Now China is the world’s No. 1 economic power. Why should we care? On one level, we actually shouldn’t. The world economy is not a zero-sum game, where China’s growth must necessarily come at the expense of ours. In fact, its growth is complementary to ours. If it grows faster, it will buy more of our goods, and we will prosper. There has always, to be sure, been a little hype in such claims—just ask workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs to China. But that reality has as much to do with our own economic policies at home as it does with the rise of some other country.

On another level, the emergence of China into the top spot matters a great deal, and we need to be aware of the implications.

First, as noted, America’s real strength lies in its soft power—the example it provides to others and the influence of its ideas, including ideas about economic and political life. The rise of China to No. 1 brings new prominence to that country’s political and economic model—and to its own forms of soft power. The rise of China also shines a harsh spotlight on the American model. That model has not been delivering for large portions of its own population. The typical American family is worse off than it was a quarter-century ago, adjusted for inflation; the proportion of people in poverty has increased. China, too, is marked by high levels of inequality, but its economy has been doing some good for most of its citizens. China moved some 500 million people out of poverty during the same period that saw America’s middle class enter a period of stagnation. An economic model that doesn’t serve a majority of its citizens is not going to provide a role model for others to emulate. America should see the rise of China as a wake-up call to put our own house in order.

Second, if we ponder the rise of China and then take actions based on the idea that the world economy is indeed a zero-sum game—and that we therefore need to boost our share and reduce China’s—we will erode our soft power even further. This would be exactly the wrong kind of wake-up call. If we see China’s gains as coming at our expense, we will strive for “containment,” taking steps designed to limit China’s influence. These actions will ultimately prove futile, but will nonetheless undermine confidence in the U.S. and its position of leadership. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly fallen into this trap. Consider the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement among the U.S., Japan, and several other Asian countries—which excludes China altogether. It is seen by many as a way to tighten the links between the U.S. and certain Asian countries, at the expense of links with China. There is a vast and dynamic Asia supply chain, with goods moving around the region during different stages of production; the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like an attempt to cut China out of this supply chain.

Another example: the U.S. looks askance at China’s incipient efforts to assume global responsibility in some areas. China wants to take on a larger role in existing international institutions, but Congress says, in effect, that the old club doesn’t like active new members: they can continue taking a backseat, but they can’t have voting rights commensurate with their role in the global economy. When the other G-20 nations agree that it is time that the leadership of international economic organizations be determined on the basis of merit, not nationality, the U.S. insists that the old order is good enough—that the World Bank, for instance, should continue to be headed by an American.

Yet another example: when China, together with France and other countries—supported by an International Commission of Experts appointed by the president of the U.N., which I chaired—suggested that we finish the work that Keynes had started at Bretton Woods, by creating an international reserve currency, the U.S. blocked the effort.

And a final example: the U.S. has sought to deter China’s efforts to channel more assistance to developing countries through newly created multilateral institutions in which China would have a large, perhaps dominant role. The need for trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure has been widely recognized—and providing that investment is well beyond the capacity of the World Bank and existing multilateral institutions. What is needed is not only a more inclusive governance regime at the World Bank but also more capital. On both scores, the U.S. Congress has said no. Meanwhile, China is trying to create an Asian Infrastructure Fund, working with a large number of other countries in the region. The U.S. is twisting arms so that those countries won’t join.

The United States is confronted with real foreign-policy challenges that will prove hard to resolve: militant Islam; the Palestine conflict, which is now in its seventh decade; an aggressive Russia, insisting on asserting its power, at least in its own neighborhood; continuing threats of nuclear proliferation. We will need the cooperation of China to address many, if not all, of these problems.

We should take this moment, as China becomes the world’s largest economy, to “pivot” our foreign policy away from containment. The economic interests of China and the U.S. are intricately intertwined. We both have an interest in seeing a stable and well-functioning global political and economic order. Given historical memories and its own sense of dignity, China won’t be able to accept the global system simply as it is, with rules that have been set by the West, to benefit the West and its corporate interests, and that reflect the West’s perspectives. We will have to cooperate, like it or not—and we should want to. In the meantime, the most important thing America can do to maintain the value of its soft power is to address its own systemic deficiencies—economic and political practices that are corrupt, to put the matter baldly, and skewed toward the rich and powerful.

A new global political and economic order is emerging, the result of new economic realities. We cannot change these economic realities. But if we respond to them in the wrong way, we risk a backlash that will result in either a dysfunctional global system or a global order that is distinctly not what we would have wanted.

Page two from the below link.

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2015/01/china-worlds-largest-economy

The Nigerian government’s view of China grew especially sour after Mao officially supported the secessionist state in Biafra by supplying the Biafran administration with weapons. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, China was not a trading partner of Nigeria, as its international trade was conducted primarily with European and North American countries.

Under Goodluck more than 200 Chinese firms operate in Nigeria. While in Beijing last week, Nigerian President Jonathan signed nine memoranda of understanding with the Chinese government. China agreed to provide Nigeria with a soft loan of $1.1 billion loan in exchange for Nigeria agreeing to increase its daily supply of oil to China ten-fold (from 20,000 barrels per day to 200,000) by 2015.

It is President Jonathan’s job to successfully direct the influx of Chinese money and resources to the benefit of Nigeria’s masses, rather than to a powerful and influential few after 2014. His chances of doing so are not good, however, until the political culture changes in Abuja and I don't mean switching letters of parties from APC to PDP . Beijing knows it has a strengthening relationship with one of Africa’s most important countries. The bilateral relationship between the two may yet serve as a model for China’s growing influence throughout Africa.

Nne, a world dominated by China and India m,ight well prove a world our children will hate living in. I understand all that anger against the West but wait until other cultures take the driving seat.
Anyway, how have you been? Happy holidays in advance and I hope to meet you soon.

ikenga67:
Nne, a world dominated by China and India m,ight well prove a world our children will hate living in. I understand all that anger against the West but wait until other cultures take the driving seat.
Anyway, how have you been? Happy holidays in advance and I hope to meet you soon.

I understand how you feel. Western media has done a good job as portraying White Supremacists as the saints and angels of the the global world. We have been brainwashed to think only a world ruled by White Supremacy could ever work.
I hope to meet you too My Dear and I wish you and your family a joyful and productive holiday!

BTW if you ever ran for office I would join your campaign team, you should think about it

biafranqueen:


I understand how you feel. Western media has done a good job as portraying White Supremacists as the saints and angels of the the global world. We have been brainwashed to think only a world ruled by White Supremacy could ever work.
I hope to meet you too My Dear and I wish you and your family a joyful and productive holiday!

BTW if you ever ran for office I would join your campaign team, you should think about it

Hahaha! Run for office? Thanks nnem, but...I doubt it. I might be a political junkie but not yet a politician.
But please, whatever you think of the West, dont think the Asiatics will be any better. From Ghenghis Khan to present day communist China, they never recognize any moral boundaries. They are not immoral mind you (Nigerians are), they are just ammoral doing whatever it takes to get what they want. I really think that they would be the worst people to run a crowded world with rapidly diminishing resources.

Nigeria can also catch up with China and India, if some envious and jealous tribes stop working against the good interest of others


God bless GEJ.



Biafranqueen I don't think China supplied Biafra any weapon

This is the major reason why US wants Nigeria to breakup


They see Nigeria as a future China.


What confuses me is why do they view the world from that angle.



What will US lose if China becomes the next super power.

EasternLeopard:
Nigeria can also catch up with China and India, if some envious and jealous tribes stop working against the good interest of others


God bless GEJ.



Biafranqueen I don't think China supplied Biafra any weapon

Page 301
I have books where they found weapons clearl rom China My Dear
http://books.google.com/books?id=hu7n1YNNrqcC&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=which+countries+supported+biafra+China&source=bl&ots=sLNjHVU4fZ&sig=YUbqljDnzJtVNgs5ag58A1NtF8g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=84uCVPWeH83noASU8YG4BQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=which%20countries%20supported%20biafra%20China&f=false

China’s economy may now be the world’s largest, but it’s still not the richest. GDP per head is still less than a quarter of U.S we should partner more with BRIC nations, we did get a better deal than US and EU.

biafranqueen:

Page 301
I have books where they found weapons clearl rom China My Dear
http://books.google.com/books?id=hu7n1YNNrqcC&pg=PA301&lpg=PA301&dq=which+countries+supported+biafra+China&source=bl&ots=sLNjHVU4fZ&sig=YUbqljDnzJtVNgs5ag58A1NtF8g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=84uCVPWeH83noASU8YG4BQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=which%20countries%20supported%20biafra%20China&f=false

There is a difference btw buying weapons from China and China giving us weapons.

Good one for china, but most of their citizens still leave on Low income (albeit they are a manufaturing populace). China depends largely on Africa(Nigerians) to so that their economy can grow. I only hope communism will forever stop in china and they would give HK what they rightly deserve. Nigrria is also growing. It has beaten SA, but the citizens leave below $1(#190) .

mcfynest:
Good one for china, but most of their citizens still leave on Low income (albeit they are a manufaturing populace). China depends largely on Africa(Nigerians) to so that their economy can grow. I only hope communism will forever stop in china and they would give HK what they rightly deserve. Nigrria is also growing. It has beaten SA, but the citizens leave below $1(#190) .

I don't know about that N190 a day, just western media hype. Plus they say 30% of the population, so that means that 70% are managing and progressing.

EasternLeopard:



There is a difference btw buying weapons from China and China giving us weapons.

Not really which country gives away weapons? They always buy or barter. Sometimes they give weapons to groups to create havoc like Boko Harem, it is a means to an end and they see it as an investment.

Biafran had the oil and China needed it. Thats War Baby, nothing new.

biafranqueen:
Not really which country gives away weapons? They always buy or barter. Sometimes they give weapons to groups to create havoc like Boko Harem, it is a means to an end and they see it as an investment.

Biafran had the oil and China needed it. Thats War Baby, nothing new.

I'm impressed by your world view and the way u analyse issues.

biafranqueen:
I don't know about that N190 a day, just western media hype. Plus they say 30% of the population, so that means that 70% are managing and progressing.

THE QUESTION IS THIS, MUST WE ALWAYS BELIEVE IN THE WHITES SUPERIORITY? MUST WE BELIEVE THEM 100% WHENEVER THEY ANALYSE DATA?

Before nko? It makes me happy to see US go down in anything.
Up russia!
up china!