...
There is also no reason to assume China will take the same course.
I'm familiar with Huntington's theories and to some extent agree with them. He never suggested that US dominance would be replaced with another country's dominance. He suggested that the US would no longer be a hegemon and the world would return to its state of multiple strong states competing for influence and dominance, with none being strong enough to dominate.
Colonization was started under such a context, but it was a different world for other reasons as well. As it turned out, colonization was unsustainable. That lesson will resonate. The US and USSR became dual dominant powers and themselves competed for dominance over smaller states. Now in hegemony, the US acts as a police nation over threats to its stability. Huntington believes that this will prove unsustainable.
So if there is a neocolonialism, there is no point in singling out China. The US, the EU, and whatever other major powers exist in a world without hegemony will compete for dominance over their regions in similar manners.
Also the upcoming dominance of China is largely overstated. Like typical strong communist states, China has accelerated to the point of catching up but will slow if it does not adapt. It has taken up something similar to the "Asian tiger" model, which works to build up for a while but because it requires a homogenous, totalitarian political climate (which China has now), it eventually erodes with the powerful middle class' efforts to take power from government.
__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...
And I do not need to know.
|