The real challenge for every major power is to build a system in which security, development, openness, innovation, and social vitality can reinforce rather than destroy one another
many good points and the comparison is certainly helpful. I would further posit that a key difference between the two countries' stance on national security is that the US position is inherently aggressive, reflected in its "forward deployment" of military assets and its extra-territorial application of domestic national security laws while China's position is defensive, reflecting a sort of "fortress" mentality against foreign encroachment.
I disagree with the thesis that China's system approach risks oversecuritization. In fact, there is an argument to be made that its national security deployment is far lower than desired. For example, there are many distances of Chinese nationals being turned to spy for hostile forces and smuggling of rare earth and other controlled critical minerals. There are far fewer such cases on the other side.
the balance of security vs. development and openness depends on the context of the geopolitical competition and right now, the balance should skewer much more towards security and resilience. when the rivalry fades off at some point, the balance can tilt back.
A comprehensive analysis and no doubt valid. But takes time to read. Suggest an exec summary will enable points to be made and the interested reader can be more efficient in determining degree of engagement.
iseas work on isoc since 2017 shows thailand never solved this tension. despotism just outsourced coercion to the same apparatus that ran the 1965-85 counter-insurgency. the system state still lives inside the security state
many good points and the comparison is certainly helpful. I would further posit that a key difference between the two countries' stance on national security is that the US position is inherently aggressive, reflected in its "forward deployment" of military assets and its extra-territorial application of domestic national security laws while China's position is defensive, reflecting a sort of "fortress" mentality against foreign encroachment.
I disagree with the thesis that China's system approach risks oversecuritization. In fact, there is an argument to be made that its national security deployment is far lower than desired. For example, there are many distances of Chinese nationals being turned to spy for hostile forces and smuggling of rare earth and other controlled critical minerals. There are far fewer such cases on the other side.
the balance of security vs. development and openness depends on the context of the geopolitical competition and right now, the balance should skewer much more towards security and resilience. when the rivalry fades off at some point, the balance can tilt back.
A comprehensive analysis and no doubt valid. But takes time to read. Suggest an exec summary will enable points to be made and the interested reader can be more efficient in determining degree of engagement.
Thank you for your great suggestion! Yes in addition to a pull quote, a more comprehensive summary is good for readers.
iseas work on isoc since 2017 shows thailand never solved this tension. despotism just outsourced coercion to the same apparatus that ran the 1965-85 counter-insurgency. the system state still lives inside the security state