This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, a freedom of navigation patrol for Bloomberg Opinion’s opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter here. Oh man, is anybody having a tougher go of it right now than Jake Sullivan? The White House national security adviser was struggling to stay on top of hot wars in Europe and the Middle East, and a cold one in East Asia, even before his boss became a lame duck. His opposite number on the vice president’s team, Phil Gordon, is measuring the drapes in his office in preparation for a Kamala Harris administration.[1]And last week, he was dispatched to China to get talked at by Xi Jinping. When the leader of a nation that is pushing an ethno-religious minority into concentration camps, building artificial islands as military bases in the South China Sea, and stalking dissidents in the New Jersey suburbs lectures you to be more “positive and rational,” the positive and rational thing might be to pack it all in. Sullivan’s face says it all:  One of these men is enjoying his job. The other, probably not so much. Photographer: Trevor Hunnicutt/AFP/Getty Images I had a long chat with Sullivan in 2017, when he was living in the wilderness of the Donald Trump presidency, and he told me the thing that kept him up at night was “another pandemic, a next Ebola.” Well, at least he caught one break. It is pretty clear, however, that what will keep the next NatSec advisor up all night is Xi. “As America’s presidential campaign nears its climax, domestic politics and geopolitics are combining to stimulate an important strategic debate,” writes Hal Brands. “Briefly stated, the question is: Should Washington deprioritize, perhaps even disengage from, regions outside East Asia so it can concentrate on the threat posed by China?” History, Hal says, illuminates the folly of this approach. “During the early Cold War, and amid a brutal hot war in Korea, the original Asia Firsters argued that the US had to get out of Europe so it could get real about containing communism in Asia,” he writes. “Today’s Asia Firsters are right that the US needs greater urgency in grappling with the Chinese challenge. They are wrong if they believe that Washington can disengage from other regions without undercutting its ability to beat Beijing — and weakening its position around the globe.” Andreas Kluth also sees history as a guide, comparing today’s Pacific rivalry to the “Great Game” that the British and Russian empires played for control of Central and South Asia in the 19th century.[2] “The game board is the globe, from the conflict zones of Eurasia to the Arctic and Africa. But the Pacific is among the board’s most valuable real estate,” Andreas writes. “Pacific islanders are used to watching the vagaries of Washington and fed up with cleaning up the flotsam and jetsam. The US has long struck the wrong notes in the region, where it has neglected even its own territories … if America wants to win against China in the 21st century, it’ll have to find a new tone toward much of the world, and especially the Pacific.”  David Fickling feels China is getting a big win by wooing the game’s pawns. “Island governments have largely welcomed the long-overdue attention,” says David. “This January, Nauru became the latest to switch its diplomatic relations from Taiwan to China. Slowing further encroachments will require listening to the concerns of island governments, in particular on what they see as their foremost diplomatic issue: Protection against a climate crisis that threatens their very existence as nations.” History is also helpful in thinking about the even tinier islands — the unpopulated reefs, shoals and atolls at the center of a heated dispute between the Philippines and Beijing — says James Stavridis. “Tensions between the two nations have continued to increase in a manner reminiscent of the War of Jenkins’ Ear, a conflict between Britain and Spain set off after a British sea captain had his ear severed by Spanish sailors in 1731. The war resulted in tens of thousands killed and hundreds of vessels lost,” James writes. What role can the US play? “First and foremost more ‘freedom of navigation,’ patrols,” James, a four-star admiral, recommends. “The idea is simple: by treating western Pacific waters as what they are — international ‘high seas’ under United Nations parlance — we emphasize to China that we reject its claims of ownership.” South Korea, meanwhile, is so nervous about the Great Game that it may play the nuclear card. “According to opinion polling, a strong majority of South Koreans even want the country to build its own nuclear weapons,” writes Hal. “Once North Korea’s arsenal outstrips America’s homeland missile defenses, the thinking goes, the US won’t fight to defend Seoul if doing so could bring nuclear strikes on America itself. Then there is the Donald Trump factor. The publicly unstated, but unmistakable, fear is that a second Trump presidency would rupture the alliance with Washington, leaving South Korea alone and vulnerable.”  If South Korea gets the bomb, Who’s Next?[3] Pretty much everyone. “As long as US alliances are strong and credible, US allies have better, cheaper options than nuclear self-help,” adds Hal. “But if the US pulls back, erstwhile allies from Eastern Europe to East Asia might feel that they face a choice between nuclear proliferation and national suicide — which is why debates about acquiring those weapons have gotten louder in the age of Trump.”
And that, folks, is a whole lot scarier than another Ebola. Bonus Tiny Island[4] Reading - Look Beyond Politicians to Mend US-China Ties — Karishma Vaswani
- Xi’s Supply-Side Panacea Has Lost Its Magic — Shuli Ren
- The Tiny Island That’s Key to China’s Maritime Ambitions — Tobin Harshaw
- Canada rate decision, Sept. 4: Kamala Harris Juggernaut Is the Right Omen for Justin Trudeau — Matthew A. Winkler
- NFL season opener, Sept. 5: College Football Needs a Better Health Care Safety Net — Adam Minter
- US jobs, Sept. 6: — Fed Rate Cuts Are No Magic Fix for Anemic Hiring — Conor Sen; The Fed Is No Longer the Only Game in Town — Allison Schrager
Is a great game shaking up the Great Game? Enter Black Myth: Wukong. The video game, crafted by the small Chinese developer Game Science and backed by Tencent Holdings, sold 10 million copies within 83 hours of its debut. Is China chipping away at what many feel is America’s biggest advantage over Beijing: global entertainment domination? “Black Myth: Wukong looks set to be the most surprising gaming success of 2024 and is being hailed as China’s first AAA video game, industry jargon for a tentpole title with the budget and quality of a Hollywood blockbuster,” explains Gearoid Ready. “The game, set in China and based on the 16th century Chinese epic Journey to the West, has been helped by an enthusiastic patriotic response by domestic players — as well as gushing coverage from state-controlled media, which has hyped its use of local myths and locations.” Howard Chua-Eoan feels the game transcends its medium. “Black Myth’s success is heartening for a person like me who prefers reading to toggling,” Howard writes. “The word after the colon is the given name of the supernatural monkey Sun Wukong at the center of Journey to the West, a five-century-old novel that’s picaresque and cosmic, pious and irreverent in equal measures. It’s core to Chinese culture but also part of a legacy shared with Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and migrant communities in Southeast Asia.” But, China being China, Big Brother saw a threat in Girl Power. Video games are notorious for their misogyny and sexist imagery, and Game Science has proved no exception. “Some gamers who received a copy of Black Myth: Wukong were given guidelines for what to talk about as they streamed it. Discussing its stunning cinematic graphics, mythical 16th-century plotline, and engaging gameplay was permitted. But calling for equal rights for women? Off-limits,” Catherine Thorbecke writes. “What could have been a golden opportunity to use a runaway gaming hit to spark conversations about women's rights in China instead became a lightning rod for criticism.” Katherine reports that a hashtag on the Chinese social media platform Weibo that translates as “Black Myth: Wukong insults women” was viewed millions of times before internet censors cleaned up posts that supposedly spread ‘gender opposition.’” “Game Science dismissing the Wukong controversy as feminist propaganda or part of a Western DEI agenda will be unwise in the long run, especially as Chinese companies increasingly look to global audiences to boost revenues,” she writes. “Instead of suppressing this dialogue, studios like Game Science should be driving the narrative.” Alienating women. Blaming DEI. Censoring gamers. For China, a country looking to break into the global culture biz, that approach doesn’t sound very “positive and rational” at all. Notes: Please send supernatural monkeys and feedback to Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net. |
No comments:
Post a Comment