Council on Foreign RelationsWashington, D.C. MR. SULLIVAN: At least I had the bravery to give that speech at Brookings rather than at CFR. So — (laughter) — Mike, I want to say thank you for having me back at CFR. And to Susan and Kurt and Charlene and Steve, thank you for having me back…
A nation of 330 million cannot control a nation that has 1 billion more people. Nations should also be free to choose their own destiny. A logical fallacy many in the West fall for is assuming the rest of the world wants to be like them and should be like them. If I have a 3000 or 4000 year-old civilization why should I take marching orders from a baby state that’s not even 300 years old like the US?
Those are relevant arguments to people with ancient civilizations with a long history of political and social development and philosophies. They are certainly relevant to me and many like me in the Arab world.
I really can’t speak for China, a Chinese would be better informed here. But if I were to draw parallels to the discourse here [Arab and Muslim world], history plays a huge role, not just as a model to follow. As socialism is clearly a break from the past for China. But lessons to learn from and shape your world view.
For the Arab world Islam was the midpoint of our history and a new beginning. But we still carry on things that even predate our ethnogenesis as a distinct Semitic people, as past lessons.
it’s far from being the main thing that explains why China is China and why it shouldn’t aspire to be the US.
China is China because of its economic model. I do believe socialism is a better model than capitalism. But even some capitalist countries are closer to China than the US because the culture emphasizes things like harmony and shared prosperity, and places a greater burden on the government’s responsibility towards the people and their welfare. Things like this are motivated and informed by our own history and culture, at least for Arabs.
The British Empire and basically the world was controlled by a single city of ~1million. And besides the historical and current examples of smaller cities controlling much more land and people then they had themselves, the statement doesn’t make sense. Why can’t a nation of 330 million control a nation of 331million?
A nation of 330 million cannot control a nation that has 1 billion more people. Nations should also be free to choose their own destiny. A logical fallacy many in the West fall for is assuming the rest of the world wants to be like them and should be like them. If I have a 3000 or 4000 year-old civilization why should I take marching orders from a baby state that’s not even 300 years old like the US?
Removed by mod
Those are relevant arguments to people with ancient civilizations with a long history of political and social development and philosophies. They are certainly relevant to me and many like me in the Arab world.
Influence of Confucianism on the Chinese Political System: A Case of Social Credit System and Socialist Core Values
Removed by mod
I really can’t speak for China, a Chinese would be better informed here. But if I were to draw parallels to the discourse here [Arab and Muslim world], history plays a huge role, not just as a model to follow. As socialism is clearly a break from the past for China. But lessons to learn from and shape your world view.
For the Arab world Islam was the midpoint of our history and a new beginning. But we still carry on things that even predate our ethnogenesis as a distinct Semitic people, as past lessons.
China is China because of its economic model. I do believe socialism is a better model than capitalism. But even some capitalist countries are closer to China than the US because the culture emphasizes things like harmony and shared prosperity, and places a greater burden on the government’s responsibility towards the people and their welfare. Things like this are motivated and informed by our own history and culture, at least for Arabs.
Source: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/state-owned-enterprises-global-economy-reason-concern
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
The British Empire and basically the world was controlled by a single city of ~1million. And besides the historical and current examples of smaller cities controlling much more land and people then they had themselves, the statement doesn’t make sense. Why can’t a nation of 330 million control a nation of 331million?
Those days are long past and were a historical anomaly. We live in a world where Afghanistan defeated the US-led coalition forces.
Dictatorships are not about choice.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod