I would argue that, more than anyone else, the US is laying the groundwork for a post-American world order. It has been on that course since the post-9/11 insanity, and the trend has only accelerated since.
While I agree that the change won’t be a “grand event”, I don’t think it’ll take anywhere near half a century to happen. I expect it’ll happen over a decade or less and will largely be invisible to US consumers until the larger effects of our weakened currency become apparent.
I expect the rise of China as the dominant economy will be rapid and will take most people by surprise - barring, of course, a major downturn in either major economy.
Could you elaborate on this? My impression was that China has recently been bullying its neighbors, particularly Vietnam and to some extent the Philippines, over oil and gas deposits in the South China Sea. I can't imagine that's great for regional stability.
I also wonder if many Americans would want China to take on a leadership role with respect to Taiwan. I doubt the Taiwanese would take such a view.
Why would border tensions be "over reported." It's a matter of allied sovereignty?
From an idealistic standpoint, America supports the notions of state sovereignty and the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea simply out of principle. Like Apple’s stance on customer data privacy, the U.S. government defends freedom as a matter of pragmatism first, and then talks up the altruistic angle :)
> The Uighurs see themselves as a minority facing cultural, religious and economic discrimination. When Xinjiang was incorporated into the People's Republic of China in 1949, they comprised roughly 80 percent of the region's population. Controlled migration to Xinjiang of Han Chinese has reduced this share to 45 percent
[..]
> Anyone with a potentially suspicious data trail can be detained. The government has built up a grid of hundreds of re-education camps. Tens of thousands of people have disappeared into them in recent months. Zenz estimates the number to be closer to hundreds of thousands. More precise figures are difficult to obtain. Censorship in Xinjiang is the strictest in China and its authorities the most inscrutable.
[..]
> Normal journalistic research in Kashgar is inconceivable. No one wants to talk. A Uighur human rights activist who met up with us four years ago didn't respond to a single one of our text messages. His phone number is no longer listed. As we later learned, he disappeared months ago. But whether he was thrown into a re-education camp or prison is unknown.
[..]
> Every family begins with 100 points, one person affected by the system tells us. But anyone with contacts or relatives abroad, especially in Islamic countries like Turkey, Egypt or Malaysia, is punished by losing points. A person with fewer than 60 points is in danger. One wrong word, a prayer or one telephone call too many and they could be sent to "school" in no time.
Bring "stability" to the Middle East?
What the US did and does in the Middle East is not something any other nation can solve for them; bring those who waged wars of aggression to justice, show genuine good will towards those you mistreated, that's something any nation owes either way (it's not like many European nations don't have a lot to make up for, for example). You're responsible for not making it worse, and owning your shit. That's not just what "number one" must do, even the smallest must do it. Others are responsible for sorting out their mess. You don't have to bring peace to the Middle East, just not more war. You don't have to bring democracy to China, just don't look the other way or even help rationalize and justify it.
And isn't that exactly what most nations are doing ? Especially European countries and the EU, and more so as time goes on.
Trump is when the bridge burning started and when America really lost its stature on the world stage. If it was declining since 9/11, trump took that gradual trend and sent it straight down.
I'm sure I'll be down voted for stating facts, but that's just the times - people hate facts.
What measurable metrics are you examining to come to the conclusion that Trump has had a net positive effect? Can you please point me to any primary source document in the EU parlament which outlines legislative action leading to growth in NATO? Who is our diplomatic negotiator in these talks? Do we have any commitment on any level?
On the subject of trade, can you please point me to any primary source document that suggests we're getting a better deal? What exports are suffering, and how does current administration policy balance the deficit, increase the quality of life for the American people, or benefit our trading partners. Who has received the current administration's policy "well?"
What tangible commitments has N Korea made towards a peace process? Sohae Satalite Launch was not used for years, and the only thing torn down was a rocket engine burn pad (trivial to setup again, but I'm not an airspace engineer. ).
What new Arab state coalition exists under Trump that didn't exist under Bush or Clinton?
How has Trump's summit meeting with Putin, or his actions since illustrated a clear international policy on Syria? How has the EU been forced to make any energy policy changes in the past 2 years?
You've made some interesting claims, and I'd be happy to hear you support them. However, that which can be claimed without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.
As for trade, negotiations are obviously ongoing, but it's only been a few week, but certainly seems to be going in a good direction: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-j...
As for N. Korea, their latest peace negotiations have gone further than ever before. US soldier's remains have been returned, political prisoners were returned, the very first peace summit directly between a US president and a N. Korean leader, and end to missile and nuclear testing for going on a year. You can knock these, but it is hard to see how they aren't major achievements only belittled by ideology.
As for the middle-east why would we not count a strengthening of a coalition, just because it existed before? I pointed out that negotiations are being made when the parent would have you believe things were getting worse instead of working plan for better. They certainly aren't "burned bridges".
I didn't mention Syria for a reason. That is clearly lost to Assad and Russia. Not sure what Trump could have done differently except immediately pull out and cede the loss.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Europe had changed their energy policy, only after the NATO and trade summits, they have agreed to take US LNG in an effort to reduce their reliance on Russian nat-gas, and at least formally acknowledged their reliance is a bad thing.
Why didn't you ask the parent to source and explain their statements? What did they state which was obvious?
My whole point was this “burning bridges” and general miasma around Trump’s foreign policy is the result of ideology and hysteria instead of hard nosed observation of facts.
Part of the "stature" involves how he publicly treats officials from other countries and how he presents himself to the world.
This is what led Angela Merkel (and other world leaders) to repeatedly denounce Trump. Theresa May almost laughed when Trump suggested that she sue the EU and it's by far not the most stupid thing he's said.
No president does 100% bad things, but the problem is that with every success that he does have, he can't articulate it well because 30% of his vocabulary solely consists of the word 'very'. His reading and speaking level are barely above middle school. The only reason he's resorted to doing unpredictable, mad dog politics is that he isn't capable of doing anything else -- not because it's a good method of politics these days.
Does that get you things like trade deals because no one knows how you'll react? Sure, at the cost of reputation down the line.
Some people didn't care that Trump called Jong-Un "rocketman" if it meant positive results. Others were horrified that Trump would ridicule a world leader in such a childish manner, even if it did lead to by far the best results of any president in the history of N. Korea/US relations.
My impression is that Trump is negotiating completely differently than any previous US president. He's throwing extreme positions out there as a starting point, then trying to negotiate back to something reasonable. (Much of the outrage in the press is directed at his opening statements - both content and style - not at the end position.) This approach may work, if others adjust to his style. But international diplomacy is not like business negotiations, and he may wind up alienating countries that he really needs to keep as friends.