Jump to content
Nonegfiat

China- Nonegfiat (A) vs NativeWarlock (N)

Recommended Posts

CX part 1 out of probably 2-

The plan says engage China with the purpose of entering the AIIB- what does that mean, dialogue? 

 

And is it distinct from the USfg just straight up JOINING the AIIB?

 

Roach 15 says that the AIIB is china's first contribution but also cites CO2 and trade agreements that occur in the future- why does the AIIB matter more?

 

Okay how is global governance in the status quo is super abbrasive when the Shambaugh evidence says  To date, China has been extremely reluctant to collaborate openly with the United States on such global governance issues, but now it possibly seems more feasible. This is because President Xi has personally endorsed more "proactive diplomacy" by China in the global governance arena

 

Onea says that US and China are zero sum- why is this true if we have diplomatic efforts in the squo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CX part 1 out of probably 2-

The plan says engage China with the purpose of entering the AIIB- what does that mean, dialogue? 

 

Well, we can't force our way into the AIIB. We have to talk to China about it first, because it's their bank. The plan mandates that we engage China in a dialogue over the joining bank, which will result in us joining.

 

 

And is it distinct from the USfg just straight up JOINING the AIIB?

 

Effectively, no. As I said above, we can't just straight up join. The plan is as close to that as we can realistically get.

 

 

Roach 15 says that the AIIB is china's first contribution but also cites CO2 and trade agreements that occur in the future- why does the AIIB matter more?

 

Roach is specific in distinguishing the AIIB from those agreements. Both of the agreements took place in Western forums. The trade agreement happened in the World Bank, which is US led, and the CO2 agreement was part of the Paris summit, another western initiative. The AIIB is unique because for the first time China is proactively staking its own unique claim in global governance. It's their institution; their contribution to the international order. That's totally different from just brokering a deal here and there.

 

 

Okay how is global governance in the status quo is super abbrasive when the Shambaugh evidence says  To date, China has been extremely reluctant to collaborate openly with the United States on such global governance issues, but now it possibly seems more feasible. This is because President Xi has personally endorsed more "proactive diplomacy" by China in the global governance arena

 

The very next thing Shambaugh says after the excerpt you quoted is "This won't solve the problems in US-China relations." Shambaugh's entire argument is about how US-China relations is characterized by comprehensive competition which is getting worse-- that is their argument. They acknowledge that there are attempts at cooperation, which is probably inevitable given that the US and China have a large, multifaceted relationship, but make no mistake-- Shambaugh concludes that the competition trumps attempts at cooperation.

 

 

Onea says that US and China are zero sum- why is this true if we have diplomatic efforts in the squo?

 

Onea says that status competition is zero-sum, meaning order for the rising power to gain status, the dominant power has to lose status, and the refusal of that process on the part of the dominant power leads to war. Diplomatic efforts aren't really relevant to that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...