It started with globalization, capitalism, and self-interest, and it remains that way.
As I posted in the America thread, this isn't a cold war like with the Soviet Union (who had a completely different economic sphere and was interested in military alliances and ideology in addition to economics). China is part of the global network of trade and interdependence. For all the rhetoric from Trump and the US government, American companies got a decent deal out of China as part of the Phase I trade agreement (seems like years ago at this point). The EU is pushing to ratify a trade agreement with China right now (focused on getting market access). The EU wants its companies to not be disadvantaged when operating in China. And when you've got one of the largest economies in the world leaving the EU and the American president threatening to defund NATO and leaving Western-led institutions, the EU has to send a message to its members that its negotiating power is strong as a bloc and a message to Joe Biden not to take Europe for granted in any US-China competition.
It's trade and interest. Look at this from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/16/he-ruined-us-10-years-on-tunisians-curse-man-who-sparked-arab-springForeign money also equates the commotion of democracy with risk. “We’ve seen a lot of investors going abroad, looking at places like Morocco or Egypt that are authoritarian countries and present the same cheap, skilled labour force but with less trouble, less social demands,” says Youssef Cherif, the director of Columbia University’s Tunis Centre.
Investors don't seem to care about democracy or the Arab Spring much. Nor did they prefer India to China. Capital goes where it gets the highest return, and it often goes to countries where the government isn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy (US actions in Latin America are another example).
So you can blow up the global trade and capitalistic tendencies of private corporations. But that's not happening when our economies are based on profit and growth.
How else do you get one over China in a global, geopolitical setting? Simple, by outcompeting.
For the longest time, developing countries didn't have many options. IMF/World Bank loans and competing for western attention was your best chance, but that comes with conditions (someone would argue far too many, like the CFR article I linked in the US thread). Then China comes along.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42172955https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50068625People complain about debt traps, but an observer might see the IMF loan conditions as more stringent and more taxing than the Chinese ones, which are low interest and come with infrastructure! (Of course, you have to hire Chinese companies and workers, there's always a catch).
I'm not sure people in Nigeria care about moral grandstanding, but I'm sure they want to improve their country. If you want to curb Chinese influence, give Nigeria low-interest loans or grants while building infrastructure they need. Complaining about China isn't going to do it. This basically goes for any country. Trump used to constantly while about people not paying for things (e.g. NATO, troops in Asian countries, etc), but how do you, in a global world, get those countries to turn their backs on China? Simple, pay up. Unless they're threatened with an invasion, they're hardly going to do America's bidding without getting a return.
Look at the TPP fiasco in Asia-Pacific. A perfect opportunity to curb China's influence. But a myriad of problems (stemming from domestic economics and politics doomed it):
-Americans (on the right and left) were worried about jobs lost to APAC
-American corporations wanted strict rules about IP and other protections
-Trump of course was against it ("Democrats sign bad deals!")
American geopolitical interest would dictate that TPP be signed, whatever the impact, but it gets held up. So other countries went ahead without it. What's more, the recently signed RCEP, led by ASEAN countries, of course includes China. China's even stated it could be interested in joining a new TPP later.
You can't have your cake and eat it. It's not the 80s and 90s anymore. For global dealings, there has to be some sacrifice (Corporate interest? Domestic backlash? Better loan terms for developing countries? Lower growth?) to get others onboard.
There's also an abdication of responsibility in lieu of political power. On the pollution topic for example, China emits less emissions per capita than some of the worst polluters (developed countries including US and Australia). So, some western countries offshore to China, consume said products, and still pollute more on a per capita basis? It's not a great look, but it's easy to point fingers. In 2017, China stopped importing some plastic waste, which set off a chain of events on the recycling side here in the States. For the first time, people were questioning if recycling was done properly. It turns out we just shipped the most difficult to recycle plastic to China. When that was halted, we didn't know what to do. It's a global problem. Part of the reason Australia's emissions are so high is that its iron ore industry exports a ton of material for Chinese consumption. If China were to offshore its manufacturing to ASEAN countries, it could look great pollution-wise. It doesn't solve climate change though. I don't think posters on here would be lauding China for its low emissions after sending manufacturing and toxic waste abroad. It's a global problem, but it's where competition kicks in. Everyone wants things like public transit, green buildings/manufacturing, electric vehicles, etc, so there's opportunity for competition. But when the president of the United States, one that was democratically elected, is calling it a "hoax" and calling other countries "filthy," it doesn't send a good message. The overwhelming majority of people in the world don't live in developed democracies. They would like to raise their standard of living. They also understand that climate change is a major problem. Bangladesh, for example, has to balance its growth with the climate threat. These countries, I'm sure, would love investment in more sustainable growth, from manufacturing infrastructure to transit. So people need to put their money where their mouth is and help them. Otherwise, don't be surprised if they take Chinese support for investments in infrastructure.
As the virus shows, politicians use the easy way out to point fingers. There were politicians (right-wing ones) in the UK and America mentioning lawsuits and reparations back in last spring instead of doing the hard work to actually solve the problem. For short-termism, it's far too easy to make everything political as opposed to tackling the hard issues. The thing is, it actually works well. Trump might've lost, but the GOP did far better down ballot than expected. Imagine after this year (and the last few), that Americans are so enthusiastic to vote for a party that literally didn't give a shit about the virus (other than insider trading and suppressing data). Abdicating responsibility and pointing fingers is a great way to get people excited, but one major flaw: it doesn't solve problems. Right-wing parties and factions especially win elections (and referendums) and solve no problems. Just point fingers outside to win.
In an increasing multi-polar world, this just doesn't work. From investment in Africa to green energy to vaccinating developing countries, people have to put money where their mouth is.
-China builds railroads in Africa ("It's a debt trap!")
-China manufactures stuff ("They're the worst polluter!")
-China provides vaccines to developing countries ("This is vaccine diplomacy with strings attached!")
Cool, so provide an alternative. Which countries will delay the vaccination of their own citizens and provide attractive loans and investments for developing countries? Imagine that as a political platform. You'll be laughed out of every debate. But the citizens of those other countries aren't waiting. They need vaccines. They need infrastructure. They need green investments. I'm sure they'd much rather work with the EU and the US, but that feeling isn't necessarily reciprocated unless strings are also attached. So they look elsewhere for alternatives (and quite frankly, leverage). In the past, there was no alternative. Now there is. It becomes easier for countries to chart its own course: develop, make itself more attractive, and fight for capital from great powers.
So you want to curb China's influence? Simple, pick 1:
1. Blow up the modern capitalistic system that demands profits and global trade.
2. Put the money where the mouth is:
-Provide more attractive investment options to developing countries
-Hold leaders and companies accountable for actions (not just them losing elections, but also compensation to other countries)
-Give one-sided deals on countries in the hopes they will shun China
Ultimately, sacrifice self-interest (both domestic and global) to build a global alliance. Otherwise, it's just a lot of talk. And based on the leadership being elected these days, talk seems to be at the forefront. (From the American perspective, let's see how the Georgia run-offs go and what actions Biden will take).