What do you think?
Rate this book
The Munk Debates
Wird China das 21. Jahrhundert beherrschen?
Is China's rise unstoppable? Powered by the human capital of 1.3 billion citizens, the latest technological advances, and a comparatively efficient system of state-directed capitalism, China seems poised to become the global superpower this century. But the Middle Kingdom also faces a series of challenges. From energy scarcity to environmental degradation to political unrest and growing global security burdens, a host of factors could derail China's global ascent.
In this edition of The Munk Debates -- Canada's premier international debate series -- former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CNN's Fareed Zakaria square off against leading historian Niall Ferguson and world-renowned Chinese economist David Daokui Li to debate the biggest geopolitical issue of our time: Does the 21st century belong to China?
Highly electrifying and thoroughly engrossing, the Munk Debate on China is the first formal public debate Dr. Kissinger has participated in on China's future, and this volume includes exclusive interviews with Kissinger and Li.
In this edition of The Munk Debates -- Canada's premier international debate series -- former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CNN's Fareed Zakaria square off against leading historian Niall Ferguson and world-renowned Chinese economist David Daokui Li to debate the biggest geopolitical issue of our time: Does the 21st century belong to China?
Highly electrifying and thoroughly engrossing, the Munk Debate on China is the first formal public debate Dr. Kissinger has participated in on China's future, and this volume includes exclusive interviews with Kissinger and Li.
Perfect Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
26 people are currently reading
812 people want to read
About the author
Henry Kissinger
259 books1,958 followersHenry Alfred Kissinger (born Heinz Alfred Kissinger) was a German-born American bureaucrat, diplomat, and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as Secretary of State in the Richard Nixon administration. Kissinger emerged unscathed from the Watergate scandal, and maintained his powerful position when Gerald Ford became President.
A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente.
During his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations he cut a flamboyant figure, appearing at social occasions with many celebrities. His foreign policy record made him a nemesis to the anti-war left and the anti-communist right alike.
A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente.
During his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations he cut a flamboyant figure, appearing at social occasions with many celebrities. His foreign policy record made him a nemesis to the anti-war left and the anti-communist right alike.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
December 15, 2015
It is midnight but I am 100% percent sure that IF I didn't get these words down now and put off till next morning, a few hours sleep would eat up all memories of what need to say. Oblivion is a friend and Oblivion is a foe.
The book is the narration of the Munk Debate of 2011. It's quite readable and intriguing to see those perceptions of scholars collide with each other. But IMHO, the name of the book “will 21st century belong to China?” was a little bit misleading, inflammatory or even to some extent…aggressive, better to be modified as “will China be a good global player” or something like that.
Four scholars took the debate, including the pre-eminent Dr. Henry Kissinger, whose books I was engaging for the time being. To a little of my distress, only one scholar from China participated in the debate. Come on! Now that it's a debate about China, how could it that only one Chinese scholar was involved? And IMHO again, David li was indeed a prestigious scholar but some other scholars in China could do the job competently as well, maybe even better.
The debate was a sort of lenghy and I could only memorized some of the the core ideas and Perhaps quite incomplete. Professor Ferguson（I didn't read his works）apparently subscribed to the emergence of China as a global power. He perceived China is a continent instead of a mere country with conventional definitions, which I found quite insightful. He did a good job in understanding the long history of this country. He seemed to look at China as an exceptional phenomenon rather than what a country is. Incisive indeed!
Dr. Kissinger was the first one to modify the debate direction. It's not about whether China will be a global power nor is it about the 21st century belongs to China or the United States or any other country. It's about Whether China can incorperate itself into the global order and continuously contribute its own intelligence in favor of the evolvement and evolution of the new better order and benefits of all the people around the globe.
There must be certain worries about China's ascent to a global power, especially for a country once humiliated by so many foreign powers in its contemporary history. And professor David Li gave a persuasive explanation. What China wants is not seeking global dominance,which didn't exist in its cultures, nor it will brandish its power to take revenge on those who once humiliated this country.
What it genuinely yearn for is to restore its historical glory,as Tang dynasty did. It's an inspiration derived from its long history and nothing could change that.
Once you got there and once you went such far and reached such grandeur and why you cannot do it now?! OMG! That is it! That is exactly what I want to say
! Great job there, David li . I cannot agree with all of your opinions but this piece is really something I so appreciate.
And some domestic scholars I really like almost share the same perceptions.
Grant the book three and a half stars. Because It's informative but failed to cover a grand range of dementions of China given the limited time of the debate.
Look at the clock! I guess I would fail to climb out of the bed next morning to catch up with the class if I continue . Too bad.
The book is the narration of the Munk Debate of 2011. It's quite readable and intriguing to see those perceptions of scholars collide with each other. But IMHO, the name of the book “will 21st century belong to China?” was a little bit misleading, inflammatory or even to some extent…aggressive, better to be modified as “will China be a good global player” or something like that.
Four scholars took the debate, including the pre-eminent Dr. Henry Kissinger, whose books I was engaging for the time being. To a little of my distress, only one scholar from China participated in the debate. Come on! Now that it's a debate about China, how could it that only one Chinese scholar was involved? And IMHO again, David li was indeed a prestigious scholar but some other scholars in China could do the job competently as well, maybe even better.
The debate was a sort of lenghy and I could only memorized some of the the core ideas and Perhaps quite incomplete. Professor Ferguson（I didn't read his works）apparently subscribed to the emergence of China as a global power. He perceived China is a continent instead of a mere country with conventional definitions, which I found quite insightful. He did a good job in understanding the long history of this country. He seemed to look at China as an exceptional phenomenon rather than what a country is. Incisive indeed!
Dr. Kissinger was the first one to modify the debate direction. It's not about whether China will be a global power nor is it about the 21st century belongs to China or the United States or any other country. It's about Whether China can incorperate itself into the global order and continuously contribute its own intelligence in favor of the evolvement and evolution of the new better order and benefits of all the people around the globe.
There must be certain worries about China's ascent to a global power, especially for a country once humiliated by so many foreign powers in its contemporary history. And professor David Li gave a persuasive explanation. What China wants is not seeking global dominance,which didn't exist in its cultures, nor it will brandish its power to take revenge on those who once humiliated this country.
What it genuinely yearn for is to restore its historical glory,as Tang dynasty did. It's an inspiration derived from its long history and nothing could change that.
Once you got there and once you went such far and reached such grandeur and why you cannot do it now?! OMG! That is it! That is exactly what I want to say
! Great job there, David li . I cannot agree with all of your opinions but this piece is really something I so appreciate.
And some domestic scholars I really like almost share the same perceptions.
Grant the book three and a half stars. Because It's informative but failed to cover a grand range of dementions of China given the limited time of the debate.
Look at the clock! I guess I would fail to climb out of the bed next morning to catch up with the class if I continue . Too bad.
June 7, 2021
Chega ser engraçado ler esse livro em 2021 e ter a visão de um futuro tão promissor que os debatedores indicaram há 10 anos. Hoje, pelo contrário, temos um mundo muito mais isolado, ainda incerto quanto aos resquícios da Guerra Comercial entre Estados Unidos-China e uma pandemia global que teve início na China, do qual muito tem se questionado sobre as origens.
O livro é muito intuitivo e traz um debate amplo com visões divergentes, tal como o mundo é. O fator China é dado, o país continua sendo uma grande potência, com muito mais importância no cenário global, por outro lado, o mundo está muito mais acirrado e apreensivo em como se dará o futuro, pois vivemos tempos muito mais isolados, bilaterais e nacionalistas do que quando foi tido esse debate no livro.
O livro é muito intuitivo e traz um debate amplo com visões divergentes, tal como o mundo é. O fator China é dado, o país continua sendo uma grande potência, com muito mais importância no cenário global, por outro lado, o mundo está muito mais acirrado e apreensivo em como se dará o futuro, pois vivemos tempos muito mais isolados, bilaterais e nacionalistas do que quando foi tido esse debate no livro.
March 4, 2014
“Does the 21st Century Belong to China?” between Niall Ferguson, David Daokui Li, Fareed Zakaria and Henry Kissinger was one of the more informative Munk Debates especially for those unfamiliar with historic and contemporary Sino-U.S. (Anglo-Saxon) relations.
This debate touches on most of the primary issues regarding China’s prospective rise or impeding collapse as well as its containment. Most of it centers on China’s time between 1978 and the present as China liberalized toward a market economy.
The “pro” side focused on China’s economic rise, and the increasing gap between its economic and political development, the latter of which they contend has not kept pace with the former. Given China’s natural resource requirements to sustain this growth, and their internal instabilities, the pro side felt China would grow increasingly bellicose and imperialist economically if not militarily. This was contested.
The “con” side attributed China’s exponential growth to a “catch-up” phase whereby growth comes easy as the less developed country borrows existing ideas and technologies from those more advanced using the Asian Tigers and the slow-down of Japan as examples.
With respect to an emerging dominance, Kissinger contended that China is emerging as a power among equals, which is not only unique to its history, but a maxim that applies to all countries including the United States. The countries on China’s periphery are loathe to its rise, have more favourable demographics and could easily coalesce into a league for containment should the need arise. With respect to economic projections, Kissinger explained that comparisons of projected GDPs are distorted. For whatever GDP accrues, China has to distribute its resources far more broadly which results in a far lower per capita GDP when compared with the West. This distribution would also have to close the gap between China’s interior and its coastal zones, a process that will take long to achieve. Despite being on separate teams, Li agreed.
As the sole Chinese national and participant, Li stressed how Confucian principles continue to underpin the will of Chinese society which has been central to China’s continued desire for a peaceful rise and their tradition of controlling their immediate periphery. Li also claimed that China has made great political strides in terms of opening up their governance structures and enabling greater citizen voice whether through the number of permissible protests or what has been allowed through social media. 3 of the 4 scholars also laid to rest the notion that China’s external procurement policies have been overtly exploitive, arguing instead, that in most cases, international business agreements have been collaborative and based on mutual benefit relative to each country’s stage of development.
Essentially, 3 of the 4 scholars suggested that China is stabilizing and has been civil relative to its rise accordingly. Kissinger felt Chinese hegemony would require a welcome spread of China’s “soft power” attributes but given how their language is neither Germanic or Romantic, how they are far less open to the dynamism that characterizes the United States, and how they preserve the interests of the collective over the individual, few countries will embrace their way of life.
When compared with the other Munk Debates, this debate read more like a discussion. Ferguson was more of an outlier with his fear mongering, but there was general agreement in most cases.
4 out of 5 stars for this Munk Debate!
This debate touches on most of the primary issues regarding China’s prospective rise or impeding collapse as well as its containment. Most of it centers on China’s time between 1978 and the present as China liberalized toward a market economy.
The “pro” side focused on China’s economic rise, and the increasing gap between its economic and political development, the latter of which they contend has not kept pace with the former. Given China’s natural resource requirements to sustain this growth, and their internal instabilities, the pro side felt China would grow increasingly bellicose and imperialist economically if not militarily. This was contested.
The “con” side attributed China’s exponential growth to a “catch-up” phase whereby growth comes easy as the less developed country borrows existing ideas and technologies from those more advanced using the Asian Tigers and the slow-down of Japan as examples.
With respect to an emerging dominance, Kissinger contended that China is emerging as a power among equals, which is not only unique to its history, but a maxim that applies to all countries including the United States. The countries on China’s periphery are loathe to its rise, have more favourable demographics and could easily coalesce into a league for containment should the need arise. With respect to economic projections, Kissinger explained that comparisons of projected GDPs are distorted. For whatever GDP accrues, China has to distribute its resources far more broadly which results in a far lower per capita GDP when compared with the West. This distribution would also have to close the gap between China’s interior and its coastal zones, a process that will take long to achieve. Despite being on separate teams, Li agreed.
As the sole Chinese national and participant, Li stressed how Confucian principles continue to underpin the will of Chinese society which has been central to China’s continued desire for a peaceful rise and their tradition of controlling their immediate periphery. Li also claimed that China has made great political strides in terms of opening up their governance structures and enabling greater citizen voice whether through the number of permissible protests or what has been allowed through social media. 3 of the 4 scholars also laid to rest the notion that China’s external procurement policies have been overtly exploitive, arguing instead, that in most cases, international business agreements have been collaborative and based on mutual benefit relative to each country’s stage of development.
Essentially, 3 of the 4 scholars suggested that China is stabilizing and has been civil relative to its rise accordingly. Kissinger felt Chinese hegemony would require a welcome spread of China’s “soft power” attributes but given how their language is neither Germanic or Romantic, how they are far less open to the dynamism that characterizes the United States, and how they preserve the interests of the collective over the individual, few countries will embrace their way of life.
When compared with the other Munk Debates, this debate read more like a discussion. Ferguson was more of an outlier with his fear mongering, but there was general agreement in most cases.
4 out of 5 stars for this Munk Debate!
June 9, 2013
China doesn't have the political capacity to claim leadership responsibility world wide. Even though, it's economy has been in a quite a rise the last ten years, there are massive inefficiencies built into the Chinese economic system. They have a huge property bubble. Their growth is highly inefficient. So it is a quality problem in terms of the economic growth and foreign direct investment.
Also, one very important factor is the uncertainty of dealing with the rising middle class in China. How it is going to affect the balance of the economic and political stability of the Chinese system.
Also, one very important factor is the uncertainty of dealing with the rising middle class in China. How it is going to affect the balance of the economic and political stability of the Chinese system.
November 29, 2025
Perdebatan pada tahun 2011 antara Nial dan David Li yang menyokong bahawa China akan mendominasi abad 21 manakala Kissinger dan Fareed Zakaria yang menolak idea itu.
Di bawah rumusan chagpt
Perdebatan Munk tahun 2011 tentang “Adakah China akan menguasai abad ke-21?” boleh dilihat dari perspektif sejarah dan perkembangan semasa. Jika kita bandingkan ramalan dan pandangan masa itu dengan situasi 2025, beberapa perkara ketepatan dan perbezaan yang boleh diperhatikan ialah:
Ketepatan yang masih relevan:
Pertumbuhan ekonomi China: Ramalan bahawa China akan terus menjadi kuasa ekonomi besar memang tepat. China kini merupakan ekonomi kedua terbesar dunia dan pusat utama dalam perdagangan global serta pembuatan.
China bukan untuk dominasi global secara agresif: Pendapat David Li bahawa China tidak bercita-cita menguasai dunia secara militer atau ideologi masih relevan. China lebih fokus kepada kestabilan domestik dan pengaruh ekonomi serta diplomasi “soft power”.
Persekitaran dunia multipolar: Henry Kissinger dan David Li meramalkan bahawa abad ke-21 tidak akan didominasi hanya oleh satu negara. Hari ini, dunia memang lebih multipolar dengan India, EU, dan Amerika Syarikat sebagai pemain utama bersama China.
Perkara yang mungkin kurang tepat atau berubah:
Inovasi dan teknologi: Pada 2011, mereka berpendapat inovasi besar masih akan datang dari Amerika Syarikat. Kini, China semakin pesat dalam AI, teknologi fintech, 5G, dan tenaga boleh diperbaharui. Mereka tidak lagi sekadar meniru — kini ada inovasi asli yang bersaing global.
Soft power China: Ramalan bahawa soft power China akan berkembang melalui teladan ekonomi dan budaya semakin nyata, misalnya melalui projek Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), media antarabangsa, dan hiburan popular.
Cabaran sosial dalaman: David Li meramalkan beberapa ketegangan sosial atau pemberontakan kecil, dan ini memang berlaku dalam bentuk protes buruh atau isu ketidaksamaan, walaupun China masih mengekalkan kestabilan besar.
Secara keseluruhan, perdebatan itu memberikan gambaran yang tepat tentang ekonomi, politik, dan peranan China, walaupun beberapa aspek seperti inovasi dan soft power kini berkembang lebih cepat daripada yang dijangka pada 2011.
Di bawah rumusan chagpt
Perdebatan Munk tahun 2011 tentang “Adakah China akan menguasai abad ke-21?” boleh dilihat dari perspektif sejarah dan perkembangan semasa. Jika kita bandingkan ramalan dan pandangan masa itu dengan situasi 2025, beberapa perkara ketepatan dan perbezaan yang boleh diperhatikan ialah:
Ketepatan yang masih relevan:
Pertumbuhan ekonomi China: Ramalan bahawa China akan terus menjadi kuasa ekonomi besar memang tepat. China kini merupakan ekonomi kedua terbesar dunia dan pusat utama dalam perdagangan global serta pembuatan.
China bukan untuk dominasi global secara agresif: Pendapat David Li bahawa China tidak bercita-cita menguasai dunia secara militer atau ideologi masih relevan. China lebih fokus kepada kestabilan domestik dan pengaruh ekonomi serta diplomasi “soft power”.
Persekitaran dunia multipolar: Henry Kissinger dan David Li meramalkan bahawa abad ke-21 tidak akan didominasi hanya oleh satu negara. Hari ini, dunia memang lebih multipolar dengan India, EU, dan Amerika Syarikat sebagai pemain utama bersama China.
Perkara yang mungkin kurang tepat atau berubah:
Inovasi dan teknologi: Pada 2011, mereka berpendapat inovasi besar masih akan datang dari Amerika Syarikat. Kini, China semakin pesat dalam AI, teknologi fintech, 5G, dan tenaga boleh diperbaharui. Mereka tidak lagi sekadar meniru — kini ada inovasi asli yang bersaing global.
Soft power China: Ramalan bahawa soft power China akan berkembang melalui teladan ekonomi dan budaya semakin nyata, misalnya melalui projek Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), media antarabangsa, dan hiburan popular.
Cabaran sosial dalaman: David Li meramalkan beberapa ketegangan sosial atau pemberontakan kecil, dan ini memang berlaku dalam bentuk protes buruh atau isu ketidaksamaan, walaupun China masih mengekalkan kestabilan besar.
Secara keseluruhan, perdebatan itu memberikan gambaran yang tepat tentang ekonomi, politik, dan peranan China, walaupun beberapa aspek seperti inovasi dan soft power kini berkembang lebih cepat daripada yang dijangka pada 2011.
September 8, 2015
This debate was conducted in Canada sometime during 2011 as part of The Munk Debates. Since I've already read almost every book by Niall Ferguson (most recently Civilization: The West and the Rest) and On China by Henry Kissinger, I felt I was rather familiar with their views on China, and so, I was more interested in the views of David Li and Fareed Zakaria.
Very quickly I came to realize that this debate is not only about China, but also to a large extent on the fragile situation of the United States, which can determine whether China will dominate the 21st century. As was expected, Ferguson, who argued the pro, put the emphasis on the declining state of the U.S. economy and the growing economic power of the Chinese.
David Li (also arguing the pro), took the Chinese official view that says that we in the West are thinking in wrong terms. It's not a question of whether the 21st century will belong to China, because China is not interested in dominating the world. As a society shaped by Confucius, China is mainly interested in solving its domestic problems and is far less interested in intervening in other countries' businesses. In David Li's words, "it's just not in China's DNA". Thus, the entire notion of the debate is flawed in the first place.
Kissinger in my opinion was a lot less coherent than the rest of the debaters, mostly arguing that China will gain influence, however, it will not dominate the 21st century. The world will be more multi-polar.
Fareed Zakaria had the most convincing arguments, stating the fragile state of the Chinese political system, the growing inequality between the rich and the poor, the lack of freedom of speech, the real estate bubble, and the inefficient growth in China. Therefore, China's growth will be a lot less smooth than most people realize. However, in my opinion, Zakaria downplayed the severity of the U.S. economic situation and how it will affect the military and economic influence of the U.S.
To sum up, a lot of interesting insights can be gained from this debate, and it's highly recommended to people who are interested to know what these great thinkers have to say about where China is heading to.
Very quickly I came to realize that this debate is not only about China, but also to a large extent on the fragile situation of the United States, which can determine whether China will dominate the 21st century. As was expected, Ferguson, who argued the pro, put the emphasis on the declining state of the U.S. economy and the growing economic power of the Chinese.
David Li (also arguing the pro), took the Chinese official view that says that we in the West are thinking in wrong terms. It's not a question of whether the 21st century will belong to China, because China is not interested in dominating the world. As a society shaped by Confucius, China is mainly interested in solving its domestic problems and is far less interested in intervening in other countries' businesses. In David Li's words, "it's just not in China's DNA". Thus, the entire notion of the debate is flawed in the first place.
Kissinger in my opinion was a lot less coherent than the rest of the debaters, mostly arguing that China will gain influence, however, it will not dominate the 21st century. The world will be more multi-polar.
Fareed Zakaria had the most convincing arguments, stating the fragile state of the Chinese political system, the growing inequality between the rich and the poor, the lack of freedom of speech, the real estate bubble, and the inefficient growth in China. Therefore, China's growth will be a lot less smooth than most people realize. However, in my opinion, Zakaria downplayed the severity of the U.S. economic situation and how it will affect the military and economic influence of the U.S.
To sum up, a lot of interesting insights can be gained from this debate, and it's highly recommended to people who are interested to know what these great thinkers have to say about where China is heading to.
June 9, 2025
Kurzmeinung: Sinnlose teils demag. Debatte da Bilderberger (FED Kissinger Rockefeller IWF..) USA-NWO um jeden Preis durchsetzen wollen: Elias Davidsson!
Nein! Teils demagische Debatte mit wenig Leser-Nutzen! EU & DE sind außen vor! Egomane, "gänzlich entartete" Bilderberg-Gruppe (CFR! FED! IWF, WWF, Klaus Schwab, Kissinger Rockefeller..) der extrem "terroristischen USA [+GB+EU...]" (Noam Chomsky, Elias Davidsson) & ihrer Helfer (Tiefer Staat, NATO, CIA, NSA, Young Global Leaders, "braune" Bertelsmann AG/St....) will NWO-/Totalitarismus-Weltherrschaft durchsetzen: baldmöglichst um jeden Preis: Atomkrieg (!) & im Verliererfall gegen CN+RU Komplettvernichtung der Menschheit! Michael Morris, Daniel Ganser, Jonas Tögel, Jan van Helsing, Rainer Mausfeld! PROPHEZEITE Folgen (Bertha Dudde, Jakob Lorber): (Un-)Natürliche Großkatastrophen aller Art, 3. Weltkrieg & DEEP IMPACT ("FEIND aus den Lüften"), m.E. 2026: j-lorber.de! Gerd Gutemann! M Kahir, Kurt Eggenstein! Es fehlen: Register, Fuß- & Endnoten, Literatur(referenz)liste!"
Grundlage dieser Rezension (in Arbeit) ist die englischsprachige Version.
p. 13: NIALL FERGUSON: "Let me quote from Dr. Kissinger’s outstanding new book on the topic of China: “China’s quest for equal partnership with the United States is no longer the outsized claim of a vulnerable country; it is increasingly the reality backed by financial and economic capacities.” Or I could quote from Fareed Zakaria’s excellent book The Post-American World: “China is a country whose scale dwarfs the United States. China is hungry for success.”
It’s fascinating that these two great geopolitical thinkers agree that China’s economic challenge is also a challenge to the hegemony of the United States. Once again let me quote Dr. Kissinger: “An explicit American project to organize Asia on the basis of containing China or creating a bloc of democratic states for an ideological crusade is unlikely to succeed.” He hopes, as he concludes in his book, for peaceful co-evolution. But he fears a repeat of what happened a hundred years ago when the rise of Germany challenged the predominance of the United Kingdom.
But it’s not just about China for me. The key to China’s dominance during the 21st century ultimately lies in the decline of the West. A financial crisis caused by excessive borrowing and subsidized gambling; a fiscal crisis that means the United States will soon be spending more on debt interest than on defence; a political crisis exemplified by a game of Russian roulette over the U.S. federal debt ceiling; and a moral crisis personified by a legislator named, implausibly, Weiner, sending miscellaneous women pictures of his naked torso. The 21st century will be China’s because an overweight, over-leveraged, oversexed America, not to mention a dysfunctional Europe, are on the slide."
Nein! Teils demagische Debatte mit wenig Leser-Nutzen! EU & DE sind außen vor! Egomane, "gänzlich entartete" Bilderberg-Gruppe (CFR! FED! IWF, WWF, Klaus Schwab, Kissinger Rockefeller..) der extrem "terroristischen USA [+GB+EU...]" (Noam Chomsky, Elias Davidsson) & ihrer Helfer (Tiefer Staat, NATO, CIA, NSA, Young Global Leaders, "braune" Bertelsmann AG/St....) will NWO-/Totalitarismus-Weltherrschaft durchsetzen: baldmöglichst um jeden Preis: Atomkrieg (!) & im Verliererfall gegen CN+RU Komplettvernichtung der Menschheit! Michael Morris, Daniel Ganser, Jonas Tögel, Jan van Helsing, Rainer Mausfeld! PROPHEZEITE Folgen (Bertha Dudde, Jakob Lorber): (Un-)Natürliche Großkatastrophen aller Art, 3. Weltkrieg & DEEP IMPACT ("FEIND aus den Lüften"), m.E. 2026: j-lorber.de! Gerd Gutemann! M Kahir, Kurt Eggenstein! Es fehlen: Register, Fuß- & Endnoten, Literatur(referenz)liste!"
Grundlage dieser Rezension (in Arbeit) ist die englischsprachige Version.
p. 13: NIALL FERGUSON: "Let me quote from Dr. Kissinger’s outstanding new book on the topic of China: “China’s quest for equal partnership with the United States is no longer the outsized claim of a vulnerable country; it is increasingly the reality backed by financial and economic capacities.” Or I could quote from Fareed Zakaria’s excellent book The Post-American World: “China is a country whose scale dwarfs the United States. China is hungry for success.”
It’s fascinating that these two great geopolitical thinkers agree that China’s economic challenge is also a challenge to the hegemony of the United States. Once again let me quote Dr. Kissinger: “An explicit American project to organize Asia on the basis of containing China or creating a bloc of democratic states for an ideological crusade is unlikely to succeed.” He hopes, as he concludes in his book, for peaceful co-evolution. But he fears a repeat of what happened a hundred years ago when the rise of Germany challenged the predominance of the United Kingdom.
But it’s not just about China for me. The key to China’s dominance during the 21st century ultimately lies in the decline of the West. A financial crisis caused by excessive borrowing and subsidized gambling; a fiscal crisis that means the United States will soon be spending more on debt interest than on defence; a political crisis exemplified by a game of Russian roulette over the U.S. federal debt ceiling; and a moral crisis personified by a legislator named, implausibly, Weiner, sending miscellaneous women pictures of his naked torso. The 21st century will be China’s because an overweight, over-leveraged, oversexed America, not to mention a dysfunctional Europe, are on the slide."
May 19, 2025
"Começarei com alguns dados demográficos e econômicos: a China é mais um continente do que um país. ?m quinto da humanidade vive lá. É 40 vezes maior do que o Canadá. Se a China fosse organizada como a Europa, teria de ser dividida em 90 Estados-nações. Hoje existem 11 cidades na China com uma população de mais de 6 milhões de habitantes.
Na Europa, existe apenas uma cidade com população similar, que é Londres. Onze estados na ?nião Europeia têm menos de 6 milhões de indivíduos.
Em 30 anos, a economia da China cresceu quase 10 vezes, e o Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) previu recentemente que ela será a maior economia do mundo daqui a cinco anos. A China já superou os Estados Unidos em termos de manufatura e mercado automotivo mundial, e a demanda de carros no país será 10 vezes maior nos próximos anos. A China será responsável por um quinto do uso de energia global em 2035. O país dependia de investimentos estrangeiros diretos, mas hoje, com ?S$3 trilhões de reserva internacional e um fundo soberano de ?S$200 bilhões em ativos, a China tornou-se o grande investidor.
O que talvez seja mais impressionante é que a China está alcançando as outras nações em termos de inovação e educação. Está prestes a ultrapassar a Alemanha em relação ao número de patentes concedidas e, numa recente pesquisa da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE), o desempenho educacional de alunos de 15 anos da região de Shangai chegou ao nível máximo na área de matemática, com uma pontuação de 600. Os Estados ?nidos ficaram em 252 lugar, com uma pontuação de 487. ?ocês ficarão felizes de saber que o Canadá obteve 527 pontos. Melhor do que os Estados ?nidos, mas não o suficiente. "
Na Europa, existe apenas uma cidade com população similar, que é Londres. Onze estados na ?nião Europeia têm menos de 6 milhões de indivíduos.
Em 30 anos, a economia da China cresceu quase 10 vezes, e o Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) previu recentemente que ela será a maior economia do mundo daqui a cinco anos. A China já superou os Estados Unidos em termos de manufatura e mercado automotivo mundial, e a demanda de carros no país será 10 vezes maior nos próximos anos. A China será responsável por um quinto do uso de energia global em 2035. O país dependia de investimentos estrangeiros diretos, mas hoje, com ?S$3 trilhões de reserva internacional e um fundo soberano de ?S$200 bilhões em ativos, a China tornou-se o grande investidor.
O que talvez seja mais impressionante é que a China está alcançando as outras nações em termos de inovação e educação. Está prestes a ultrapassar a Alemanha em relação ao número de patentes concedidas e, numa recente pesquisa da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Econômico (OCDE), o desempenho educacional de alunos de 15 anos da região de Shangai chegou ao nível máximo na área de matemática, com uma pontuação de 600. Os Estados ?nidos ficaram em 252 lugar, com uma pontuação de 487. ?ocês ficarão felizes de saber que o Canadá obteve 527 pontos. Melhor do que os Estados ?nidos, mas não o suficiente. "
May 15, 2025
A lively and engaging debate that was both digestible and insightful. I watched it on YouTube (link below) and followed the text from the book.
https://youtu.be/WwtEaH3FAhI?si=oZtPAHC08loMU8Ry
A thoughtful quote by Henry Kissinger found at the start of the video:
"When the Chinese view of preemption encounters the Western concept of deterrence, a vicious circle can result: acts conceived as defensive in China may be treated as aggressive by the outside world."
Kissinger quote from the book:
"The fundamental difference between the Chinese and Western approach to strategy is that the Western approach to strategy is aimed at the capability of the other side; the Chinese is aimed at the psychology of the other side."
When Kissinger was asked—
"You have seen so much of the world and seen the world change obviously tremendously since you were secretary of state. Do you think it's a better world today (2011) than it was when you were in that position?"
"In the ability to collect information, there is a reach now that would have been totally out of imagination thirty or forty years ago. In the ability to synthesize what you already know, it may be precisely because you have everything at your fingertips by pressing a button that the ability to train your mind to do long-range thinking may decline."
https://youtu.be/WwtEaH3FAhI?si=oZtPAHC08loMU8Ry
A thoughtful quote by Henry Kissinger found at the start of the video:
"When the Chinese view of preemption encounters the Western concept of deterrence, a vicious circle can result: acts conceived as defensive in China may be treated as aggressive by the outside world."
Kissinger quote from the book:
"The fundamental difference between the Chinese and Western approach to strategy is that the Western approach to strategy is aimed at the capability of the other side; the Chinese is aimed at the psychology of the other side."
When Kissinger was asked—
"You have seen so much of the world and seen the world change obviously tremendously since you were secretary of state. Do you think it's a better world today (2011) than it was when you were in that position?"
"In the ability to collect information, there is a reach now that would have been totally out of imagination thirty or forty years ago. In the ability to synthesize what you already know, it may be precisely because you have everything at your fingertips by pressing a button that the ability to train your mind to do long-range thinking may decline."
February 7, 2021
I wonder if the motion and main topic of this debate was a bit too broad. Two of the debaters, David Li and Henry Kissinger, seemed to have vastly differing views on what the objective was. At times, these two argued against their own interests, giving ample ammunition for the opposing side.
This debate was certainly thought-provoking, though I would have liked to read more from Kissinger and less subtly ad hominem jabs between Ferguson and Zakaria.
This debate was certainly thought-provoking, though I would have liked to read more from Kissinger and less subtly ad hominem jabs between Ferguson and Zakaria.
July 5, 2022
خوشحالم که این مناظرههای مهم و جذاب، توسط نشر علم و به همت محمدرضا مردانیان چاپ میشوند. با نظرات فرید زکریا بیش از بقیه موافق بودم. برای ما ایرانیها، بلوفهای دیوید لی امروز دیگر کاملا رنگ باخته و میدانیم که داد و ستد چین با دیکتاتورهای آفریقایی یا بقیهی دنیا چطور است!
من گمان نمیکنم قرن بیست و یکم، قرن چین باشد؛ البته که امیدوار هم هستم نباشد.
من گمان نمیکنم قرن بیست و یکم، قرن چین باشد؛ البته که امیدوار هم هستم نباشد.
September 20, 2018
An extremely insightful debate on the future of China and the next century. Both sides make a very compelling case. My only problem is with Economist David Li he relies way to heavily on drawing from experience without backing it up with many statistics. Definitely read this its a solid 8.75/10
December 27, 2017
Probably the most polite of all Munk Debates with the least amount of argument. Great points made by all parties and a rare public appearance by Kissinger.
December 2, 2018
The arguments don't count. The standpoints do.
June 2, 2021
Fantastic read after a decade of the debate, and I also watch the debate on YouTube.
February 26, 2022
It's a debate about the housepower that China has become. The worst part about it is that War excites men...
Want to read
March 4, 2022YouTube recording (grainy) from 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwtEa...
July 24, 2022
The book as I have expected is literally the Munk debate transcript. Both the pro and con sides have presented quite a few persuasive and logical arguments but I was convinced more by the 'Con' side, especially with Fareed Zakaria's points except when he positively debated the US hegemony. Henry Kissinger's arguments were decent at best. But for David Li, I think his sense of truth is very much distilled from the real situation in China and often Idealistic, Niall Ferguson was worst here IMO.
4 out of 5 stars cause the debate was very entertaining (considering I generally don't like to watch on-screen debates except some)and educational especially since I was very much ignorant about the dispute on the south china sea between China, Japan and Vietnam.
4 out of 5 stars cause the debate was very entertaining (considering I generally don't like to watch on-screen debates except some)and educational especially since I was very much ignorant about the dispute on the south china sea between China, Japan and Vietnam.
August 8, 2016
The Munk Debates are a biannual series of debates on major policy issues held in Toronto, Canada (Wikipedia). In June 2011, the debate featured Henry Kissinger and Fareed Zakaria debating against Niall Ferguson and David Li. A lively debate captured in this brief book which can be read in a few hours. It contains insightful arguments from the American, Chinese, Canadian, European and global perspective. The following quotes summarize the debate well: "So don't believe that the Chinese are strategic masterminds and the United States are bumbling. We have managed to bumble our way through a rather advanced position despite the challenges from the Kaiser’s Germany, from the Soviet Union and from Nazi Germany and I think what you will find is that the United States - North America, even - are creating an extraordinary model in this new world. We are becoming the first universal nation, a country that draws people from all parts of the world - people of all colors, creeds and religions and finds a way to harness their talent and build a kind of universal dream. It happens over here and it draws together people from all over the world." Fareed Zakaria (Pg. 54-55) "Canada is perceived very, very positively in China, because being an open-minded culture, being also a rich country in resources, naturally complements the economic needs of China, so that certainly is a positive side" David Li (Pg. 73)
March 19, 2016
I learned about this book from readings by Niall Ferguson and Fareed Zakaria. This exchange of thoughts about China is presented in an exciting debate format, which makes this book a quick read. With Ferguson and Li presenting the pro-argument, Zakaria and Kissinger argue that the 21st century will not belong to China, though the Chinese will certainly change the landscape of this century economically and politically.
In addition to hearing from some of the best minds on U.S.-Sino relations, the debate transcript records thoughtful questions from foreign policy experts and former U.S. statesmen, such as William Cohen. This debate is rare in its kind for all the global voices it has been able to gather for these conversations. For that reason, I highly recommend this read to understand the nature of China's role in this century.
In addition to hearing from some of the best minds on U.S.-Sino relations, the debate transcript records thoughtful questions from foreign policy experts and former U.S. statesmen, such as William Cohen. This debate is rare in its kind for all the global voices it has been able to gather for these conversations. For that reason, I highly recommend this read to understand the nature of China's role in this century.
May 22, 2016
This book is actually a transcript pf a debate held in Toronto in 2011. Although the debate might have been longer and richer, having 4 international geopolitical superstar on the same stage is amazing. Reading the debate won't learn you so many new facts but it might give you a different perspective on China. It convinced me even more that China might be the target of some Donald Trump trying to blame it for everything that's bad in the world, but in the end it's a peaceful country looking to improve itself. It's a nice start for anyone interested in learning more about the chinese influence.
April 13, 2013
An entertaining debate among some intellectual giants. There were some great points, and a couple comedic zingers from both sides. The only person punching well below the rest was Li.
As most of these sparring matches go, they often debate around the narrow confines of the motion's semantics. Based on that alone, Kissinger and Zakaria definitely won the argument against the motion. China might have a preponderance of power in the 21st century, but it certainly won't "belong" to it alone.
As most of these sparring matches go, they often debate around the narrow confines of the motion's semantics. Based on that alone, Kissinger and Zakaria definitely won the argument against the motion. China might have a preponderance of power in the 21st century, but it certainly won't "belong" to it alone.
June 1, 2012
This book is a transcript of a debate that took place in Toronto, Canada in the fall of 2011. The content of this debate gives us a fairly good idea about the pros and the cons about whether or not China will dominate the world scene in the 21st century. There is a good deal of interesting arguments but we live in an increasingly fluid world where everything is possible. I consider this book as introduction material.
April 28, 2022
A good introduction to some issues re: China/US/global power balance. Some interesting arguments: It's not China's objective to dominate the world; interpretations of China GDP are skewed because this wealth must be distributed amongst 1.3 billion people; Chinese language is a barrier to global cultural influence; the era of US global dominance is over; economic power does not geopolitical power guarantee. Extremely brief and readable. From 2011.
November 17, 2022
Hierbei handelt es sie um die Abschrift einer geopolitische Diskussion, die 2012 zwischen Henry Kissinger, Niall Ferguson, David Daokui Li sowie Fareed Zarakaria im kanadischen Toronto geführt wird. Grundsätzlich interessant, muss man aber nicht gelesen haben.
Vollständige Review hier: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaKYvEjATgF
Vollständige Review hier: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaKYvEjATgF
August 6, 2016
This book was educational, however, I should have paid more attention to the synopsis as it is a transcript of a debate. Would have been better to watch the debate to gauge the interactions between participants. Perhaps I still will.
June 17, 2012
Great debate! Both sides presented excellent arguments and the audience was swayed to change their original votes!
January 14, 2014
Just read this. It's pretty interesting; however, not deep enough. It's expensive considering that it's just a transcript of a debate.
January 20, 2015
Great if you want a quick update on China's position from a geopolitics and economic lens. A little dated but entertaining.
October 1, 2016
Quick & Insightful
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews