Well you can't. The door closed and the ship set sail over a century ago. The Monroe Doctrine was made in a different time.
I disagree. The multipolar world is a return to exactly the world in which the Monroe Doctrine was born. The unipolar world was a unique aberration in history and any rules, norms, and mores that it formulated will pass with it. If the ship set sail a hundred years ago, it's just reappeared on the horizon and will soon pull into port. Welcome back, history.
You cannot declare that no one else may have a present military in the countries surrounding you because the whole world will know you as a bully. China actually has an outstanding reputation among non-Western supporting nations.
The thinking in the Global South isn't so simplistic. They might profess a principled opposition to bullying and imperialism, but their real problem with it is that they're the victims. China is "popular" (and I wouldn't say that's the right word, it's more that it's seen as a valuable and strong partner by the elites of those countries) despite intensive Western propaganda portraying it as a bully - witness the endless stream of intellectual sewage about Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the SCS, etc.
You might argue that that's because China is being slandered and these accusations are untrue, and I agree. But that's beside the point, the point is people believe in China's righteousness here because that's what serves their interests to believe, whether or not China is actually righteous.
China retains its "popularity" in the Global South and I argue that the primary reason is that China isn't bullying them and they benefit economically and strategically by aligning with it. That logic would remain even in the case of genuine Chinese coercive or bellicose behaviour against countries in the region that ally with the US.
To declare to all Asian nations that they will face Chinese military action if they exercise their rights to form bonds with Chinese rivals will resound loud and clear that supporting China over the US is like kicking a king off his throne to install an emperor.
That's exactly the way it's always been. That's Statecraft 101. No country has ever tolerated the military presence of a rival in its near abroad if it had the power to change it.
I find it self-serving to believe China is the exception because of an excess of morality. The real reason is that China was too weak to change it and could only accept it. Increasingly, that's no longer the case.
The Chinese people are a morally-upstanding people.
Then they would see what I'm proposing as a just war. I don't advocate doing any more harm than necessary to realize China's just and reasonable core security objectives. If vacating the US necessitates a war, then that war is solely the responsibility of those who denied China justice. Whether or not there is a war is entirely their choice. Even if there is a war, they could stop it immediately with one phone call to the Chinese President agreeing to remove the US military from their territory.
I personally find a China that behaves like this unworthy of my devotion.
That's your opinion and I don't think it's widespread among the Chinese public today, let alone 15-20 years in the future as China grows ever more wealthy and powerful.
I didn't say they will shake your hand and admit defeat; I said that they will eventually find it useless and financially draining when it becomes apparent that their military is hopelessly outmatched in Asia and getting repeatedly humiliated.
Nobody will be happier than I am if the US just resigns after its alliance system is spontaneously reconfigured due to China's growing wealth and power. That suits me just fine. My question is what if this doesn't happen? I don't think alliance systems just fade away, they're always broken by war. That's my hypothesis and time will tell.
There's a big difference between telegraphing a willingness to fight, such as flexing over the ROC, vs telegraphing horrible bully syndrome by openly declaring that your interests must supersede other's sovereignty.
I consider China's policy on Taiwan a dangerous holdover from a period of poverty and weakness, just like its minimal nuclear deterrent policy was until very recently. China is not telegraphing a willingness to fight over its core national security issues, it's telegraphing a willingness to fight over one specific issue.
What happens should Taiwan return to the PRC while these other issues remain unaddressed? Some countries in the region would think they could take every liberty with China because the Taiwan thorn has been pulled from its side.
What China should do is telegraph a willingness to fight over its core security and sovereignty issues, of which Taiwan is one and not the totality. That's very different from telegraphing any "bullying syndrome."
It's not a strawman at all. Telling others that they don't have the right to say no on their soveriegn soil just because it is against Chinese interests is bullying.
They don't have the right to say no on a very narrow set of issues that affect China's most fundamental security interests. The core of our disagreement is that I believe this is well within a superpower's prerogative and you don't.
A modern Chinese nuclear arsenal comparable to the American or Russian stockpile, and armed with hypersonic vehicles provides an insurance policy against Anglo tendencies to commit genocide against Chinese.
I wouldn't put it in overwrought language like "genocide", but I was quite concerned until recently about China's strategic deterrent. Recent events have been very reassuring.
