Multilateralism or unilateralism

China attacks U.S. at G20 as the world's biggest source of instability

In the past, the U.S. has advocated multilateralism and free trade. This was because these concepts helped the U.S. As a trading nation, free trade benefits the U.S., allowing the U.S. to get needed goods as well as sell its products to overseas markets. Multilateralism gives the U.S. the morale high ground in coercing other nations into following its will.

But when others start to catch on and learn to use this system which the U.S. has created to their own benefit... It is no wonder that China is calling out the U.S. for its hypocrisy. Why can't other nations benefit from this U.S.-created system to become great nations themselves? Is this the fear of being unseated that all hegemons have?

As the hegemon of the current international system, is the U.S. afraid that its position is going to be challenged by China, and is therefore trying to change the system to prevent that? It is like organizing a race, then moving the finish line when others start to catch up.

When the U.S. had a major share of the global economy, countries could only suck it up and observe whatever rules the U.S. set. But today, this is no longer the case. China and other emerging markets can now be viable major trading partners for other countries. If they lose the U.S. market, while they may suffer, countries no longer will be devastated.

Such a world, when other countries in the world can say no to U.S. rules, is of course not something that the U.S. wants. And maybe that is why the U.S. is now trying to change the narrative to allow them to set different rules. But sooner or later, such hypocrisy will be recognised. What then, U.S.?

Underwriting international systems

Today, the free and open use of the sea is an important part of our international system. It is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and ratified by most nations. While the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, it is still in agreement with almost everything in UNCLOS; there are just some minor issues preventing the U.S. from ratifying it domestically.

Still, the U.S. is the biggest underwriter of UNCLOS, and the enforcement of freedom of navigation is a key operation by the U.S. Navy to ensure that the seas remain free and open for all nations to use.

Of course, this is just one example of how the U.S. serves as the underwriter of international systems. U.S. commitment to the current international system, including the forward-basing of troops in Japan, and others military commitments in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East is another example of how the U.S. is underwriting the security landscape of the current international system.

At the international level, the hegemon is the underwriter of the international system. That is a fact that has not changed since people formed nations, and nations interacted with each other. As the hegemon of our current international system, U.S. commitment toward underwriting the current system serves to ensure the system is stable, and that other nations observe the rules of the system.

And when the hegemon shows signs of weakness, other players may take the opportunity to bend the rules, break them, or even try to establish new ones.

The current international system is a global one, with the U.S. being the sole hegemon. But if the U.S. is not able to continue underwriting this system, as shown by recent moves by the U.S. asking allies to up their levels of commitment (getting NATO nations and Japan to spend more on defence, for example), it is telling the rest of the world that the U.S. can no longer sustain its status of hegemony.

And that is when other players may come in to challenge the current global system.

China does not need to create a new global system. China, and other major players, can just seek to create regional systems that break away from the current global one in order to break U.S. hegemony. A regional system that breaks away from the global system being underwritten by the U.S. will undermine U.S. hegemony, setting the stage for a new global system (which may be a combination of regional systems, or a single universal one). This new system will be underwritten by regional hegemons, or a single global hegemon.

合久必分，分久必合。
China recognises this concept, this fluctuation of coming together and splitting apart. And being able to recognise the shape of things is the first step toward being able to shape them.

The shape of things is changing, and those nations that are able to recognise this change are the ones who are in a better position to adapt to this change.

Thinking things through thoroughly before implementation

On November 4, 2019, Singapore announced the ban of personal mobility devices (e-scooters) effective the next day.
E-scooters to be banned from Singapore's footpaths starting Nov 5
Given that these PMDs are not allowed on roads, they are effectively limited to cycling paths and park connector networks, limiting their use for personal mobility.

But the decision drew a lot of public outcry as these devices have been widely used by food delivery services, and the almost-immediate ban affects everyone in such businesses. This resulted in an announcement that PMDs can be traded in for cash.
S$7 million in grants to help food delivery riders trade in e-scooters following footpath ban

Having been in the public service for many many years, I thought it was a really bad move by the government in the way that this was handled.

When I was in the public service, I was taught (drilled into me) that anything the government does must be well-thought, because any resemblance of walking back or amending any decision will result in loss of public trust in the government. Any policy, once public, is a commitment that needs to be upheld. This is not to say that the government is never wrong; on the contrary, it means that all those working in the government need to do their due diligence to ensure that every single policy has been thoroughly researched and deliberated, every angle considered, so that any policy that is announced is the best policy for that time.

Anything less will give people the impression that the government is not up to standard.

I wonder where such standards have gone.

Well, it is not just Singapore. A recent happening in Japan was what prompted me to think about this, and I was all ready to criticise the Japanese government until Singapore decided to join in and show that it is at the same level.

In short, Japan's education ministry announced it was going to use private English exams as part of university entrance exams. And readily drew a ton of outcry because such a move will favour those living in bigger cities, who have better and easier access to those private exams compared to students living in the countryside. The ministry eventually walked back its decision, announcing delays, which again caused issues since some people have already started to make arrangements to take those exams (which cost money).
Private English tests for Japan university entrance exams delayed after minister's gaffe

At the end of the day, it all boils down to this: the government needs to think through all its policies thoroughly before making any decisions. To do otherwise is a lack of due diligence, and therefore undermines public trust in the government. Such a lack of trust will eventually hinder the government in working for the people, rendering it ineffective when taken to the extreme.

"Engage brain before mouth."

Supposed to be at DSEI Japan...

I was supposed to be visiting DSEI Japan, "Japan's first integrated defense event" today.

But instead, I am not. Why? Because the organizers did not manage to send out the passes to registrants in time. I mean, today is the actual day of the exhibition, and yet not even an email was received. It is really a pity because I was looking forward to attending the event's conference, at which two of the speakers are people whom I have worked with before when I was still in uniform.

Having been involved in IMDEX Asia several times in the past, this comes as a shock to me. Something so basic, like emailing entry passes to registrants, can fail. It makes me wonder if the organizers are even serious about making this inaugural event a success.

I can only speak from experience, and I do know that the organizers of IMDEX Asia and Singapore Airshow put in a lot of effort to work with the Singapore military to ensure that the VIPs invited to the events are given the best in hospitality, and to ensure that a high degree of interactions take place between visitors and exhibitors. For DSEI Japan... my own limited interaction with one of the organizers did not give me such assurance. All I can say is, in that limited interaction, I left with serious doubts as to whether they are really serious about making this inaugural event a success.

The success of such a trade show lies in being able to create as much interaction between visitors (potential clients) and exhibitors. And impressions are one of the most important things for that to happen. People need to have confidence that the organizers are able to provide opportunities for such interaction. It does not help that the organizers failed at one of the most basic things--sending out the entry passes in time. If you cannot do even such a basic task properly, who is going to have confidence in you that you can succeed at the other, more complex tasks?

By the way, I was told that if I go to the exhibition venue, I should be able to receive a pass by providing my details again (i.e. go through the registration process again). I decided I would not do so because my confidence in the organizers had been badly shaken, and I have serious doubts as to whether I should spend time visiting an exhibition where the organizers may not be as serious about it as I am about attending.

If I were to add a hastag to this post, it would be
#DSEIJapan #failure
just from this basic inability to get the entry passes correct.

(It seems the official Twitter pages, DSEI_Japan and DSEI_jp, are not being updated too, even though the event has opened for several hours now and keynote speakers have spoken. The Facebook page has not been updated for a long long while. In this age of social media, one can only wonder what the organizers are thinking.)

Yang Guo and Kirito

A while back, I got to know about the Sword Art Online anime series, and ended up finishing Season 1. Then Season 2. Then the movie. Then Season 3, and even managed to catch up to the latest season airing on TV now. Even as I was watching Season 1, the protagonist, Kirito, struck me with his similarity to Yang Guo, the protagonist of the wuxia novel The Return of the Condor Heroes 神雕侠侣 by Jin Yong (Louis Cha).

Note: Some spoilers follow.

Like Yang Guo, Kirito's sword is black and made from a special material. When he fights together with his girlfriend Asuna, they complement each other in their attacks and defences. Just like Yang Guo and Xiaolongnü.

And Kirito had to lose his right arm, like Yang Guo, in Season 3. And become "depressed" (it is more complicated than that, but that is the gist) just like Yang Guo after Xiaolongnü disappeared (jumped off the cliff) and he was so down he came up with the An Ran Xiao Hun Zhang 黯然销魂掌.

Also, all the girls seem to keep falling for Kirito, just like the many girls in The Return of the Condor Heroes falling for Yang Guo. But just like Yang Guo, who only has space in his heart for Xiaolongnü, Kirito only has space for Asuna.

So yes, there are many similarities. Is Kirito based on Yang Guo? Who knows? But the important thing is, these are probably common elements of the hero's journey. Having to embark on a journey, a quest to look for something, finding love, facing trials, and finally overcoming all those difficulties to return home.

And maybe that is why the story of Kirito captivates me. It is the same storyline, in a different setting. A story of adventure, of love, of challenges.

Adapting international frameworks to fit the changing global situation

I think we can all agree that the current international system and its accompanying frameworks were created largely by the Western world--European countries, and the United States when it took over a the global superpower. The current system of national states and the sovereignty of nations are key concepts of the Western world, and today, key concepts of our international frameworks. These frameworks were developed at a time when Europe, and subsequently the U.S., were the leading powers of their times.

The problem, though, is that the world has changed. The global situation is no longer one where European countries are empires with colonies all over the world. It is not one where the world is split between two blocs in a cold war, with each bloc or more less isolated from the other, and the leaders of those blocs being the sole economic powerhouse within their respective blocs.

The world today is very different.

Former colonies have gained their independence (unless you count places annexed, like Guam and Hawaii, as colonies...), and some are doing even better than before. South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan are strong economies within their regions. The economies of Latin America are growing rapidly. China has gone from being a nation struggling with extreme poverty to become the world's second largest economy. The question is no longer "Will China replace the U.S. as the world's biggest economy?" but "When will China replace the U.S. as the world's biggest economy?"

Under such circumstances, international frameworks which cannot take into account the new global situation will become irrelevant, obsolete, and sidelined.

To preserve the current international frameworks, we need to update them, adapt them to fit into the current times. To ignore the changes, and try to continue implementing these frameworks will risk them being sidelined as new players such as China and India seek ways to be heard. If we do not adjust our frameworks to allow them to talk, they will come up with other platforms for them to be heard. That gives them the initiative, that gives them the advantage. If the leaders of old want to continue their hold on the initiative, then they need to be the ones initiating the changes to the existing frameworks, to change those frameworks to give new players a voice while continuing to be able to control the overall narrative.

If you are operating a bus service, you need to change your routes to adjust to changes in the neighbourhood. Otherwise, you will find yourself with less and less passengers, while someone else start a new bus route that better serves the new shape of the neighbourhood.

Just like living things evolving to adapt to changes in their environments, our systems need to evolve to adapt to the changing times. Natural selection is not limited to biological systems.

China and the South China Sea ruse

About 10 years ago, China reasserted claims in the South China Sea through its nine-dash line claim. That was in 2009, when the rest of the world was still trying to recover from the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

This claim is not new. It originated from the days when the Republic of China (currently on the island of Taiwan) was in control of the Chinese mainland. But why did the People's Republic of China choose to dig it up after more than 60 years?

Could it just be a ruse?

At a time when the U.S. was trying to consolidate resources to deal with its own domestic financial issues, could China have been using this claim to tie down the U.S. in this region? It is costly to operate a navy far from home. Any scale-back in operations would greatly cut operating costs, money which can be used in other parts of the U.S. to help with economic recovery. But so blatant a claim, so blatantly in contravention of international law (UNCLOS), cannot be ignored by the U.S., because to ignore it would be to undermine the international system that has been put in place under U.S. leadership after World War Two.

It was a move that the U.S. could not ignore, and China knew it.

At the same time, I think China might not be looking into a long-term solution for this issue. Just like the issue of Taiwan and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, sometimes, it is better to have ambiguity and unresolved issues that can be used to one's advantage when the time comes. The longer this drags on, the longer people have to devote resources to deal with it. All China needs to do is to be the one setting the pace, i.e. create the issues. This sends others into a scramble to deal with the issues, always putting them one step behind.

If that is the case, then the best way to deal with it is to be the one setting the pace. To be the one creating the issues for China to deal with.

One way would be the set the stage for a revision to UNCLOS. The U.S. can come in, and say that the U.S. is ready to engage China and India in revising UNCLOS to take into consideration the current global situation; an update to UNCLOS. This, of course, would be a U.S.-led affair, with U.S. in the driver's seat. But it is a move that China would not have expected from the U.S. It will throw China off guard, making China have to be the one to respond to the issue instead. It puts the initiative on the U.S. side. And the U.S. has a good excuse for this. The U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS, and can always say it is ready to work to better UNCLOS so that it can be something universal, accepted by everyone because it takes into consideration the current global situation and the new interests of emerging powers.

I don't know if the U.S. is willing to give this a try, but of course, it is but an example. The trick is to seize the initiative, be the one creating the issues for China to deal with instead of being the one always reacting to issues created by China. Some other alternatives would be to create a forum for discussing the joint development of the South China Sea.

Note: This post is just for me to consolidate some of my thoughts on this issue, and I apologise if it does not sound fully coherent.

Facts, not feelings

"We need to base our decisions on facts, not feelings." This was something that I told some participants of a leadership program that I was helping out in. I thought I would expand a bit on it.

It is human nature to be swayed by our feelings. However, in making our decisions, we need to guard against basing decisions on feelings over facts. Many times, we may think we know something, but those are based on hunches, on bits and pieces of information, hearsay, and facts that we have gathered from various sources to let us arrive at certain deductions. Such deductions are then used to make decisions, even though they may not be true.

This is not to say we should not base our decisions on deductions. It just means that our decisions must be rooted in facts. Either direct facts, or deductions based on facts (and not hearsay, rumors, gossips, blatant misinformation, etc.) Because when we allow our feelings to get the better of us, our feelings will become a filter that colors our deductions, which then further colors our decisions. This becomes a vicious cycle that reinforces the weight of our feelings in decision-making.

We then end up behaving based on how we think the world is like, compared to how the world actually is.

This is not too big an issue if the world is close to what we perceive it to be. But if the actual situation is vastly different from what we think it is, this information/reality gap will directly affect our chances of success in our endeavours. It will cause us to become unable to achieve our objectives because we are not acting based on the actual situation, but on what we (wrongly) think the situation is. In computer terms, garbage in garbage out. In OODA, it is a failure of the OODA loop due to not conducting the "Observe" part properly. This loop failure is self-reinforcing: we act on a flawed decision, which does not achieve the desired result, further warping our sense of reality (our perception of the situation) which then again results in poor decisions and flawed actions.

On a side note, we must also be aware about how our feelings can be used against us, to cloud our decisions. Suspicion and fear do not need to be backed up by facts to be effective. This is because they play on our feelings. An example is the U.S. ban on Huawei. This video seeks to find out the facts behind the ban. But even if there are no facts to support the suspicions and allegations that Huawei is helping the Chinese government, the damage is done--the seeds of suspicion and fear have been planted, and people are acting based on those suspicions and fears rather than real facts. This is how fear-mongering can be harnessed as a tool, how misinformation can be used as a weapon. How feelings can be used to get people to think and act in certain ways, if people do not learn how to base their decisions on facts.

If we want to succeed, and not be led by others, we need to learn how to always base our decisions on facts and not feelings. "Is this a fact? Or is it just how I feel about something?" We need to keep asking ourselves this simple set of questions.

A sign of things to come

We see the protests in the streets of Hong Kong. We see the protests in Catalonia. We see protests in other parts of the world. As people take to the streets to protest against their government, we see how technology is being used to bring people together to show their commitment toward a common purpose.

But we also see increasing violence in the protests in Hong Kong, and that is a worrying sign. Because violent protests will only push law enforcement toward taking even more drastic measures. It is a vicious cycle of violence that will eventually end badly for everyone.

At the same time, the United States need to keep a close watch on this. Because with the impeachment inquiry, and likely subsequently the impeachment itself, underway in the U.S. now, I cannot help but wonder: will the impeachment, with the U.S. already so divided along partisan lines, push Trump supporters and those against Trump into taking to the streets in a violent manner similar to those protesters in Hong Kong? If so, how will law enforcement in the U.S., never known for exercising restraint, act?

Is this a sign of the chaos that may engulf the streets of cities all over the U.S. should the impeachment drive an even more stark divide?

What will people in the U.S. and other Western countries say about violent protests when it happens in their own countries? Will their protesters be champions of democracy and free speech, or treated as criminals breaking the law? 

Military force as a continuation of policy? Or part of policy?

We have all read and heard quotes from Clausewitz's On War that war is a continuation of policy by other means. When other ways of doing things have failed to achieve certain political objectives, war is the way to continue pursuing that objective.

Here, I think we can understand war as hot war, as a national effort requiring domestic support and commitment toward pursuing the political objective, as an effort that may possibly evolve into total war. Here, I don't think we should equate war to military action. This is because military action can span a wide scale of intensity, from presence on one end, to all-out total war on the other end. Clausewitz's use of "war" refers to the more intense end of the spectrum in military action.

And since the less intense end of military action continues to provide options for the pursuit of policy, it may be easier to look at military action, or the use of military force, as part of the pursuit of policy.

We see economic action being used to pursue political objectives. Pursuing free trade, use of preferred nation status, imposing of tariffs, imposing economic sanctions--these are examples of economic actions being used to pursue certain political objectives. These actions may also be coupled with diplomatic and even cultural efforts, such as high-level talks between government officials, student exchange, even dissemination of culture (such as the spread of anime, or the dispatch of language teachers to help spread language education).

Just like such actions, military action is but another tool in the toolbox, to be used as appropriate in pursuit of the bigger political objective. Military presence can be used to show a nation's commitment toward a cause. This can be escalated to show of force demonstrations to emphasize a nation's commitment and persuade/coerce. We have also seen the use of limited military force (such as border skirmishes) to further put across political messages.

But does the use of military force preclude the use of other means? I think not. Economic, diplomatic, and cultural efforts can continue to be in place, and new ones undertaken, even when military action is being used. Thus, instead of looking at military force being a continuation of policy by other means, we may want to see it as part of the overall political effort. And since war is part of the spectrum of military action, I think war is thus a part of policy, rather than its continuation.

What do you think?

How far along "all men are created equal" have we come?

Today, the United States is the biggest advocate for democracy and equality. In the United States Declaration of Independence, it is written that "all men are created equal". Thus, in its laws, each person is treated equally. Everyone of age has the right to vote, and each vote has equal weight. But of course, there are certain flaws in its system, since states have the same number of Senators regardless of their population. Which means that in the Senate, the voices of each person in the less populated states are actually bigger than those from states with bigger populations.

At the national level, most countries try to solve this by having the number of elected representatives proportional (more or less) to the number of people they are representing. But at the international level? This is hardly the case.

In the United Nations, each nation is given a vote. The votes of each nation is equal to any other nation. Which sounds fair, until you see the flaw of equality. China and India, which together makes up about 35% of the world's population, but only has 2 out of 193 votes. 35% of the world has only 1% of the voice. 35% of the world's population has only 1% say in what happens to the Earth as a whole. This is hardly "all men are created equal", unless by "all men", the United States is referring to "all men in the United States". If that is so, then such equality is no longer universal, but rather local (limited to the United States), which undermines the United States' advocacy of its ideas to other nations.

This is not just limited to the United Nations. The World Bank, IMF, many other international institutions are similarly "unequal". For example, rich nations having a bigger voting share than poorer nations. What does this mean? The rich has a bigger voice than the poor... hardly "all men are created equal".

If we really believe in "all men are created equal", nations, beginning with the biggest leader, the United States, will have to revise their political systems to ensure proportional representation of its own population at the national level. This is to give each person the same weight of voice in determining the future of his or her own nation. International systems will then need to be revised to allocate voting shares according to population sizes to give each person the same weight of voice in determining our common future on the Earth.

Until such a day comes, we can only say that "all men are created equal" is a lofty ideal, and dream about the day when it actually happens. And of course, for those who believe in such an ideal, work endlessly toward achieving it.

Attitudes toward the Chinese diaspora

I have been reading a book (making really slow headway, though) titled When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order: Second Edition by Martin Jacques. In it, he discussed the view that China used to view the Chinese diaspora (people who left China) in less than favorable light. In this post, I hope to add a bit of my view on this.

Yes, I think it is not hard to see why China, back in the old days (Imperial China), would see those who left its system as "deserters". After all, China was the embodiment of civilization, and to leave China meant to go join the barbarians. It is to leave the light for the dark. For Star Wars fans, it was really like joining the Dark side.

But back in those days, Chinese migration out of China was quite limited too. People who left China usually fell into two broad categories: those in trouble with the system (i.e. outlaws who needed to escape) and merchants seeking greater profits. The first category is obviously one which China is not going to welcome back. The second category probably did not enjoy a very good reputation back in Imperial China, since merchants are quite low in the Confucian order of society, and all the more so for those out to seek profits for their own selfish needs.

But Chinese migration in the late 19th century into the first half of the 20th century was fundamentally different. People left Imperial China not to escape the law or to seek selfish profits. Rather, they left to seek survival, better times at a time when conditions in China could not support them. In a way, they left because they had no choice. And thus, I think that is why modern China's attitudes toward the Chinese diaspora is different compared to the attitudes of Imperial China. It is why China today shows a willingness to work with overseas Chinese, and even welcome them back to China. Instead of being outlaws and selfish merchants, they are seen as family forced to seek refuge overseas during turbulent times, family which can now contribute again back to the bigger extended family of China and Chinese society.

This change in attitude is likely to affect the way China views immigration going forward. We already see a wave of Chinese migration into Africa. Once China starts to view the Chinese diaspora as an asset, and given China's continued economic rise, we can expect migration patterns to change, and the corresponding change in the attitudes of overseas Chinese toward mainland China.

The book has proven to be a good read so far. You can also check out the TED talk by Martin Jacques about understanding the rise of China:

Note: post includes associate links to Amazon.com.

Bankrupting the U.S. through imperial overstretch

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend a talk about China's expanding capabilities in big hull ships for HADR.

China's New Navy and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief

It was interesting to see how China is building big hulls (aircraft carriers and amphibs), and how they can be used to further Chinese influence through provision of HADR.

After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, the JMSDF (and Japan's Self-Defense Force in general) has gain a huge reputation boost for its involvement in disaster relief. While big hulls have a primary combat roll, their secondary role in HADR is increasingly being used to justify the spending required to build, operate, and maintain them.

And it looks like China has caught on to this narrative.

An idea that kept bugging me is how China can use such big hulls and the HADR role to bankrupt the U.S.

As the global policeman, the U.S. deploys forces all over the globe. But this places a huge fiscal burden on the U.S., and the U.S. is increasingly calling out to its allies to chip in. It is expensive to keep forces abroad due to the infrastructure needed to support them. What this means is that we are likely to see reduced U.S. presence in various parts of the world.

And China can easily step in to fill that presence-gap with its new big hulls. On the pretext of HADR readiness, China can deploy a carrier group and two amphib groups in the region (the carrier group in the South China Sea, while one amphib group in the Indian Ocean and another in the southern Pacific). This gives China opportunities to show the flag, and they will be ready to render immediate assistance should a disaster occur, which will again be a reputation boost.

The message? "We are here to do what the U.S. used to do."

Is the U.S. ready to concede to such messaging? If now, the U.S. will need to maintain a similar presence: three groups out at sea at any time, ever ready to respond to any disaster. The problem here is cost: the region is closer to China, which means it will cost them less to rotate the assets necessary to maintain such a presence. The U.S. will increasingly be called to justify such costs to its citizens back home, given its domestic needs and rising government debt.

Such a move by China will put the U.S. in a very difficult position. Does it cede regional leadership to China by scaling back its presence? Or should the U.S. continue to spend on such presence, ignoring its dangerous fiscal position and other domestic needs (which may eventually undermine its global economic position)? Will such a move by China lead to the bankruptcy of the U.S. due to imperial overstretch?

Competition, evolution, and survival

China-led Asian trade bloc pushes ahead as India drops out

We can all understand the fear that can be brought by a sudden influx of cheap Chinese goods. But is the fear of competition good for us in the long term?

Evolution is competition. Biologically, species survive because they are able to compete with other for limited resources. Humans are now the dominant species on Earth because we have evolved to be capable of winning the resource competition.

And national survival is at stake when it comes to economic competition.

Free trade exposes economies to competition. When goods and services can be easily brought in from another country, domestic companies are forced to compete in order to survive. This can be bad news for those companies forced to compete. But it is this competition that makes an economy stronger.

It forces companies to be come better if they want to survive. It is that evolutionary process, in another arena.

It is such competition that will bring the entire human species forward.

We all fear competition, because there is always the possibility of losing. But we must remember that it is such competition that forces us to keep improving, and it is this constant strive for improvement that will allow us to survive into the future.

TPP and RCEP will be the two major economic circles going forward. And China will be the most important player in both of them, given the absence of the U.S. As existing frameworks become weaker due to the increasing isolationism of the U.S., new frameworks driven by China will arise to take their places. For nations to survive, they will need to be able to adapt to changes in the global environment. For change is the only constant in life.

MAGA at the expense of everyone else

Trump administration notifies U.N. of planned Paris climate accord exit

Trump campaigned on a promise to rescind that pledge, saying it would hurt the U.S. economy while leaving other big polluters like China to increase emissions.

This may sound right when you look at the amount of CO2 China is putting out. Based on World Population Review, U.S. CO2 emissions in 2019 is 5.00 billion tons. This is almost half of China's total emissions, which stands at 9.04 billion tons. But... China's population is in the magnitude of 1.4 billion people, compared to a much smaller U.S. population of around 330 million people. In other words, China has about four times as many people, yet emits less than twice as much CO2. This shows in the per capita CO2 emission: U.S. per capita CO2 emission is 15.53, while China's is 6.59, which is less than half. "The U.S. is proud of our record as a world leader in reducing all emissions, fostering resilience, growing our economy, and ensuring energy for our citizens." This no longer sounds very convincing when you look at actual figures.

The thing is, China is now a leader in solar panel production, and has been putting a lot of effort into renewable energy use. This presents a huge problem for global leader U.S.: if the U.S. is not able to match China's efforts in dealing with environmental issues, it will eventually lose moral high ground. As China grows in economic might, the only thing preventing China from usurping U.S. leadership is the current hold that the U.S. has over the narrative on moral high ground. If the U.S. loses this narrative, it will see a weakening of its soft power at a time when its hard power is being challenged by China.

The moral high ground, the Mandate of Heaven, has always been central to China's thinking about intra and inter state relations. We can expect China to continue to work on this narrative, even as the U.S. moves further away.