US-lead Asian order was established after WW2, with substantial support from most Asian countries. It is definitely not colonial in nature, since US has no designs on Asian territories. Facts show US lost territories since WW2, and that isn't in keeping with your Yankee colonialism claim.
This is demonstrably false, since US ended Japanese colonialism and supported China against the Soviet Union, after Mao and Nixon came to an agreement on China accepting US primacy in exchange for protection and development assistance.
Dude, get real. US was the bulwark against the Soviet Union and had real concerns about Communist expansions all over the world. Like other nations in the world, it pursued its national interests with gusto and remains the only empire in the world with no designs on other people's territories. Save your breath, I'm sanguine about millions of native Americans murdered through official and unofficial US policies, but we're talking about post Bretton Woods.
The Middle Kingdom is reemerging from about 150 years of decline, and at the minimum, it wants to co-lead Asia. US is the status quo hegemon and it wants to retain its lofty position. You could question if US policies are wise or even achievable, but let's can the colonial crap. I say again, the United States of America is the only empire with no designs on other people's territories. It has plenty of its own, especially when you consider Canada is basically the 51 State.
Now you get it; not colonialism after all but contests between an existing hegemon and a reemerging one.
Wow, you need to get real and cut the crap. Your precious post-WW2 order and Bretton Woods are part and parcel of colonial and neo-colonial history.
Bretton Woods was essentially an agreement by the Western European colonial powers and those under their influence/control to consolidate forces under US leadership.
Movements and wars for independence from the various colonial powers were all the rage across the world during and after WW2 including in most of Asia. French intervention in Vietnam was to maintain its colonial system and the US not only supported the effort but took it over.
Direct territorial ambitions are not required for neo-colonialism nor various stages of colonialism. The US may have partially ended Japanese colonialism, but maintained/supplanted it in places like the Ryukyus and in Japan proper, and actively pursued colonialist/neo-colonialist policies in destroying countries/governments around the world such as in Iran and in Pan-Arab countries not compliant enough towards the new colonial/neo-colonial master.
Communists vs anti-communists civil conflicts were used in many instances to rope about-to-be or newly independent states into the US or Soviet neo-colonialist systems respectively. Thereby the birth of the Non-Aligned Movement in an attempt to assuage as well as play both sides.
Mao and Nixon came to an agreement for China to openly team up with the US against the Soviets in exchange for the US integrating China into the US-led neo-colonial system somewhere between boss and subject. To frame it as "China accepting US primacy in exchange for protection" is utter BS.
Finally the Middle Kingdom is not "re-emerging after 150 years of decline", it has been re-emerging since the founding of the PRC and the ROC settling in Taiwan after 100 years of bottoming out. The US happens to be enjoying the pinnacle of its hegemonic power when it suffered different kinds of blowback on 911 then in the late 2000's financial crisis, just as the PRC happens to be reaching the pinnacle of the easy stage of their re-emergence and dared to question then attempt to change the system. Shocked pride meets newfound pride, shocked power meets newfound power, rubbing each other the wrong way regardless of actual intent.
