I hope our American friends understand that for a nation to be great again it must try to improve itself instead of hammering and containing your competition. That's true greatness.
The reason the US feels the pressure from the China’s challenge is that they do NOT want to learn what “China” is, instead they imagine China is just another USA. 😅😅😅
"What's it that we want to achieve?" as this panel try to answer. 43:10 Yun Sun nailed it for this entire discussion. Basically, American only wants sole hegemon. "Rule based order" is I set the rules you follow my orders. It's useless to discuss on how to deal with China. Because Americans has exhausted your trust around the world. No one dares to enter any deal with you anymore. American history says it all : 【Yield or be killed, there is no in-between】- Go ask the Native Americans, Libya (Ghaddafi) & many others, they know the answer well. Everyone will surely take a lesson or two from the Native Americans.
I am not an American and your comment is bullshit. The us has a lot of voluntary alliances with countries that want to work with the us. The main adversaries such as Russia or China can't even cooperate with each other, let alone other states.
Then yield. We are not going to change for you, and if you want to be our enemy, then declare it. Most of your countries will do what they’re told unless they are otherwise belligerent actors or already our allys. We build where we want and people still allow us to go where we want. You will not change that, and the fact that you can listen to our policy conversations. You should consider yourself immensely lucky
Bold statements about US based order. Let’s ask people of Tibet what they think about China made rules of order, or even more recent example, let’s ask people in Hong Kong what they feel and think about Chinese rules of conduct. Oh, wait … no one can ask those questions in peace and harmony loving China 🇨🇳 without risking disappearance! Rules “you follow my orders” is Chinese specialty and masterplan. Wouldn’t you agree?
Surely, you can go through these videos and cut out the 2-5 minutes of nothing at the beginning of each one of them. Okay, I guess you're streaming this stuff, but is there really not an idle intern anywhere that can edit the video after it's uploaded?
Congratulations to the CSIS for your excellent video about the U.S. focusing on winning a managed competition strategy against China, considering its challenges and implications for the U.S. and Europe.
Liken it to a neighbor doing something you wouldn't appreciate, like cooking meth or having their front lawn filled with sewage. It's not that it directly affects you, but it definitely indirectly affects you.
@@Chris-vy3et No, it ain't somebody operating a Rock house or meth lab. In that scenario, both neighbors are doing it anyway..... It's more like two neighbors with a gripe with each other, folks just move on with their lives....
How could you complain as they give you a threat which you want me to base all over them and surrounding them if you put your shoes on their side, what do you think?
Democracy is a coded word these days: In international arena it means a country obeys US. For example North Korea one day changed its policy and start to obey US but nothing else domestically. North Korea is a democracy. In America domestic politics, democracy means Democratic Party win. If a non democrat like republican wins, democracy is damaged or jeopardized
It is a strange concept that if a country is not following the " Rule Based International Order " , we have to conduct a " Regime Change " ! Check " Cost of Wars " report from the Brown University on the MESS the US created by this " Regime Change " concept . Should CSIS come up with a " Worldwide Prosperity Based Order " Policy to help the smaller countries ( similar to the China " One Belt One Road " policy ) and MAGA ?
Don't fall into the trap of pretending you have any idea what an "end state" might be. The whole concept of an end state seems dubious. We have policies, other nations have policies, they have some effect in the world, and then... things actually don't just end. The world is not the same as it was when you crafted the policy and you evaluate and perhaps adjust. Talking about an "end game" or "end goals" in global policy is fundamentally flawed. Commentators who call for policymakers to define end goals, as though this is a board game with a finish line are creating a distraction from what should be a simple guiding principle: that our policies should seek to advance and/or protect our interests. When our interests and those of our partners and allies conflict with those of a competitor, adversary, or enemy, our policy goals should be that our interests prevail over theirs. Obviously. And without having to define some idea of an "end state" when none exists. This doesn't mean we can't articulate specific near, medium-term, and even longer term goals for policy. For instance, we should continue to take measures preventing China from dumping heavily subsidized manufactured goods on our markets, to name one. Chinese senior officials should clearly understand that an attempted invasion of Taiwan will incur monumentally disastrous costs, to name another. We should in general be seeking ways over time to decrease our dependence on Chinese exports, for a third. We can ask the question, "how does this all end?" But it is pure hubris to pretend we can know the answer. We should strive to prevail in our struggle with China out of simple self-interest. If we do not prevail, it will be much worse for us than if we do. That alone is reason enough to want to win. But if you believe that the liberal democratic, capitalist model for all it's many sub-optimal features and characteristics is still better than being ruled by a CCP-style totalitarian system, then it's better for the world as a whole if China is prevented from taking over. That's all the end game picture we need and trying to be more detailed and specific is a waste of time and energy.
India is neither here nor there as far as goals are concerned. He is talking about the border issues(India China) is not relevant to this talks header as it is an old dispute that was existing before this subject. It’s pure unfairness referencing in world views. Indian speaker should keep out the border issues as the conflict will trigger a proper challenge by the involving parties that has no connections to the topic in discussion.
Nepali workers working in India are taking away $1.2 billion in remittance money every year. Need to make a video on how india can teach Nepal a lesson by stopping this money.
Meritocracy is the future. The United States hegemon is pained to share power. The United Nations is unable to enforce the rules of the rules based international order. The change in the balance of world power has occurred.
Main issue is the lack of like-mindedness, therefore definition of “mindedness” is crucial then in-depth communication with the counterpart can be the foundation of solutions in all aspects.
The problem is that most of you want us to concede that “mindedness” for you, but you do not reciprocate. Why should it be one way for mindedness but not for policy?? You can have your mindedness if you give us our policy. How about that?
You mean the globalised trade that worked well for china so long as they participated in openness and equal competition? It's not only the west that wants to limit Chinese exports, it's all developing countries too, because the product dumping practices are killing their development potential too. China was glad to use the established system, like russia until it actually threatened the autocratic leader.
China is a socialist country with a humongous portion of its economy and key industries still under state control. Even the private sector is still under state control. In China the government controls the billionaires and the Corporations. In the United States the billionaires and corporations control and order the government around. How many overseas colonies does China have in 5000 years of recorded history? Look at all the overseas territories the US has aquired in its mere 250 years of history. Look at the 900 military bases around the world. Look at the master vassal relationships the US has with other countries in Europe, Middle East and North East Asia. China is not colonial. China got invaded and colonized by the Manchus and Mongols who founded the Yuan and the Qing Dynastied. Chinese people were third class citizens in both of these Dynasties. Later by Western powers like the US, UK, France invaded and took land enclaves of China. Then even the Japanese invaded and colonized parts of China.
So, we cut china out of the market because we want to mind our own businesses? Chinese practices of product dumping limits development in all other countries. So, in fact, countries are minding their business which in turn hurts Chinese interests. Your take is unironically the very thing that is the cause of Chinese instability.
I hope our American friends understand that for a nation to be great again it must try to improve itself instead of hammering and containing your competition. That's true greatness.
@@kaimingraymondchoi9909 we can do both
The reason the US feels the pressure from the China’s challenge is that they do NOT want to learn what “China” is, instead they imagine China is just another USA. 😅😅😅
@@shouningliu00 and?? What are you laughing about. People like you would cry the very day America asserts itself
My God, if USA foreign policy was influenced by these guys, that would be horrible.
@@pingdeedee their foreign policy is “capitulate to Arabs”
"What's it that we want to achieve?" as this panel try to answer. 43:10 Yun Sun nailed it for this entire discussion. Basically, American only wants sole hegemon. "Rule based order" is I set the rules you follow my orders. It's useless to discuss on how to deal with China. Because Americans has exhausted your trust around the world. No one dares to enter any deal with you anymore. American history says it all : 【Yield or be killed, there is no in-between】- Go ask the Native Americans, Libya (Ghaddafi) & many others, they know the answer well. Everyone will surely take a lesson or two from the Native Americans.
I am not an American and your comment is bullshit. The us has a lot of voluntary alliances with countries that want to work with the us.
The main adversaries such as Russia or China can't even cooperate with each other, let alone other states.
Then yield. We are not going to change for you, and if you want to be our enemy, then declare it. Most of your countries will do what they’re told unless they are otherwise belligerent actors or already our allys. We build where we want and people still allow us to go where we want. You will not change that, and the fact that you can listen to our policy conversations. You should consider yourself immensely lucky
They say “ rule based orders “ but never say “ international orders”
Bold statements about US based order. Let’s ask people of Tibet what they think about China made rules of order, or even more recent example, let’s ask people in Hong Kong what they feel and think about Chinese rules of conduct. Oh, wait … no one can ask those questions in peace and harmony loving China 🇨🇳 without risking disappearance! Rules “you follow my orders” is Chinese specialty and masterplan. Wouldn’t you agree?
Surely, you can go through these videos and cut out the 2-5 minutes of nothing at the beginning of each one of them. Okay, I guess you're streaming this stuff, but is there really not an idle intern anywhere that can edit the video after it's uploaded?
Yea whoever manages their videos and this channel is retarded
Yes, Long Live " Democracy n Freedom"...😊😊💯👏💯🥇🥇🥇👍👍👍👌✌️✌️
Singapore support China
Support China how? Economically? Politically? Militarily?
Congratulations to the CSIS for your excellent video about the U.S. focusing on winning a managed competition strategy against China, considering its challenges and implications for the U.S. and Europe.
Who cares how another country in run, just get along & leave each other alone....
Liken it to a neighbor doing something you wouldn't appreciate, like cooking meth or having their front lawn filled with sewage. It's not that it directly affects you, but it definitely indirectly affects you.
@@Chris-vy3et No, it ain't somebody operating a Rock house or meth lab.
In that scenario, both neighbors are doing it anyway.....
It's more like two neighbors with a gripe with each other, folks just move on with their lives....
US order is so unreasonable
How could you complain as they give you a threat which you want me to base all over them and surrounding them if you put your shoes on their side, what do you think?
Democracy is a coded word these days: In international arena it means a country obeys US. For example North Korea one day changed its policy and start to obey US but nothing else domestically. North Korea is a democracy. In America domestic politics, democracy means Democratic Party win. If a non democrat like republican wins, democracy is damaged or jeopardized
It is a strange concept that if a country is not following the " Rule Based International Order " , we have to conduct
a " Regime Change " ! Check " Cost of Wars " report from the Brown University on the MESS the US created by this
" Regime Change " concept . Should CSIS come up with a " Worldwide Prosperity Based Order " Policy to help the
smaller countries ( similar to the China " One Belt One Road " policy ) and MAGA ?
Because US teeat China as enemy, not competion
What are your opinions on the Wolf Amendment?
Frank Wolf?
Don't fall into the trap of pretending you have any idea what an "end state" might be. The whole concept of an end state seems dubious. We have policies, other nations have policies, they have some effect in the world, and then... things actually don't just end. The world is not the same as it was when you crafted the policy and you evaluate and perhaps adjust. Talking about an "end game" or "end goals" in global policy is fundamentally flawed.
Commentators who call for policymakers to define end goals, as though this is a board game with a finish line are creating a distraction from what should be a simple guiding principle: that our policies should seek to advance and/or protect our interests. When our interests and those of our partners and allies conflict with those of a competitor, adversary, or enemy, our policy goals should be that our interests prevail over theirs. Obviously. And without having to define some idea of an "end state" when none exists.
This doesn't mean we can't articulate specific near, medium-term, and even longer term goals for policy. For instance, we should continue to take measures preventing China from dumping heavily subsidized manufactured goods on our markets, to name one. Chinese senior officials should clearly understand that an attempted invasion of Taiwan will incur monumentally disastrous costs, to name another. We should in general be seeking ways over time to decrease our dependence on Chinese exports, for a third.
We can ask the question, "how does this all end?" But it is pure hubris to pretend we can know the answer. We should strive to prevail in our struggle with China out of simple self-interest. If we do not prevail, it will be much worse for us than if we do. That alone is reason enough to want to win. But if you believe that the liberal democratic, capitalist model for all it's many sub-optimal features and characteristics is still better than being ruled by a CCP-style totalitarian system, then it's better for the world as a whole if China is prevented from taking over. That's all the end game picture we need and trying to be more detailed and specific is a waste of time and energy.
India is neither here nor there as far as goals are concerned. He is talking about the border issues(India China) is not relevant to this talks header as it is an old dispute that was existing before this subject. It’s pure unfairness referencing in world views. Indian speaker should keep out the border issues as the conflict will trigger a proper challenge by the involving parties that has no connections to the topic in discussion.
Nepali workers working in India are taking away $1.2 billion in remittance money every year.
Need to make a video on how india can teach Nepal a lesson by stopping this money.
Meritocracy is the future. The United States hegemon is pained to share power. The United Nations is unable to enforce the rules of the rules based international order. The change in the balance of world power has occurred.
Main issue is the lack of like-mindedness, therefore definition of “mindedness” is crucial then in-depth communication with the counterpart can be the foundation of solutions in all aspects.
The problem is that most of you want us to concede that “mindedness” for you, but you do not reciprocate. Why should it be one way for mindedness but not for policy?? You can have your mindedness if you give us our policy. How about that?
Come on. You should pray China doesn't have the same mindset of wanting hegemony like US. Otherwise the WW3 may already started.
Most important question!
A bunch of fools sit on the stage and talk freely about this fool. they talked grandiloquently for a long time and finally deceived themselves.
My sentiment exactly: Meanwhile the Middle Class is declining fast in the US. The gravity of world trade has decisively moved to SouthEast Asia.
You can not change China
民主很重要 是生命啊
For God's sakes, this is the best we have?
You ask wrong people, you need to have two sides of people, otherwise you are being so subjective you are own point of you
"Why won't China just follow the rules we set out for it? We worked so hard on those rules"
What rules? Capitalism, racism, and colonialism?
@@hsingkao2024Are you suggesting China isn't colonialist, capitalist, or racist?
And you(Americans) keep changing the rules so that they favors you only. So who would want to follow them?
You mean the globalised trade that worked well for china so long as they participated in openness and equal competition?
It's not only the west that wants to limit Chinese exports, it's all developing countries too, because the product dumping practices are killing their development potential too.
China was glad to use the established system, like russia until it actually threatened the autocratic leader.
China is a socialist country with a humongous portion of its economy and key industries still under state control. Even the private sector is still under state control.
In China the government controls the billionaires and the Corporations.
In the United States the billionaires and corporations control and order the government around.
How many overseas colonies does China have in 5000 years of recorded history?
Look at all the overseas territories the US has aquired in its mere 250 years of history. Look at the 900 military bases around the world.
Look at the master vassal relationships the US has with other countries in Europe, Middle East and North East Asia.
China is not colonial. China got invaded and colonized by the Manchus and Mongols who founded the Yuan and the Qing Dynastied.
Chinese people were third class citizens in both of these Dynasties.
Later by Western powers like the US, UK, France invaded and took land enclaves of China.
Then even the Japanese invaded and colonized parts of China.
The best “strategy” is mind each other’s own business.
Wow truly an profound and intellectual take. Thanks for sharing that
So, we cut china out of the market because we want to mind our own businesses?
Chinese practices of product dumping limits development in all other countries. So, in fact, countries are minding their business which in turn hurts Chinese interests.
Your take is unironically the very thing that is the cause of Chinese instability.
All these guys are irrelevant, they really don’t have anything to offer.
Is John mearsheimer ever involved in your work? If not, why not?
Because he is severely cognitively impaired, and has nothing useful to offer the academic and policy world of geopolitics.
The guy is a quack. You shouldn't take him seriously.
Because Mearsheimer does not have an ideologically driven worldview like most Liberal Think Tanks in Washington.
He would sound like an echo chamber in this group.
@ 3:01
"The rules-based international order" 🤓
What is your contention with that?
@@morphkogan8627perhaps prefer to be in jungles? 😂😂😂
Gaza left the chat