There were never "friendly" relationships between two superpowers in history if I remember correctly.
Provided that China becomes less authoritarian and the US doesn't do something stupid, it's not impossible for both to coexist, while still competing.
The second time might have been interesting for world history, as the French PM proposed it before France decided to join the Treaty of Rome nations to bootstrap the EU.
The issue is mostly China grabbing international waters like the S. China Sea as sovereign territory, grabbing Taiwan, pressuring Japan and neighbouring states, and building what will eventually be a string of military bases throughout East and South Asian oceans.
The US, in comparison, makes sure that everyone - including adversaries like China, Russia and Iran - can navigate the Suez, the Panama Canal, Red Sea, Arab/Persian Gulf, S. China Sea, Straits of Taiwan etc.
There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders.
And FYI Americans do care about authoritarianism, and there is constant pressure on places like Saudi to reform (and FYI there are steady reforms), though yes, it's very secondary.
The paradox is that China is pursuing a macho 'we're the local king' strategy much like Russia, when for it's own benefit, the military escapades are not fruitful. Maybe in China's case there are some advantages, though almost none in the case of Russia.
The new Belt-and-Road strategy is an example of a good project that will have immensely positive results for most players - shenanigans aside. Nobody is against any of this, we are all for it, except for the shifty things like debt-traps to grab ownerships of ports, which will eventually be Chinese navy bases.
China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really.
Right now they do. But if conflict breaks out between China and the US you can guarantee the US will use its navy to block all trade with China. This puts China in a very vulnerable position, which is why they're willing to risk upsetting neighbours by aggressively pursuing bases in the South China Sea (as well as the Belt and Road project).
>>> There would be zero problems, and US Navy presence in Asia would be minimal if China wasn't trying to hustle this outside it's borders.
Why do you think that?
>>> China will continue to pursue the authoritarian entrapment of the citizens of HK and Macau, and of course Taiwan, which isn't good for anyone really.
My wife is Taiwanese so I understand the situation pretty well. I just think it's a mistake to put this down to ideology or democracy versus authorianism. It's just two states vying for power, the same thing that's been going since forever.
In the inter-war years, the UK was no longer concerned with Germany, but, due to the Great Depression, was also too damn broke to go on international adventures. The same situation played out in the US.
The only reason the two powers are now aligned, is because the United States started seeing communism, as opposed to European colonialism[1] as its biggest threat.
The moral of this story is that superpowers can have friendly relationships when they have a common enemy, or no conflicting goals.
An obvious question, here is - what are the conflicting goals of China, and the United States? The answer is - influence among China's neighbours. If the US was not interested in maintaining it, there would be no conflict.
[1] In the 19th century, European colonialism was a threat to American colonialism. In the 20th century, the American empire has resisted de-colonization a lot better then European powers did.
The optics of it were anti-colonial. The implementation of it was absolutely colonial. This is one of the many baffling contradictions of America.
Central and South American states were only allowed to be independent of European rule. They were, and continue to, be client states of Washington. When they forget this, they get regime-changed.
America's 19th and 20th century adventures in Hawaii, the Philippines, Samoa, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the annexation of Mexico's territories, and deportation and repression of native Americans were all colonial power grabs - and all performed under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine.
This is the fundamental difference between the British Empire of yesteryear, and the American empire of today. The British public was never confused as to whether or not it was at the head of a globe-spanning empire.
What are you even talking about? Trump imposed hefty tariffs on Chinese goods a year ago. US Soy exports to China, previously their biggest market, also collapsed last year after being hit with 20% tariffs last summer[0]. According to some estimates, they fell by 98%[1]. They have resumed some small scale purchases, but that's mainly due to a lull in the Brazilian growing cycle. What you think will never happen, already did over the last 12 months.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-trade-soybe...
[1]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/incredible-u-s-china-soybean-...
Most people assume that China needs the U.S. market more than the U.S. needs the Chinese market. But that thinking is about 15 years out of date. The reality is that exports as a percentage of GDP have plummeted in China from a high of 36% to about 18%:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS?locations=CN-US
https://economic-research.bnpparibas.com/Views/DisplayPublication.aspx?type=document&IdPdf=30895
Many of the concessions China has made and will make are changes that were inevitable. And this is why previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, avoided the populist politicking of the current administration--it would require expending considerable American good will for de minimis benefit. The China "problem" was already well on its way to fixing itself. The cold, hard truth, though is that there aren't any great ways to improve America's domestic low-skill manufacturing base without losing elsewhere (i.e. farming exports, high-margin service exports, or cheap imports that subsidize our standard of living). The China problem will simply become the Vietnam problem, the Myanmar problem, ad naseum, and as the U.S. economy continues to shrink relative to the global economy, we have less and less power to extract concessions that allow us to avoid coming to terms with our real domestic issues.
Another cold, hard truth is that our deficit spending is the flip side to our current account deficit. China comprehends that at least as well as we do, and apparently much better than advocates of the recent tax reform measure which exploded our deficits.[1] That provides yet more leverage for China. All the bluster in the world can't surmount economic fundamentals, as every populist demagogue (like Hugo Chavez) eventually discovers. But reality doesn't prevent demagogues from selling the public fantasies about geopolitical "wins" or from hiding behind manufactured excuses.
[1] And lest you think I'm partisan, I also think single-payer healthcare is fiscal suicide. If we can't make Obamacare work (politically, fiscally) then there's zero chance we can make single-payer work. (I do think Obamacare is salvageable if we tried, but in any event it's already at the outer edge of what's feasible as a practical matter.)
There is a theory that the Sun clan's "art of war" was intentionally disseminated among its enemies, to make them more willing to yield to negotiations, and make their maneuvers more systematised, and predictable at war.
Strategists of Suns, on the other side, were well known for trickery, and unconventional maneuvers.
If it is so, "the art of war" is one the most brilliant piece of disinformation ever written.
It would be negligent not to continually manage and revise the plans as the economies change.
It would be stranger to know that you are legally obligated to annex and support a neighboring economic powerhouse with a totally parallel incompatible culture that was ignored or isolated for 50 years. Instead, Mainland China has become less and less aligned with Marx’s teachings, and Hong Kong has become more and more aligned with the rest of the bay area economic regions.
Look at the language used "return" - people still think HK was leased. It wasn't - the New Territories were.
People don't care about HK people. I wish they did but no one does.
At least Tibet has some awareness surrounding it in the West - HK just got hung out to dry.
Of all the colonies from which British rule was removed, only HK got handed over to the thugs, thieves and torturers its population had previously escaped.
Everyone else got independence. HKers didn't even get UK passports.
And most of Kowloon. As opposed to HK Island, which was obtained by legitimate conquest, I suppose?
> Of all the colonies from which British rule was removed, only HK got handed over to the thugs, thieves and torturers its population had previously escaped.
What realistic alternative would you have suggested to Thatcher at the time?
Oh that's easy. Give every HKer a full British passport instead of creating an entirely new category of nationality, where they were still British Nationals, but not British Citizens. Then let in a token few thousand. Unforgivable.
Would have given HKers a free choice, and done wonders for the UK economy.
I mean, was that ever an option? So I have zero chips in this game and it is plainly obvious to me from 8,000 miles away that the writing has been on the wall since 1997: Hong Kong has autonomy for 50 years.
The various protests are just to ensure that autonomy and mainland interference... until 2047.
These are agreements that have been upheld by the international community, and Hong Kong and mainland China (with evidence of growing propaganda to align HK interests with the CCP). But real interference from mainland China before this agreement ends would be an invasion of which there is no chance of winning or gaining defense from, and they have never done that and upheld the agreement.
I wish to be empathic, as I can see the strong Hong Kong sovereign identity and the people's investment in that, but there's no outcome where that lasts past 2047, barring a new agreement, and there are outcomes where both regions align closer to ideologies.
My understanding is that Hong Kong's autonomy lasts till 2047, but the Basic Law constitution has no expiration date. There is just no framework for the Basic Law to have any weight after being absorbed back into the CCP's umbrella and supreme (but arbitrary) rule of law.
Maybe within Hong Kong it feels different as if there is a chance, but that's an echo chamber. If you want to avoid being absorbed into mainland China then you have to leave like EVERY OTHER Cantonese speaking community has done in waves for the last 200 years.
There is just not a history to support Hong Kong being an exception, it is just tolerated, for now.