy transformation.

And above all, both projects, the European and the Chinese, are based on globalisation, although not necessarily understood in the same way. If the world were to remain more or less as it was, only with a limited role for the Americans, and then transform further with capitalism, this could happen, for example, as a result of Chinese-European cooperation. The American-Chinese clash will therefore not only be a war in the Pacific, but also a competition for Europe. Will current European elites decide to adapt to the changes, paying homage to the new hegemon or will they be just replaced by the new teams better prepared for the time of transition?

It seems that for now the encouraging smiles sent to Beijing by Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas are just a negotiation game of the Eurocracy towards Washington. Despite the thrashing received from J.D. Vance, or maybe because of it, Brussels has not yet gotten rid of its ideological, mentoring tone, which boils down to lecturing the Chinese, if not on the issue of human rights, then certainly still in a hard anti-Russian tone. And yet Europe is not in a situation where it could impose any conditions on anyone from the East or the West. 

Global Diplomatic Revolution?

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the last time such a situation occurred in Europe was in 1756, between the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years’ War. The very fact that a global reversal of alliances is even being considered makes the next question even more relevant: what would be ordered in such a situation to the countries on the current short American leash, such as the European, especially Eastern ones? Can the Deep State accept the reality of a multipolar world? Or will the globalist elites now adopt Chinese colours, just as they put Wall Street above the City (now back in the game) a few decades ago? 

Interesting times have already started.

By: Konrad Rękas

Konrad Rękas is a regular contributor to Global Research.