The Soviet Union collapsed, the Cold War ended, the United States became the strongest country in the world, and the world entered the unipolar era!But the distribution of power in the international system is changing all the time, and with the rise of Asia, many international relations experts agree that the United States is losing its hegemony in the world.
What is a pole?It is extreme for a country to have enough power to have the power to distribute international benefits.
This force is the sum of the world, economy, industry, population, and technology.
The unipolar pattern is that in the entire international community, there is only one undisputed most powerful country, with more than 50% of the world's power, and no challenger can shake it.
The bipolar pattern means that two countries together hold more than 50% of the world's power, while the multipolar pattern means that the sum of the forces of the three countries can exceed 50%.
If we are to calculate according to the measure of national power (GDP multiplied by GDP per capita) proposed by American social scientist Beckley's "Unbeatable: Why the United States Will Remain the World's Only Superpower", then the United States is still undoubtedly strong!
If this is true, the national strategy of the United States should be to hold high the banner of "city on a hill" and vigorously promote unipolarity!
But the United States no longer does that. Why?
Because in addition to the algorithm of multiplying GDP by GDP per capita, other algorithms and data for calculating national strength no longer support the "unipolar pattern".
GDP, GNP, GNI, and the World Bank's gross national wealth, no matter which algorithm is used, the United States is no longer the "world's number one master", but a leader in the marathon, running slightly faster than China.
Gross national income (GNI) refers to the final result of the primary distribution of income of all resident units in a country or region in a certain period of time, which is equal to the sum of the primary distribution income of all resident units.
The data also show that the U.S. is getting less ahead, more and more chasers, and getting closer to it. Even according to the World Bank, China's GNI has surpassed that of the United States.
In other words, the United States no longer has the confidence to maintain a "unipolar world."
The United States does not have the strength to maintain a unipolar world, so it naturally has to retreat to the next best thing and seek "bipolarization."
That's what the United States is doing now.
Biden has tried several times to form an anti-China coalition, engage in a global alliance bloc, and hold a so-called "democracy summit". The U.S. magazine Foreign Affairs once asserted: "Countries will inevitably be caught up in the competition of superpowers, and they will be required to choose one of the two." ”
The United States hopes to engage in a "bipolar confrontation" with China, because the combined power of China and the United States still exceeds 50% of the world's total, and as long as this strategy can be realized, it can effectively curb the "multipolar trend."
But can the United States push Sino-US relations into a "bipolar confrontation"?Hard.
Because not only China does not want a "bipolar confrontation", but also America's allies.
Biden's live broadcast at the "Summit for Democracy" is not as good as a tweet from Trump mocking him.
Now, China has been deeply integrated into the world market, becoming the hub of the global economy, and through the industrial chain and the first chain, it radiates to various regions and connects every corner of the world. In terms of data, China has become the main partner of more than 140 countries in the world, and the total amount of goods has continuously ranked first in the world.
The United States is promoting "bipolar confrontation" in exchange for "military protection of the United States") in exchange for the complete separation of America's allies from China.
This means that the allies will pay the price for "cutting with China"!
And the so-called "protection of beautiful affairs" is completely meaningless when China does not seek hegemony.
Under pressure, the Netherlands was forced to stop sending lithography machines to China, losing huge economic benefits, and the United States "did not reimburse".
In order to protect the largest customer "China" from China's "threat", Australia spent a lot of money to arm, and after a period of time, the Australian Prime Minister went to China to talk about reconciliation, participate in the Expo, and promote products, as ridiculous as it was.
The essence is that the United States cannot afford to pay the price of "cutting off China" with its allies.
Not only that, but it can't even afford the price of its allies "cutting off with Russia".
Biden and Modi are officially certified as "closest allies". But India, having weighed the losses of "cutting with Russia", rejected the American request. Not to mention giving up Russian oil, India will also buy Russian oil if it pays RMB!
Modi concluded that the United States could not afford to pay for the losses caused by cutting with Russia, or even would not pay.
I have to say that Modi is a scumbag who can settle accounts and understand scumbags.
The countries of Europe and Asia are no longer in a state of ruins waiting to be fed after the end of World War II. The original colonial country has also been independent for many years.
No matter which country has its own interests.
If the United States cannot afford to pay the cost of "taking sides", then the "bipolar confrontation" cannot become a reality.
Once this point is clearly recognized, the United States will inevitably abandon the "bipolar confrontation" in the future and instead promote the "multipolar process."
The "multipolar road" that the United States will take in the future will certainly be different from that taken by China!
The purpose of the U.S. multipolarization process is not only to contain China's development, but also to ensure that it can cope with various crisis risks in the event of a further decline in power in the future.
Through common needs, the United States may be able to find some allies to cooperate with mutual respect for each other's interests.
If we say that when the United States promotes "bipolar confrontation," it has to pretend to be a generous and bold rich man and distribute money and benefits.
Then the United States, which is taking the road of multipolarization, is looking for a rich second generation with whom to start a business, who is responsible for investing in shares and seeking benefits.
At that time, for most countries in the world, China and the United States will become two "optional" friends. Whoever brings them more benefits will be closer to whomever they are.
The United States has a strong foundation and should be more competitive.
But compared with China, the United States has one of the biggest "disadvantages". That is, the domestic political environment makes it difficult to talk about "economic openness" and cannot develop the economy in a complementary way with its allies.
Republican Trump is a protectionist and shouts "America First" three times a day.
The Democratic Party Biden is also **protectionist, legislating to subsidize the capitalists and making them shout "America First" three times a day.
What good business the allies have, the United States wants to move to North America.
This is tantamount to you doing business in partnership with the United States, you are thinking about development, and the United States is thinking about taking away your principal.
On the contrary, China has completed industrialization in the entire industrial chain, can "perfectly complement" almost all countries, unswervingly embraces globalization, carries out reform and opening up for so many years, and has also revitalized the economies of many countries, including Russia, which can give many demonstration cases.
As long as the United States insists on practicing protectionism and opposes globalization, it will be difficult for it to catch up with China on the road of promoting multipolarization.
But the United States will also change, and China must remain vigilant.