Three reasons to be uneasy about a world potentially dominated by China

Virtually since the 21st century began, predictions have been made that it is a matter of when, not if, China becomes the foremost power in the world. And, whether any of the conspiracy theories about how the coronavirus came into being are true or not, China's relatively short experience of it and the reduced impact it had there have also stood the country in good stead. We don't KNOW what a potential Chinese-dominated and shaped world would be like, but there are three reasons why I personally would not see this as a development to be welcomed and celebrated.

Firstly, it is the treatment of the Chinese government's minorities and their cultures within their own country. As per Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography (an excellent read), and reinforced in news stories since, distinct minorities and cultures in China, be they Tibetans or Muslims in Xinjiang, are treated in an exceptional way. Whilst negative treatment of minorities, and potentially separatist ones at that, is not particularly exceptional when it comes to national governments, and has been seen and continues to be seen around the world, what makes China is unique is not only its harsh treatment of them in the short term, but the encouragement of Han Chinese to settle in those regions in major numbers so that, in the long term, native distinct peoples are overwhelmed, to become a footnote in history books. Just as history has seen native peoples in the Americas and Australasia overwhelmed by incomers, so China seems set to do the same in her own lands. The world has great self awareness now, looking on the overwhelming of these historic cultures with regret, while China knowingly seems to pursue this goal even though we supposedly live in enlightened times.

Secondly, and linking with the above, is the approach to Hong Kong, which feels of greater significance to me as a Briton. Hong Kong appeared to be a remarkable place, of economic success and opportunities, which it was hoped would continue. However, in this relatively democratic part of China, the tide has been turned in response to protests in order to suppress critical voices- an important ingredient not only for democracy, but also progress, as faults can be pointed out and then worked out. Allowing only 'patriotic' pro-mainland voices in Hong Kong politics will sadly stifle, and likely reverse, the relative democracy and freedom enjoyed there, and also makes one wonder whether business will view Hong Kong in the same way as it has done historically. Every news story on this subject I have seen over the past year has saddened me, and I'm not optimistic about Hong Kong's future. At least the UK has offered Hong Kong's citizens a means of escape- an unfortunate outcome, but a lesser evil and an important sign of support and hope for the people there. Meanwhile, it is also my understanding that the abovementioned policy of encouraging compliant Han Chinese to settle in Hong Kong as well is taking place and is intended to overwhelm those with memories of those greater freedoms in the longer term.

With these above points, the Chinese response in the media appears to be that these are internal Chinese matters that outsiders shouldn't comment on and are none of their business. There is truth in this but, for a country that could lead the world, leaders must be mindful of the example their countries set. And deliberately overwhelming alternative voices and perspectives does not present a positive image. So the third and final point is concern over the prospect of China as the world's leading country. Say what you want about the faults of the previous dominant power, the UK, as well as the current one, the USA (and, fortunately, the freedom to say what you want about them is a freedom we enjoy!) but, in spite of their faults, they have long spread messages of good values, of democracy and freedom. Although Britain profited from what we now see as the immoral slave trade, when attitudes caught up with how wrong this was, a complete shift in treatment of slavery was adopted, not only abolishing it at home, but playing a leading role in its abolition worldwide as well. Meanwhile, the United States supported dubious governments during the Cold War for strategic reasons, but when practical and possible would support democracy and self-determination, as promoted globally after the world wars. And although many are keen to point out the negative impact of these countries on the world, their positive legacy can be seen too: former countries of the British Empire include the world's largest democracy, India, and one of the world's most stable, developed and generally successful countries, Singapore- not to mention the famously peaceful countries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with living standards and freedoms envied across the world. And, if Britain is to be criticised for negative influences elsewhere, surely it can then claim some credit for these countries' success? Meanwhile, after the Second World War, the United States' occupation of Japan left a country that became one of the world's foremost economies, successfully upholding peace, stability and democracy. If China does indeed lead the world one day, can we anticipate similarly positive legacies around the world resulting from their power and influence? It may well be the case (and, judging so far, it seems not unforeseeable) that China maintains a non-interventionist stance to foreign policy. And, given the negative outcomes of intervention in the Middle East in recent decades, the positive arguments for this are obvious. However, if another Gulf War scenario arose, whereby a larger country used force to resolve a dispute with a smaller neighbour, like Iraq did with Kuwait, would it be right to leave Kuwait to be overwhelmed, as non-interventionism would allow, and encourage a world where it's every nation for itself?

Although China's rise seems set to continue, the controversy surrounding it should act as a restraining influence as the numerous countries wary of this, from the USA, to many European countries, Australia, India and Japan, and can hopefully create an effective counterbalance and together perhaps ensure a moral influence around the world is upheld in the decades ahead (assuming China doesn't turn over a new leaf in the meantime).

Foreign Policy and Defence

 One of the few benefits to lockdown is that I have never had so much time to read, and got through so many books. Being enthusiastic about modern history, I feel like I have reached some conclusions on foreign policy and defence that are worth recording.

Depending on your country's capability to adopt the philosophy, the best approach seems to be that of former US President, Theodore Roosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick", i.e. focus on diplomacy and encouraging good relations, but have the potential to use force if needed, which helps you to be taken seriously.

More obviously, I believe in putting great effort into maintaining close ties with your allies, and doing what you can to support them, economically and militarily, for mutual benefit and aim to uphold an environment around the world that is favourable to your country and its outlook and values. What has been shown over the centuries is that it's highly unlikely that all countries can adopt identical outlooks and values. As much as capitalism and democracy are most favourable from the standpoint of Britain and other likeminded countries, it seems unrealistic to expect all countries to share equal enthusiasm for these concepts. Significant tolerance is therefore important to ensure widespread good relations. Whilst the way that other governments operate, in terms of their political systems and treatment of certain rights, may run counter to our outlook and be distasteful, significant (though not unlimited) tolerance is valuable and practical. For example, there can be great debate over getting the correct balance between freedom and stability. Having spoken to people from Vietnam and Singapore, they have said that certain freedoms their countries may lack (relatively) perhaps allows greater benefits in terms of the stability of their countries, which I feel should be respected, even if these countries may prioritise some values differently to the way myself and many other British would. 

Note that I said that tolerance of difference systems should be significant but not unlimited: two principles I like to think my country, and other likeminded countries, tend to support in the modern era are that the mass killing of a country's people by their own government, and any invasion or attempted conquest of another country against the population's will, are both intolerable. These actions should encourage condemnation and consideration of military involvement, ideally on a collective basis with other countries. One would hope that the United Nations would back this stance, adding legitimacy.

Although, as mentioned earlier, the emphasis should be on diplomacy and not military aggression, the latter can be justified in the two above international scenarios, as well as in defence of allies and, of course, self-defence.

Royal Round-up: 2020

 

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco. 

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France. 

2020

In a year when COVID 19 has dominated the world's headlines, royals testing positive for the coronavirus include Prince Albert II of Monaco and the claimant Emperor Karl II of Austria.

As countries around the world debate the best approach to containing and eliminating COVID 19, with Sweden standing out as taking an exceptionally loose approach to restrictions, King Carl XVI of Sweden makes it known at the end of 2020 that he feels that his country’s approach had been a failure.

The claimant, King Leka II of Albania, has his first child, Princess Geraldine.

In a speech, King Philippe of the Belgians admits that regrettably cruel acts were committed during Belgium’s rule of the Congo.

As his father and predecessor, the former King Juan Carlos, is engulfed in scandals, including receipt of controversially large donations, King Felipe VI of Spain attempts to distance himself from his father by cutting his father’s state funding and renounces his own future inheritance of any money from questionable sources.

Royal Round-up: 2019

The European countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.

2019

King Carl XVI of Sweden rescinds royal status from his grandchildren in an effort to streamline the Swedish royal family.

By royal decree, following a visit to his family’s ancestral home in Germany, King Philippe of the Belgians amends the royal coat of arms to reinstate the shield of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which had been removed around a century earlier in response to anti-German feeling at the time of the First World War.

Henri, Count of Paris, and claimant to the former French throne as King Henri VII of the French, dies aged 85. His second son, Prince Jean, succeeds him as Orleanist claimant to the French throne. He is recognised by monarchists as King Jean IV of the French.

Brexit Bitterness

Ever since the 2016 vote, Brexit has been an almost daily feature of the news in the United Kingdom. However, with Brexit expected to bring about drastic change, this is understandable. By now, with the end of March 2019 the agreed departure date of the United Kingdom from the European Union, it would have been hoped that clarity would have been reached and a path would have been set for the next few years. Alas, we are now in February, with this path now perhaps at its most uncertain since the Brexit vote.

There seem to be countless directions Brexit could head in, with three standing out most: Brexit based on Theresa May's deal, no deal, or a second referendum- with the latter implicitly offering the chance to cancel Brexit. I will now outline, from worst to best, my stance on these options:

- Second referendum (with the option to cancel Brexit): worst option. A vote supporting Brexit again would take us back to where we already are, except prolonging the whole process even more. A vote overturning Brexit would provoke an almost inevitable backlash from Leavers: for all those prospectively backing Leave twice, after at least one time of winning the vote, it would indeed be seen as a betrayal to ultimately remain in the EU. As we all know, Brexit provokes strong feelings, and its cancellation would disrupt voting patterns even more as public vent their anger on Brexit's conduct. A violent, mass response is also foreseeable. In any case, the arguments for this option are very weak: saying "people didn't know what they were voting for" is incredibly patronising and, seeing as Brexit still hasn't happened, no-one yet knows what Brexit will be like in practice; while saying that those too young to vote missed out is a foolish case, given that there will always be generations missing whenever a vote is held, and the implication of this argument is that the desire is to manipulate the vote. Moreover, a second vote resulting in "Remain" raises the argument that we would need a "best out of three" decision in the future, prolonging the process again. After the vote on Scottish independence, the SNP quite graciously accepted the result- despite it being close. Remainers calling for another vote should do the same, and not open a Pandora's box on having whole series of referenda on the same topic.

- No deal: This would deliver on what was voted for, i.e. departure from the EU. However, this method is expected to be particularly disruptive for all concerned and leaves a great deal undecided on our relationship with the EU for the foreseeable future. No doubt steps would be taken to smooth the process, but in my view this would be avoided by...

- Theresa May's deal: whatever eventual form it would take, I support its basic principles. It honours the basic result of the vote, by taking the UK out of the EU. It would also honour the spirit of the vote, considering that immigration is widely accepted as the key factor behind most of those supporting Brexit, and the deal would stop "freedom of movement", and enable the government to control all forms of migration to the UK. Meanwhile, on the other hand, it smooths the process by bringing clarity in many areas of continued ties with the EU, and enables valued trading links continue largely as they currently do with our principle trading partners.

This deal also reflects a compromise, and the fact that the vote was so close suggests that a Hard Brexit should be not be sought. It also provides far greater certainty that businesses are looking for, while the public can see tangible progress being made when Brexit already seems to have dragged on for a long time. Any measures to delay Brexit, such as a second referendum or pushing back the departure, just prolong the uncertainty many agree is damaging business, as well as unity among politicians and society generally.

The current messiness is something I neither blame on Brexit voters or the government, but parliament. Whether intentional or not, Gina Miller's push for parliament to vote on the outcome has made Brexit more damaging and divisive when, by now, the withdrawal agreement had already been passed by the UK government and EU, which was previously all that was sufficient. Passing an agreement bringing about Brexit to an institution that is primarily opposed to Brexit provided too much temptation for trouble. Either side of those supporting Theresa May's deal are those pulling towards Hard Brexit and no deal, and many of those opposing Brexit altogether, when those extremes make the polar opposites of what the outcomes of what they want in terms of Brexit more likely.

The elephant in the room is the backstop, whereby Northern Ireland would remain in a customs union with the EU in the event that either a hard border or other outcome deemed unsatisfactory is in place by the time the UK is due to end its transition towards leaving the EU completely. However, I feel that there should be mutual trust that all parties do not desire a hard border between Norther Ireland and the Irish Republic, so a backstop should be unnecessary. Nevertheless, as a backstop is also undesirable for all concerned, this shouldn't be allowed to obstruct Brexit from happening as no parties would want a backstop to be in place indefinitely.

I therefore hope that some form of Theresa May's Brexit deal is accepted, and as soon as possible, to deliver the Brexit voted for and bring undesirable uncertainty to an end, so everyone can adjust to a post-Brexit United Kingdom.

Royal Round-up: 2018

The countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:

Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.

Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.

2018

Prince Henrik, consort of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, dies aged 83.

Having surpassed the milestone of 44 years on the throne, King Carl XVI of Sweden becomes the longest reigning monarch in his country’s history.

With encouragement from his mother, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commonwealth leaders unanimously agree that the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, should succeed Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations- a position which is not hereditary.

7 Wonders about the World

Whilst on holiday recently, I found myself thinking about 7 topics in global affairs- topics which I anticipate will continue to occupy my mind for the next few years at least:

1. Cuba without Castros
With the more dominant of the Castro brothers, Fidel, now having passed away, and his younger sibling Raul in the process of retiring from power, Cuba is on the cusp of leaving the influence of the Castro brothers for the first time since Fidel seized power in his 1959 revolution. For much of the near-60 period since then, Fidel Castro held power, reforming Cuba into an anti-American socialist state. The world's focus was infamously on Cuba in 1962, for the duration of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the plans for Cuba to house the Soviet Union's nuclear missiles, as concocted by Castro and his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev, were halted by the United States' President John F Kennedy, bringing a stand-off many feared would bring nuclear war. The defiance of US dominance in the Americas by Castro's Cuba inspired many opposed to American influence around the world, notably Hugo Chavez, leader of Venezuela in the early 21st century, who encouraged anti-American, left-wing governments across Latin American, with Chavez repeatedly citing Castro as his inspiration. However, with a tentative rapprochement between the United States and Cuba overseen by Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro, i.e. since Fidel had stepped down, in recent years (with progress on this front since stilted by Obama's successor, Donald Trump), one can't help wondering whether a post-Castros Cuba will become an American-dominated Caribbean island, falling into line with its neighbours, or whether that decades-old defiant streak will continue...?

2. The Legacy of President Donald Trump
Loved or loathed, now that his presidency is well established, we can see that Donald Trump WILL have an impact both at home in the United States of America, as well as overseas. Will that impact and legacy be positive or negative though? So divisive is the president, I would expect many reviewing this point to scoff one way or the other: of course it will be negative, or of course it will be positive. Though I'm glad that such a divisive and belligerent figure is not my head of state, and seemingly lucky to have not stirred up more drastic and prolonged violence at home and abroad than he has, it nevertheless seems unclear to me whether his bombastic gambles will ultimately pay off or not- and he seems to me to have the interests of ordinary Americans at heart. Prioritising what ordinary people want over those of the establishment/elite and preserving the status quo is an interesting, and potentially admirable, approach. As a Brit, I can sympathise with concerns over immigration, as well as with apparent weakness and loss of control over the national economy in a globalised world. Moreover, Trump's annoyance with America's great expense on defence whilst a vast majority of NATO members contribute less and take American support for granted seems very justified to me. I respect President Trump for highlighting these issues, and for attempting to address them. I wonder whether his offers of unconventional responses to these issues, be it a prospective wall to hinder illegal immigration or higher tariffs to bolster American companies, will have the intended outcome? Will President Trump have a positive impact and legacy in the short and medium term- and could he even have a long-term legacy on his country, and will it largely be for better or for worse?

3. Endurance of the European Union
I will avoid going over this too much, considering this was the subject of one of my other recent posts, but over the past decade the European Union has been hit by massive challenges, primarily economic ones triggered by the Great Recession and social ones resulting from mass migration, largely associated with the Middle East at first via Turkey, then from across the Mediterranean Sea to Southern Europe, which continues today. Populist governments have been elected in numerous EU member states of varying influence and with varying impact on the organisation and its cohesion. Some say that the EU tends to emerge from crises stronger; arguably, for the past decade, it has faced its greatest challenges yet. Will it be stronger or weaker in the years ahead, and how will it look if and when its current economic and social crises have been addressed?

4. Brexit
The almost daily topic on British news is the country's departure from the European Union- a divisive topic like the aforementioned President Trump, and the EU itself. The nature of Brexit has been an ongoing debate in the UK for years now, with a model that unites everyone non-existent. There will be people who are unhappy with every possible outcome, so we must count on the British government to achieve the Brexit they believe in the best interests of the country and most likely to fulfil the wishes of that majority of voters who backed it. Every announcement made by the government of Theresa May on this has, unsurprisingly, been denounced by one group or another. At last, the government seems to be settling on a Brexit that priorities certain economic ties with the EU, including those crucial ones for manufacturing that caused particular concern, while at the same time expressing determination to bring freedom of movement to an end. Personally, this seems to be more or less the Brexit I hoped for, and believe many backing Brexit would also support. Most Brexiteers would have voted to leave I'm sure due to immigration, which has a tangible impact on their lives, versus European influence on British laws and courts, which doesn't. By addressing the two ways that the EU has arguably most affected Britain, economic ties and immigration, and targeting the ways the EU has, respectively, had arguably the most positive and negative impact on the UK, Prime Minister May seems to be pursuing the right approach to me and, as I've said before in other posts, whilst she wasn't my initial preference as prime minister, she has proven remarkably strong and determined, and I remain hopeful she will see through at least the establishment of a strong foundation for the UK's long term relationship with the UK, enabling continued, valuably economic links whilst taking steps to address what many deem to have been excessive migration to the UK over recent decades.

5. The Future of Brazil
I have a seemingly random interest in the future of Brazil. However, given its credential as a prospective world Great Power, yet one that has been engulfed in political scandals since President Lula Da Silva stepped down as president (a man now fighting his own scandals of controversial corruption charges to stand for president again). I can't help wondering whether Brazil will pull itself together and successfully assert itself as a global power; or if it indeed emerges as a Great Power, but manages to achieve this status by just stumbling up the ladder...

6. Shifting Power in East Asia
Whilst we can expect the USA to remain powerful for the foreseeable future, and Europe to remain relatively subdued due to its own issues as previously discussed, East Asia seems to be the part of the world where significant change can be expected. China is effectively a superpower, predicted by many to become the world's foremost power in the coming decades, followed by India in the power stakes. Meanwhile, nearby Japan's economic power and development is well established,  but may well resurge militarily. Aside from these three Great Powers, the divide on the Korean peninsula still occasionally flares up between the north and south, and other countries in the region will be anxious to the impact the Great Powers of East Asia could have on them- particularly Taiwan, which may fear (or ultimately welcome) annexation by its overwhelming neighbour, China. It will be interesting to see how relations develop in the region as its military and economy escalates...

7. Restoration of Monarchy
I can't help it! A niche interest, but I always hope to see the restoration of monarchy. I have some interest in this happening around the round, be it in Brazil to overcome ongoing scandals with his current rulers or to bring unity to divided, wartorn Middle Eastern countries like Libya or Afghanistan, by focus as always remains Europe, to its deep historic foundations and intriguing ancestral links that it has traditionally upheld across the continent. There have been varying degrees of interest in countries across the continent, whether focused on individual claimants leading the restoration movements or more interest in institution itself. Recently, there is said to be more interest in the former Habsburg territories in central Europe, such as the Czech Republic, due to a popular TV series concerning the former Empress Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Empire. I continue to follow European monarchism and hope that at least one movement will come to fruition soon and a European monarchy will be restored!