> This poses a problem for the core states because one of the main pillars of the imperial arrangement is that they need to maintain a monopoly over necessary technologies like capital goods, medicines, computers, aircraft and so on. This forces the “Global South” into a position of dependency, so they are forced to export large quantities of their cheapened resources in order to obtain these necessary technologies. This is what sustains the core’s net-appropriation through unequal exchange.

Ok, now apply this thinking the other way: is it good for the West to lose tech know-how and become dependent on China? For Chinese firms to take over our markets? The article tries to paint China as benign as possible, so it omits any mention of underhanded tactics it uses to enter Western (and other) markets, such as the Canada-China FIPA free trade agreement:

China benefits much more than Canada, because of a clause allowing existing restrictions in each country to stay in place. Chinese companies get to play on a relatively level field in Canada, while maintaining wildly arbitrary practices and rules for Canadian companies in China. [1,2]

It's also notable that "warmongering" is code for no more than mere protectionism, the same kind that China (and indeed most industrialized countries) practices, or practiced until its own corporations could compete. But "war" sounds a lot worse than "maintaining economic sovereignty", so that's what the hit-piece chose.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fipa-agreement-with-china-wha...

[2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-yearbook-of...