The Real
Issues: Politics and International Relations
China: Ally or Competitor?
By: Charles P. Kirchofer
Home
We've all heard the discussion: China is a growing economic, political,
and military power. China is the US's creditor and therefore holds the
purse strings. China is not a democracy. Many political analysts gaze
across the Pacific with apprehension, if not fear, over China's rising
star. Will China be the next USSR? Or worse, the next Third Reich
Germany?
In a world where societal make-up, leader ideologies, economic
interdependency, and international law and institutions matter little,
the answer would be: yes, both could be possible. In a world where all
those things do
matter, the answer would be: nah, China's not so bad. The real question
seems to be then: which world are we actually living in? (Though I will
later argue there is yet another, more
important question).
This is a difficult, if not impossible, question to answer. Like all
such binary questions, the answer is likely neither nor -- some
combination of the two. Neo-liberals would argue that the
economic interdependence between China, the US, and the rest of the
world would make China going to war or being overly aggressive very
unlikely because it would be so costly. The problem with this is that
economic integration was also extremely advanced in the late 19th
century. This, however, failed to prevent either of
the World Wars. They are correct in their assessment of the costs: the
wars were extraordinarily costly, eventually leaving Europe essentially
in ruins. The prospect of the costs alone, however, did not prevent the
wars. So what could?
Economic interdependency, while increasing the costs of war and
acting as a deterrent, is not enough. I would argue that
societal make-up, leader ideology,
government form, and international law and institutions all play a role
as well.
Societal make-up and the form of government go hand in hand. If the
population is vehemently opposed to wars and the government is
democratically elected, it will be very difficult for the government to
go into war. This can be witnessed in Germany today, for example. The
Chinese seem fairly peaceful, but their government is not
democratically elected, nor do they allow their citizens uncensored
access to
information. For this reason, the combined factor societal make-up and
the form of government in China is not particularly comforting.
But what about the other factors? Does the Chinese leadership have an
ideology of aggressiveness? Here it depends on what one looks at.
Domestically, China certainly seems intent on maintaining at least de
jure
control over it's claimed territories. These claims
have changed little since the beginning of the People's
Republic of China. China wishes to maintain control over Tibet and
increase its de facto control over Taiwan. Otherwise, the Chinese
government generally shows signs of cooperation on the international
level.
How about international law and institutions? China has a permanent
seat on the UN security council, which can be seen as both good and
bad. On the one hand, China has the confidence that it can work with
(and control) the UN with its veto and security council seat. On the
other hand, it would be impossible for the security council to make any
decision against China, since China would have the power to veto any
such decision. This means the UN may work towards preventing war by
encouraging China to negotiate and cooperate. It also means that if any
problem ever arose, the UN would be incapable of acting.
There is one other factor: economics in general. It is not just
interdependency that is important. In general as long as a country is
experiencing economic success, there is little reason to go to war.
China's economy is growing quickly, and doesn't look to stop
(especially not for any longer period of time) any time soon. This
means China is likely to have no need to challenge the rest of the
world. It is argued that the US oil embargo against Japan before it
attacked Pearl Harbor put Japan in a tight spot: it knew it wouldn't
have enough oil for a long war. The emperor decided it would be better
to attack right away and try to win the war very quickly. Regardless of
how it turned out for Japan, this shows the effect on states of being
backed into an economic corner.
There is of course one last piece of the puzzle: politics. Does China
feel it can get what it needs via the current international structure,
or does it feel it must assert its power and influence (this could also
take the form of smaller military maneuvers to show China's
determination)? Working with China to ensure that both sides
continually feel cooperation is more fruitful than conflict is one of
the most important areas. Enter diplomacy. In the early days of US
history, before the US became a superpower, the US had to rely on
excellent diplomacy to get its way. It did so winningly. Perhaps it is
time we rediscovered the diplomatic skills of our country's early days,
even though the world has become a much more complicated place.
Finally, we get to the real real question: what do
we do? As a pragmatist, I see this as the most important question.
Whether China will become a serious threat is open for debate, though I
tend to conclude that there is no reason it would have to turn out that
way if diplomacy is taken seriously. So what would be the options?
There aren't very many, realistically. We could launch a war against
China, a ridiculous idea
considering China's size and our interdependence with China. For that
and
other reasons I'll just cross that off the list right now. We could try
to reduce China's power by boycotting it. This would hurt us at least
as much as China. The relative gain would be zero at best. In the long
run,
China would still continue to rise do to its enormous domestic market
and rising demand throughout east Asia. Also a bad idea. So what's
left? Cooperate with China, remain interdependent with China, and use
our leverage to nudge China in the direction we would like when we see
something that matters a lot. This will become more difficult as China
grows in power and economic size, but it is already too large to push
it around. Let us also not forget how much we have gained from China's
growth as well.
So we should work with China? Yes! China will gain in power, but it
would still be hasty to imagine that the US's power and influence will
be gone by 2025. As for a challenge to the world order? Well yes, as
China becomes more powerful it is certainly possible that it will take
over the global leadership position fairly soon. It could even mean
that we will have to use our leverage to reduce China nudging us,
rather than vice versa. Although this may be
disturbing for some, it is important not to view this in an overly
dramatic way. The US and its allies will still be quite important.
What's more, we are headed towards a multipolar world, not a
unipolar,
Chinese-led one. This may even be preferable to a US hegemon, as it
would help reduce current economic and political imbalances (and it
would make it more difficult to blame America for all the world's
woes). It is important to keep my last, real
real
question in
mind: what can be done? The realistic answer? Not a whole lot. China is
a
good business partner, and maintaining good relationships with your
best business partners is generally a good idea. Any good business
person also recognizes the importance of a diversified portfolio of
business connections. This means expanding trade
with everyone, not
reducing trade with China.
The only thing that could make China the new hegemon would be to make
sure the US falls from its current place at the top. The best, and
nearly only, way to do this is through poor US policies. Instating
protectionist measures (e.g. trade tariffs on Chinese imports,
eliminating NAFTA) would weaken the US economic position. Further
disgraces like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would serve to further
alienate America from the rest of the world and reduce its credibility
and persuasive abilities, amounting to political suicide. It is not at
all clear that China would be
horrible as a world hegemon, but most of us assume if we need to have a
hegemon, the US is preferable. Let's hope our policymakers understand
this as well and don't enact counterproductive, populist measures that
make this happen before its time.
Comment
View
Comments
Politics
page
Home