By Fabio Reis Vianna for TheSaker blog
When the world system was still in its infancy in that appendix of the Eurasian continent we know today as Europe, Babur, the King of Kabul, entered India from the northwest to establish the Mughal Empire in 1526, outlining an empire that would later be consolidated by his grandson Akbar (1556 – 1605).
The splendor of the great Eastern civilizations took place in a historical period when the world’s economy, cultural activities, and military power were concentrated in places such as China, India, and the ancient Persian Empire, now known as Iran.
The strategic withdrawal of China of the Ming – the most advanced civilization among the great pre-modern empires – from the great expansionist game, may have been the delimiting point between the before and the after of the geopolitical rise of those, as historian Paul Kennedy would say, “dispersed and relatively unsophisticated peoples who occupied the western part of the Eurasian landmass”, namely, the Europeans.
The Chinese vacuum still remains a great mystery to many historians: Why would Admiral Cheng Ho have withdrawn his fleet and that great rising civilization have given up its expansion toward an undisputed hegemonism in the Eurasian world system?
More than five hundred years after these events, we see the current hegemon of the modern world system, heir to the violent and predatory expansionism invented by the Europeans, withdrawing in an impromptu manner from that territory that in the past was part of the great Mughal Empire of King Babur and his grandson Akbar, Afghanistan.
According to most Western media analysts, the US withdrawal from Afghan territory should have been done in a coordinated manner with the puppet government, allies, and after all the Afghans who collaborated with the invasion and occupation had already left the scene.
It so happens that both the abrupt exit from Afghanistan, and Biden’s first speech justifying the exit, would confirm something that analyses centered on an American leadership of the past no longer follow.
The current expansive explosion of the world system, which began in the 1970s and shaped itself into imperial contours after the collapse of the Soviet Union, seems to be at a unique moment and certainly generated by pandemic chaos.
It is true that even before the Covid-19 crisis the increase in competitive pressure was already visible, reflecting the entry into the game of the new emerging powers, especially Russia and China.
The intensification of interstate competition, therefore, would have led the United States to give up its global leadership based on the diffuse values of the so-called “Liberal Order” instituted after World War II.
The 2017 national security strategy published during the Trump administration, which in practice had already been outlining and deepening since the first incursion into Iraq in 1991, would now reveal itself without masks.
The tearing of the fantasy of the old benevolent hegemon had come true.
The big news of what happened in Afghanistan would be revealed at the last G7 meeting, when the European leaders demanded from the United States a more responsible posture in its global leadership.
However, what is still hard for the European allies to understand, or accept, is that the United States has given up any global leadership, and in this new strategic configuration – which was not a point out of the curve created by the erratic Trump administration – the national interest, and only the national interest of the United States, will be the priority.
This being so, and taking into consideration that the United States’ military presence in Afghanistan, paradoxically, would not be negatively affecting the Chinese economic projects, and, on the contrary, favored them by guaranteeing stability in the region, it is absolutely plausible the line of reasoning that would justify the way out: to establish chaos in a region where the Eurasian enemies would be interested in stability.
The fourth expansive explosion of the world system reveals itself in frightening appearances by indicating, besides the increase in competitive pressure and the escalation of conflicts in itself, a displacement of what the professor of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, José Luís Fiori, would call a “black hole” of destructive force.
The black hole, therefore, would be at this very moment moving to a new war epicenter, which would probably be the Indo-Pacific, as well as previously unthinkable regions such as South America itself.
In a recent poll, USA Today indicated a rise in Joe Biden’s unpopularity rating after what happened in Afghanistan, which could have erroneously indicated a possible step backwards in the American exit. However, what is likely to happen is just the opposite: the bid for more systemic chaos and global destabilization.
The world system feeds on the permanent expansion of power, and this becomes even clearer when those at the top of the system find themselves challenged and losing ground to their adversaries.
More than ever perhaps the time has come for the Eurasians to fill that void left by Admiral Cheng Ho’s squadron in 1433.
Fabio Reis Vianna, lives in Rio de Janeiro, is a bachelor of laws (LL.B), MA student in International Relations at the University of Évora (Portugal), writer and geopolitical analyst. He currently maintains a column on international politics at the centennial Brazilian newspaper Monitor Mercantil.
After Cheng Ho’s death China became more isolationist. With the fall of Constantinople the Silk Road was closed to Venice and greater Europe, making exploration necessary. One empire declined and another rose, just like all of the rest of history. Just like today.
A very creditable view of the ancient Iranian, Indian and Chinese civilisations is provided (perhaps unexpectedly) in Gore Vidal’s superb novel “Creation”, which I strongly recommend.
Its protagonist and narrator, a Persian nobleman and descendant of Zoroaster, is sent on diplomatic missions to India and China. Returning after terrifying experiences, he finds his childhood friend Xerxes has become Great King.
Vidal serves up a powerful corrective to the standard European-American view of the ancient Athenians as the fount of civilisation and culture. He describes how backward and immoral the Greeks seemed to the Persians. Towards the end of the story, when the aged narrator has been sent as ambassador to Athens (a kind of punishment) he laments the draughtiness of his dwelling, which he blames on the incompetence of the young stonemason Socrates.
I think it would be workable if the planet was organized along a continental basis. There are 5 – the African, European, Asian, Islamic, and new world (N & S America) continents. The historical Silk Road would continue to be the Economic agenda for the 4 continents of the classical world and… the new World can help itself and design its own new silk road strategy model from Canada to Argentina adn China should slay low or invited into this region. There will be no geo-political “vacuum problem” if everyone’s political ambitions stayed in their own continent, they minded their own business, and they traded with each other as needed to promote this dual silk road strategy for the planet. At the end of the day, people actually do need boundaries that define them and a continental definition/identity should makes sense to all. For example, I can assure you the protestant has no organic links to Islam, is at best an ignorant competitor here, and would most likely save himself money if he stayed out of the sensitive politics of this region in the 21st century. Economic and ‘culture’ links should be ok… -_-
(Error: China should stay low – Ed)
Why would Admiral Cheng Ho have withdrawn his fleet and that great rising civilization have given up its expansion toward an undisputed hegemonism in the Eurasian world system?
because he and the Chinese foresaw that their civilization would be corrupted by contact with the primitive and backward peoples they encountered..
I believe it wasn’t the admiral’s decision to make. There was a change of government, and the incoming administration believed in isolationism to avoid all the unhealthy influences of foreigners. They took this to such lengths that all ocean-going ships were destroyed, the blueprints burned, and eventually all such knowledge lost. (Thre only parallel I can think of is what successive British governments did to the British aerospace and computer industries 1945-1980).
Unfortunately they were unable to believe that one day the uncivilised foreigners would acquire weapons – long ago invented and forbidden in China – that would enable them to invade China and lay it waste.
Hence, although the current Chinese government is essentially peaceful, it has taken the precaution of arming itself sufficiently to prevent another barabrian invasion.
From “The Man Who Loved China: The Fantastic Story Of The Eccentric Scientist Who Unlocked The Mysteries Of The Middle Kingdom” by Simon Winchester
===================================================================================
Payne was discussing the American bombing raids on Tokyo the year before, somewhat approvingly, and the Chinese sage was nodding his head in a way that Payne assumed signified complete agreement. It was only after the man began to speak that he realized “for the thousandth time since I came to China that a man who nods his head may actually be expressing the most profound disagreement:
“I was in Chongqing during the bombardment,” he said. “I have no wish that the Japanese should share the same fate. Nothing is so terrible, nothing is so remorseless, nothing so revolting to the soul as a bombardment. The soul cannot suffer in peace after such indignities. Only now, two years afterward, can I think coolly of what happened, and I now praise God that China for centuries refused to harbour such things. The Chinese knew all about poison gases fifteen centuries ago; we invented an airplane, and quite rightly executed the inventor; we are the only nation that has thought continually of peace. I have no malice against the Japanese, who killed my parents and my brothers. I have pity, but it is not Christian pity, I’m afraid – it is the pity that burns”.
§§§§~”They took this to such lengths that all ocean-going ships were destroyed, the blueprints burned, and eventually all such knowledge lost. (Thre only parallel I can think of is what successive British governments did to the British aerospace and computer industries 1945-1980).”
Or the Apollo moon missions?
We are told all capacity to recreate / exceed this 1960s tech has been lost/ destroyed.
Any way we look at it, the present top-heavy hegemon is teetering and tottering.
Overstretched intellectually, militarily and most importantly financially, one hopes the crash will not be too harsh. After all it’s Dollar connection to the rest of the world can pull down many things with it.
This was an excellent piece of writing. Very well written and telling a grand story in few words. Hope to see more of this commentator.
In a recent poll, USA Today indicated a rise in Joe Biden’s unpopularity rating after what happened in Afghanistan, which could have erroneously indicated a possible step backwards in the American exit. However, what is likely to happen is just the opposite: the bid for more systemic chaos and global destabilization.
If election 2020 – which gave an altogether new meaning to “the manufacturing of consent” – proved, that if anything, it’s that popularity is no longer necessary in the least. In fact it might even be a selling point for presidents doing decidedly unpopular things after being selected for office without popular support. Like sowing systemic chaos and domestic as well as global destabilization as part of its managed collapse and descent into wholesale criminality and depravity . Black hole indeed! Nice analogies, nice analysis, and nice piece.
To add, I’ve always used ‘metastasized malignancy’ to describe the empire during its expansive stages, but I think black hole better describes it during what is apparently now its decidedly unpredictable implosion phase.
@ Bernie your right on the mark ! in matter of fact China just anounced plan 2.0 that western’s will not be
able to get cititzenship and not be welcome to stay in China ,Xi does not want western culture to distory
the Chinese culture.
Tom
U.S is well aware that they lost economically against China and militarily against Russia. Add to it the fact that even Iran is no longer an easy target for the U.S. Empire.
They most probably will withdraw and no longer keep large forces occupying countries.
Afghanistan is the beginning. Iraq, Syria perhaps Ukraine next?
They assume they will remain in control, by ways of more sophisticated means ( control of ‘truth’ through media, false flags, generating pandemics, economic sanctions, colour revolutions, etc, all done before but now exclusively.
US Dollar dominance (bread + butter for the US economy) requires chaos and the perception that the US is safe for money.
Most probably all this will not last, since the internal decay is far too advanced.
Cheers from France.
While the dockyards and ships were destroyed, an effort was made to improve the Wall of China. This suggests that resources were needed to defend the homeland against the nomadic hordes. There was a limited economic surplus and it needed to be used wisely.
“Ming Dynasty”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty
One of China’s problems with its history, delivered globally in the English, is that it is written by foreigners, mostly in Anglophone, who in turn rely on copy-pasting from other foreigners, they relying on those before, and backward, on and on and on. Of every 100 academic works written outside China, on China’s past, 99 of their authors can’t read Chinese text properly. The only one remaining have no feel of Chinese linguistic nuances, the etymology much less, and cultural attributes even much, much less.
In short, we have stupid idiots writing about the Chinese.
Take that deficiency and multiply them in newspapers and over the Internet a thousand times daily, 365 days a year, we have this dominant narrative that the West and White people construct about China, as if they know us better than we do.
For example, and I come now to illustrate the above point, with this essay by Fabio Reis Vianna. This is not a put down nor intended to be one. I like to believe he is a friend of China instead.
Consider the notion of ‘power vacuum’ said to be left behind by Cheng Ho, more accurately Zheng He 郑和 (1371-1435). In Vianna’s term a ‘void.’ It is probably true that the Portuguese and Dutch would be confronted by a far more dominant power, dwarfing them. Yet, the Chinese, unlike White people, have not in them to shoot a foreigner each time they meet, much like native Americans once welcomed Europeans, a tragic mistake.
Back to the Yankee-Kagan western realpolitik theory overlaid on Chinese (or other people’s) history. The theory sounds appealing on paper but realistically it is just yada, yada that professors make up in order to have something to sell in classrooms and bookstores.
For example, where is the display and acts of superpower status by the Ming? You will not find any, not in the Beijing National archives nor Nanjing, not in Zheng He’s burial shrine in Quanzhou or the shipyards of Xiamen from where some of the ships were built.
This absence in flaunting power is cultural and ethical. One, power is not defined solely by the barrel of the gun; in fact it is the least of the conditions. Two, there was no concept of a superpower whether in the Ming era or in the 3,000 years before that. It is true Chinese ships were four-to-six times bigger than those that set sail from Spain or Portugal a century later. But big ships were a norm from as early as the Tang and Song dynasties, 1,000 years before the Ming and before the Europeans enslaved the world.
Norm because until ocean going vessels, sea merchants simply hopped along the coast, port to port, until they reached Kelantan and Malacca in present day Malaysia, and Singapore. When demand for Chinese goods expanded, coming from even farther away in Java, Celebes, Sumatra and Sri Lanka, the private vessels grew bigger to the size of 16th Century European ships. Such vessels were present as early as the Song era (960-1138), evidenced in paintings such as the 清明上河图. Wrecks from that period, pulled out of coastal seabeds of China, are today on display in Guangdong.
Enter the Ming emperors, 500 years later. You think the mighty Ming want to sail the flag in a ship smaller than those rich merchants whose social status in China equal the serf in Europe? The reason is also partly practical and not out of pride or superpower status: Zheng He’s fleet have to carry people not porcelain, silk, copper coins, iron wares, bowls, plates and chopsticks. And how do you feed 60,000 away from land for one year at a stretch? Naturally, you bring the farm and the animals with you. The death rate from vitamin-deficient diseases such as scurvy was next to zero whereas in early Europe, 10 leave, five won’t made it back alive.
I have said too much already and must stop. We Chinese would be contented to watch from the other shore: the White man’s world knows nothing, other than barbarity, 500 years ago or today.
But China has no choice but deal with the ‘barbarity’, because the barbarians will not leave China alone. Hence you can’t just “watch from the other shore”.
You are stating the obvious: “the barbarians will not leave China alone.” But is this a 20th and 21st Century phenomenon? Do you see the Han or Tang government going into present-day Kazakhstan to “deal with the barbarity” inflicted by the Xiongnu? (Do you even know Chinese history?) Each time, America blows up Afghanistan or Iraq, even Myanmar today, do you see China stepping in? DPRK was one exception because American planes were bombing bridges on the Chinese side of the Yalu river border so that in 1950 and 1951, 1.9 million Chinese troops entered Korea.
Now, you say China has “no choice” but to act because “barbarians won’t leave China alone”. By inference, you are saying American imperial actions dictate China’s response. That is, China moves only when America acts, like a puppet. That’s presumptuous, No?
Next, how do you know China is vulnerable or is weakened each time barbarians act against China? Yanks come ashore and take away our Huawei? Or seize Shenzhen? Outside, the winds blow but does not Taishan stay intact? Why? That’s overcoming vulnerability, whatever the wind brings. America has been onto China since 2011 Pivot to Asia but, after a decade, guess who weakens as America expends its energy, finances and resources onto Taishan and the rest of the world? Has Afghanistan not taught you anything about barbarian Yanks and about who weakens when you go around the world blowing up countries?
Do you know we Chinese call Americans 洋人 yangren? Even Yang Jiechi uses the term, straight to Blinken’s face. Stupid man that Blinken is, he doesn’t know why, of course. Do you know why? Do you know what that means? Have you even heard of it?
You seem to think like a white man. Anglo-Americans overrate themselves and you’re falling for it. We in China build up our nation, work hard, all shoulders to the wheel — quick, quick, and quick — and in the evenings as the sun sets, we watch the smoke rises on the other shore. I don’t about your Anglophile past-time habits, but that’s what we Chinese prefer to do to relax.
Thanks you for the educational comment. I quite understand Chinese people’s caution and dislike of Western barbarity.
But please believe that some of us respect and admire China, and hope that it can do better in solving the problems of civilisation than anyone else has yet done.
Mr. Vianna states:
“The Chinese vacuum still remains a great mystery to many historians: Why would Admiral Cheng Ho have withdrawn his fleet and that great rising civilization have given up its expansion toward an undisputed hegemonism in the Eurasian world system?”
The closing off of South China’s shores during the middle and late Míng and continued during Qíng times. Was partly due to internal power scwaggels, but much more to the rise of Japanese and Portugese pirate fleeets. But much more due to the fact that Mongol and other tribal alliances to the North and from the Northwest of China provided a much more “clear and present danger” to the Hàn-populated areas of China than some gnats appearing from across the Southern Seas.
Thank you Fabio Reis Vianna for this succinct and eloquent historical journey!
Events are happening so fast nowadays, and we are so busy gawking at the latest spectacle, that we can lose focus of the big picture.
It is the ending of an epoch.
The main issue appears will the sun set on the West with a bang or with a whimper?
China has risen once more to its usual position of eminence in commerce. It has wisely chosen to be circumspect and keep a low profile during the West’s epic rampages in west/central Asia.
It can be argued the Europeans are so tied to the Anglosphere / Liberalism and “Pax America” that even at this late time they are busy below decks in the USS Titanic shoveling coal into all of the furnaces; full steam ahead and damn the consequences. They will not be a significant factor.
So it remains to the Russians and Iranians to finesse a soft landing dearly sought by all sane men.