Upstart: How China Became a Great Power | A Conversation with Oriana Skylar Mastro
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- In this Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center book talk, Stanford's political scientist and APARC faculty Oriana Skylar Mastro discusses her new book "Upstart" (Oxford University Press, 2024), a powerful new explanation of China's rise that draws from the business world to show that China is not simply copying established great powers, but exploiting geopolitical opportunities around the world that those other powers had ignored. Read on: stanford.io/3S1k1av
Thirty years ago, the idea that China could challenge the United States economically, globally, and militarily seemed unfathomable. Yet today, China is considered another great power in the international system. How did China manage to build power, from a weaker resource position, in an international system that was dominated by the U.S.? What factors determined the strategies Beijing pursued to achieve this feat?
Using granular data and authoritative Chinese sources, Oriana Skylar Mastro demonstrates that China was able to climb to great power status through a careful mix of strategic emulation, exploitation, and entrepreneurship on the international stage. This “upstart approach” - determined by where and how China chose to compete - allowed China to rise economically, politically, and militarily, without triggering a catastrophic international backlash that would stem its rise. China emulated (i.e. pursued similar strategies to the U.S. in similar areas) when its leaders thought doing so would build power while reassuring the U.S. of its intentions. China exploited (i.e. adopted similar approaches to the U.S. in new areas of competition) when China felt that the overall U.S. strategy was effective, but didn't want to risk direct confrontation. Lastly, China pursued entrepreneurial actions (i.e. innovative approaches to new and existing areas of competition) when it believed emulation might elicit a negative reaction and a more effective approach was available. Beyond explaining the unique nature of China's rise, "Upstart" provides policy guidance on how the U.S. can maintain a competitive edge in this new era of great power competition.
Mastro is a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, Courtesy Assistant Professor of Political Science, and faculty member at Shorenstein APARC.
Hard work, honesty, humble, not cheat, lies and selfish.
Range and scope of South China sea depicted by 11 dash lines are first defined and recognized by UN after WW II by 1945 where China is represented by ROC as a P5 member of UNSC, is the solo owner before all ASEAN countries became independent after WW II. PRC assumed China position in UN and UNSC replacing ROC per UN resolution 2758 dated year 1971. This suggests PRC acceded all territorial claims over South China sea with international legality traceable back to 1945.
1. China has become a great power because Xi Jinping reminded his 1.4 billion people that " EMPTY TALKS RUIN COUNTRY , HARD WORK PROSPERS NATION " ( 空谈误国 ，实干兴邦 ）。
2. China has long-term strategy , pragmatic and creative approach . It sets priority to strive for marvelous results so as to achieve enormous strengths , militarily, economically and technologically .
Not CCP, CPC
All superpowers have their own geographic range limits of security concerns independent of UNCLOS or any international law. No country will drive their naval ship near port of San Diego for unwritten admitting US security concerns, especially where nuclear submarine based, and same rule applies to Severomorsk port in Arctic for Russia and South China sea to China. Freedom of navigation is beyond UNCLOS and must be preconditioned only when a)all weaponry disarmed and b)acknowledgement and acceptance of prior notification of sailing/travelling.
@chinmayaprakash China is not my country. I study why it became successful, but India fascinate me very much.
Even if indians are as smart as the chinese and world is on the globalisation wave, India will still be unable to do it. It has to do with society, and the leaderships of the countries. Pivotal changes to china's society and economic structure were shaped by three leaders. Mao destroyed the old class society. Deng Xiao Peng shaped the economic structure- banking and land under complete control of the states. Xi Ji ping killed most of corruption. India has hinduism- it based on class or caste. Many slave class:: women and other minorities. Its economy is controlled by the Super Rich. Corruptions is a culture- so tea money is expected. Sounds simple but all have implications on how to run society efficiently and in making use of any talent from the population.
According to the authors of The Bell Curve, Indian average IQ is about 82 and if you take away the average 2.5% of top Indian brains; mostly those who had migrate to the west, then this average left behind would have just 80 IQ points, a figure slightly better than the African average. Hence , even if the top 2.5% have the ideas, the next 30% would find it difficult into practice, hence her industrial progress is struggling and given the practice of the caste system, hence real progress can hardly be achieved.
Don’t the American should consider to make example themselves first before lecturing other countries how to react? Two apparent components of democracy, freedom of speech and human right in particular, are simple buried into history within US as we speak, and the rest of the world would observe US domestic politics and found the exact opposite which make worse, if not lost at all, any power of persuasion. The Chinese approach is exactly the opposite to American by showing what they can achieve first and optionally offer their model and experience for learning to cut short possibility of mismanagement.
Prof. Oriana Skylar Mastro is quite a bright person (I listened to all her talks on youtube and read her articles previously), and her starting point that the West shouldn't understand China by projecting is correct, but her angles are wrong--China is different firstly due to its history/culture/people, secondly it's actually due to CN gov's pragmatism. CPC is more an elitist group that traditional Chinese governance principles are the implied mandate, i.e., CN gov (in the old days it was the emperor) takes care of its ppl. There are no fixed method except for 实事求是，解决问题。
Mediation is sth Chinese are good at for thousands years, Oriana is probably not aware that many countries sent ppl to learn from China about meditation. Her observation that CN was emulating the US is rather superficial.
US has 250 years of history, and it has always been at top notch state, ppl are too exhilarated to sink to the essence of matters, taking history and many other things into consideration.
"How China reclaimed its place as a Great Power" - here , changed your headline for your. History of the world didn't begin on 1945AD.
Fortunately the US government does not have people like ms. Maestro to make it stronger and smarter LoL. She has empathy, can understand other people's view. She's insightful to look at corporates for better understanding. One thing i wish she could mention is that the meritocratic system of the CCP has a lot of similarities with corporates. E.g. how Xi and Li came to the top is more like corporate executives who successfully looked after diverse portfolios of the company and get promoted. In particular, they have executive experiences in several key provinces before being promoted. This ability cannot be matched by any democracy where the top elected person can at most have experience in one constituency. This has conquences in the quality of the leaders. The west only characterizes the CCP as authoritarian and confuses it with hereditary emporers 😂.
Oriana S. Mastro should be the next Presidential Security Adviser if US wants to remain a great country.
Pure hardwork with that 996 schedule that is at the foundation of Chinas success
P5's comparative advantages ?
I think all you talked about get one assumption where all those international organizations us helped to create belong to us and its allies or should only follow us rule
After listening for the first 15min, I just stopped. So biased, misinformed and narrow view. I think the US should look itself in the mirror first before condemning others.
A faulty assessment!