[sanderjd]

It definitely isn't better for America or the world. We had a "flatter more multipolar world" during the "long 19th century". Pax Americana is certainly subject to a lot of valid criticism, but it was an even bigger mess before that.

[fnordpiglet]

Except I think as long as the “new world order” built around globalized trade networks of interdependence and agreements with dispute arbitration that China and the EU are leaning into was the framework Pax America built and was built to withstand unilateralism. Global organizations built around mutual benefit are ultimately going to win the day here, and it’ll be without American leadership - which will solidify the power of those organizations independently and through multiple power players rather than one. This is probably better than the prior order, and distinctly different than the pre-WW2 order.

[sanderjd]

Maybe! I struggle to see why you would feel confident in this outcome.

[fnordpiglet]

Mostly because everyone has benefited so much from the world order as it exists that no one really wants to lose it other than some fringe wackos. China definitely is a huge winner in the current world construction, Europe as well. The only losers are those that actively fight it - Russia, North Korea, and Iran. I think very few countries really see global domination through conquest as a legitimate goal, and the domination through trade alliances is more enriching, stabilizing, and easier to maintain. China especially I think has little desire beyond Taiwan and the south China seas as trade dominance allows them all the wealth of empire without the administrative headache of managing the internal affairs of conquest states. It’s better to have nations in debt to you than to own their problems.

[ethbr1]

> beyond Taiwan and the south China seas

That's a pretty big caveat.

To frame the question another way -- which does China want more, an international rules based order or Taiwan and nine dashes of maritime territory?

[fnordpiglet]

I think sadly we are at a damage control point. They probably assume they can have both. They probably can.

[sanderjd]

I feel like relying on this thesis that people won't overthrow the world order because everyone has benefited so much is an odd choice at this particular moment.

[krapp]

We had a flatter more multipolar world primarily run by the Church and imperialist absolute monarchies. There is no reason to assume a world not dominated by American imperialism but primarily made up of modern democracies and republics must revert to a 19th century status quo.

[sanderjd]

There's also no reason that whatever it does look like would be better than that, or even that the "modern democracies" we currently have would actually survive.

[krapp]

I disagree. The biggest destabilizing force in the world right now is the US. The loss of American superpower status will make the world and its democracies more stable practically by definition.

You might argue that absent American military hegemony, Russia and China become belligerent. But the US isn't really doing much about either, so that's a moot point. All the world really loses is America's interference in their affairs, which I think the world can do without.

[sanderjd]

This is essentially a "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done" type of argument.

It's very easy, indeed common, for the "something" to be worse than the status quo.