China Morning Missive Moving Parts Please accept my apologies for having not sent through any morning updates from Shanghai over the past week. It has been a hectic period for all of us. In addition, I have been finalizing a rather in-depth essay on the path to rivalry between China and the United States. A tome really. Will see about where best to upload it on Nostr. For now, however, please find below the initial section of that essay’s introduction. It ties nicely into recent comment from Canadian PM Carney Introduction The veil has fallen. America has discarded the charade that its primacy was held to account by the very international rules-based order it built 80 years ago. This realpolitik dichotomy has been known throughout most of the world and for quite some time. What actually transpired over the past several weeks is a realization – a loss of naïveté – among the American populace and the citizenry of post-1945 allied nations that America would act as it saw fit in the pursuit of self-interest and will do so, whenever necessary, fully unencumbered. America has deployed uber-primacy and the raw projection of power from the very moment the Cold War ended and the unipolar world commenced. These actions are just no longer concealed by diplomatic subterfuge. From the Iraq War to the Global Financial Crisis policy responses and myriad other instances, the very “international rules” forced upon others has always been deemed inconvenient by Washington and, thusly, ignored when those “rules” conflicted with self-interest. Throughout the unipolar moment, the non-American allied world was acutely aware of American intentions. Those nation-states accepted, with reticence, the power bestowed upon this hegemon. China, and Russia for that matter, also accepted that the world was to be dominated by a single superpower. Both nations, however, knew their world histories and in 1997 began planning for that inevitable day when America’s reach would finally exceed its grasp. That day has long since arrived and there is now a broad agreement that a realignment in the world order is underway. The only debate present is found in the international relations community and its zealous quest for labels: Multipolarity, G2, the Global South and even, more recently, the Core Five. Amongst them are the ubiquitous and overly simplistic comparisons made to the Cold War. For those seeking historical comparisons, there’s arguably far more compelling evidence to measure current events against the backdrop of those occurring in and around 1904. No matter one’s outlook or perspective, the only real conclusion which can be drawn is that the present moment is a unique point of departure from the previous century. History has not ended. And yet, there remains an obsession over labels and constructs, an exercise – importantly to be stressed – which is Western led and Western promoted. China eschews such framing. Where others find comfort in taxonomy and historical comparisons, Beijing views such exercises, while providing some value, as unnecessarily restrictive and, ultimately, misguided. And then there’s the fact that China is the “Middle Kingdom”. An important cultural point of reference as it is a defining element for understanding Beijing’s view of the world and how it goes about engaging with all sovereign actors. (More to follow) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-davos-speech-9.7052725
For the past month the Chinese have been discussing, actually have been shocked by, the state of the American middle class. They call it the “kill line”.
How to change the path of what increasingly looks to be an inevitable repeat of ancient (and modern as well) history? It is a question I struggle with each and every day. image
It’s official. 2026 in China. Be well all. Find peace and the goal for the New Year is to be happy for all successes be they yours or be they others.
China Morning Missive Well, there is certainly a great deal of positivity (again) from the latest round of bilateral talks between China and the United States. From what is being made public, the two sides have reached a “framework” of a deal with Trump and Xi signing off when they meet on Thursday this week. As Brad Pitt said in the move Seven though, “What’s in the box? WHAT’S IN THE BOX?” What concessions did the American side make? Up to this point what we know is the following. The TikTok deal is set to “close” on Thursday. China is preparing a “substantial” purchase of soybeans. Rare earth controls are to be postponed by a year. These are just the three larger key issues that we know of and are said to have been concluded. If China had all the leverage (which it did) and China has agreed to basically all terms, what has the American side agreed to? Thus far, Bessent is playing the game that China made concessions and with that America won’t be moving forward on the additional 100% tariffs which Trump had threatened. Nonsense. That’s Bessent providing cover to the media so that the actual details of what real concessions were made don’t need to be raised publicly. The obvious candidate would be China’s access to key technology. While I suspect that technology will be part of the American deliverable, the focus needs to remain on Taiwan. It’s always been Taiwan. I’ll also be paying close attention to the Typhoon missile systems in the Phillipines and the second installation that was placed just last month in Japan. I’m also expecting the two parties to publicly make an agreement over the future of nuclear nonproliferation. Just keep in mind that the Chinese don’t trust any verbal agreement with an American President (ironic tough that may be). All of what’s been agreed to, and I mean the real issues and not TikTok, will have had the Chinese press for a Fourth Communique. That takes time. My ongoing thesis is for Trump to travel to China in early 2026 and for Xi to travel to the States in early 2027. It will be on that US trip when the parties would sign a new communique laying out an agreement over how best to divvy up the Asia-Pac region.
My new mantra “Fuck You! Make me!”
China Morning Missive There seems to be a new term flying around the social media universe. “Escalation dominance”. Basically, it’s just a fancy way of saying China has far greater negotiating leverage as compared to the United States. Well, this bilateral imbalance has been at the core of the Notes I’ve been putting out for the past six months. My very succinct summary is this. China produces everything and America produces nothing. I’m not here to beat on America and China is most certainly working through its own issues. When you step back though and look at both parties on a net-net basis there is no other conclusion to draw than that of trade terms being dictated by China. Here is the best real-world example that I can give. To start, the current imbalance is the result of a three-decade period where multinational groups aggressively outsourced production to China. You hear this all the time. China hollowed out middle America. What doesn’t seem to get enough attention is that this entire imbalance was loudly telegraphed back in 2018 during Trump 1.0 and yet no corrective action was taken at that time. Just consider Apple as one example. Tim Cook knew at the time the precarious nature of Apple’s manufacturing dependence on China. Did he decided to marshal the company’s ample cash hoard and take aggressive steps to diversify away from China? Of course he didn’t. Such action would have tanked the stock. All that Time Cook did was accelerate the company’s share buyback program. For those who may doubt, I am a Red-Blooded American. There is, however, a reality that cannot be ignored. Like it or not, a very deep hole has been dug, and the first order of business is to stop digging. This then means that a collaborative relationship with China is the only option …. for now. A system based on financialization must shift aggressively to one centered on reindustrialization. It’ll take time, but as the old Chinese adage goes, “The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is today.” https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/12/china-defiance-trump-100-tariff-00605499