UPDATE: Interesting discussion and links to background posts over at Coming Anarchy.
Henry Kissinger warns us against employing Soviet-style containment against China. Mutant Frog takes issue with some of Dr. Kissinger’s historical analysis. Personally, history aside, I think Henry’s right on the money with his description of China’s present geopolitical situation:
The strategic equation in Asia is altogether different. U.S. policy in Asia must not mesmerize itself with the Chinese military buildup. There is no doubt that China is increasing its military forces, which were neglected during the first phase of its economic reform. But even at its highest estimate, the Chinese military budget is less than 20 percent of America’s; it is barely, if at all, ahead of that of Japan and, of course, much less than the combined military budgets of Japan, India and Russia, all bordering China — not to speak of Taiwan’s military modernization supported by American decisions made in 2001. Russia and India possess nuclear weapons. In a crisis threatening its survival, Japan could quickly acquire them and might do so formally if the North Korean nuclear problem is not solved. When China affirms its cooperative intentions and denies a military challenge, it expresses less a preference than the strategic realities. The challenge China poses for the medium-term future will, in all likelihood, be political and economic, not military.
Mark Steyn, meanwhile, argues as only he can that the 21st century will NOT be China’s.
China is (to borrow the formulation they used when they swallowed Hong Kong) “One Country, Two Systems”. On the one hand, there’s the China the world gushes over - the economic powerhouse that makes just about everything in your house. On the other, there’s the largely unreconstructed official China - a regime that, while no longer as zealously ideological as it once was, nevertheless clings to the old techniques beloved of paranoid totalitarianism: lie and bluster in public, arrest and torture in private. China is the Security Council member most actively promoting inaction on Darfur, where (in the most significant long-range military deployment in five centuries), it has 4,000 troops protecting its oil interests. Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is an international threat only because Beijing licenses him as a provocateur with which to torment Washington and Tokyo, in the way that a mob boss will send round a mentally unstable heavy. This is not the behaviour of a psychologically healthy state.
How long can these two systems co-exist in one country and what will happen when they collide? If the People’s Republic is now the workshop of the world, the Communist Party is the bull in its own China shop. It’s unclear, for example, whether they have the discipline to be able to resist moving against Taiwan in the next couple of years. Unlike the demoralised late-period Soviet nomenklatura, Beijing’s leadership does not accept that the cause is lost: unlike most outside analysts, they do not assume that the world’s first economically viable form of Communism is merely an interim phase en route to a free - or even free-ish - society.
Jing, however, argues very persuasively that those predicting doom and gloom for the PRC are misguided. His post would be a MUST READ if I hadn’t already posted two already.
18 Comments
Here’s something else to ponder:
http://www.twq.com/05summer/do.....mbaugh.pdf
Can China spread the wealth around enough to keep enough of the people invested in the state? Or, will China become a state of metropoles and aristocracy surrounded by discontented poverty? Will the rise to wealthy peterout in the distribution process? Will the discontented masses living in poverty rise up to overthrow the state? Will regional disproportinate wealth lead to national fracture? Or, will China reach a tipping point where wealth distribution creates a self-sustaining, rich economic base as it has in the US?
I only offer one positive future question here, because to succeed as people predict, China will have to make a break from its 5,000 year history…
I have a strong dislike for some of Beijing’s policies and the free ride they’re getting vis-a-vis the North Korean situation, but I think they will make better allies than adversaries.
Reacting to them as if they are a strong military threat, I sometimes think, can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy of making them a strong military threat.
China, the bicycle economy as it is known because if it stops it will fall over. Clearly there are rich people who are becoming richer and there are poor people as well. China is a place where thousands of dollars can be spent on one meal and on the other hand there are people who spend less than a dollar-such is the variation between rich and poor. I think that the Chinese people would like to see political reform and even democracy come to the middle kingdom but it is not clear that economic growth will lead to political reform. I think one could make that argument for Korea-the political reform that South Korea has experienced as been at least strongly influenced by economic growth and relative prosperity. With China, I am not convinced that is a forgone conclusion. One of the big things that needs to happen is that China needs to float its currency. By all accounts, it is undervalued and by pegging it to the dollar, it is detrimental to the economic growth and stability of China. It would be nice to see China take on a more responsible role for security and stability in Asia as it would be nice to see them move toward political reform.
If political reform causes the money to sputter or stop flowing, then they don’t want democracy.
Chinese want stability and opportunities to get rich. Florida 2000 convinced many that their brand of governence may be a better choice for them.
Damn, its a real pain in the ass registering here.
China will generally be OK in the international sphere. China will just be hell for those small countries near it–those countries over which it has a clear military advantage and for which it can get away with things without the western press knowing or caring.
Also, my belief is that the party may be able to get away without major political reform even if the economy stalls in the next 15 years. The reason is that even the poorest people here have a sense that hard work will improve their lot and move up into the ranks of tehhigher classes. After 15 years, though, there will be a generation of people who grew up poor under the reform economy and stayed poor and thus will have a sense of hopelessness with one party rule.
All in all, if I were an oligarch only interested in staying in power, I would have done exactly what the leadership has done. As long as the western press is prone to blaming its own leaders, the party can deftly deflect attention away when need be. Yes the CCP has made some minor mistakes in PR, but thats about it.
I did not know about the Darfur thing. interesting.
Just one more thing, it just seems as if people think the ‘warmongering’ US is the only country that has oil interests
SW: China will just be hell for those small countries near it?€“those countries over which it has a clear military advantage and for which it can get away with things without the western press knowing or caring.
Kissinger’s article knows a thing or two about European history and geopolitics, but nothing about the Orient. To say that the China has existed with substantially the same territorial extent for 2,000 years is pure garbage. 2,000 years ago, China’s land area was 40% of what it is today. China has expanded by the usual military means, but its tradition is to nibble gradually at its neighbors’ territory while settling their land with military conscripts and convicts. Yunnan, Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria were certainly not part of China 2,000 years ago.
SW is right about long-term Chinese intentions. Throughout history, China’s role vis-a-vis its neighbors can be described in a single phrase - Manifest Destiny without the guilt.
Work deals with the Chinese but always be wary. I wouldn’t trust them as long as the Communists are in power. Smile and shake hands, but behind the scenes, always be watching.
snow: Work deals with the Chinese but always be wary. I wouldn?€™t trust them as long as the Communists are in power. Smile and shake hands, but behind the scenes, always be watching.
Chinese expansionism has nothing to do with Communism. Every time the Chinese state has been strong, it has expanded. Why? Because territorial expansion is like going fishing or hunting wildlife - you get resources for free.
ZF: Kissinger?€™s article knows a thing or two about European history and geopolitics, but nothing about the Orient.
That should have read: Kissinger knows a thing or two about European history and geopolitics, but nothing about the Orient.
Koreans can relax about China - becoming a Chinese province isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be. Koreans can still speak Korean, although they’ll probably have revert to the Chinese writing system instead of using hangul. And Korean will be referred to as a Chinese dialect instead of as a distinct language. Oh - and one more thing - every Korean schoolchild will have to learn Mandarin and most broadcast stations will be in Mandarin (unless China uses the one country, two systems setup up it uses in Hong Kong). But isn’t that the latest craze in South Korea - learning Mandarin?
Expansionism has nothing to do with communism, but communism does allow the government to exert enough control over the media and intellectuals to stay on message. “‘YYYY’ is and always will be a part of China.”
‘SW’ makes me sound like Sex Worker.
Should be: ?€œ?€?YYYY?€™ was, is and always will be a part of China.?€?
Mark Steyn: Unlike the demoralised late-period Soviet nomenklatura, Beijing?€™s leadership does not accept that the cause is lost: unlike most outside analysts, they do not assume that the world?€™s first economically viable form of Communism is merely an interim phase en route to a free - or even free-ish - society.
The land upon which China stands has been ruled by despots since the first Chinese state sprung up along the banks of the Yellow River thousands of years ago. The collapse of the current regime is not simply not inevitable, it is unlikely - China’s mechanisms for imperial control have been studied and refined for millenia, and they have worked, interrupted only by periodic changes in dynasty, a la the king is dead, long live the king.
As to China’s economic system, it is anything but communism - it is communism transitioning to unregulated free market capitalism, Singapore-style. The Chinese government is jettisoning state-owned enterprises as quickly as it can - this is why unrest in China is relatively high, because the government is abandoning the promises made to the parents of today’s Chinese workers - the government will keep the fruits of everything you earn, but your children will have guaranteed jobs and housing. More and more, today’s Chinese workers will have to fend for themselves in a market economy. This is why I believe China’s economy will boom for decades hence - for the first time in Chinese history, the Chinese genius for entrepreneurship is being unleashed - commerce is actively lauded instead of disparaged, as it has been for millenia.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14010
and
http://english.epochtimes.com/.....25560.html
Entrepreneurship tempered by a heavy dose of the Golden Shield V3. Ironically, American companies are only too eager to assist.
Epoch Times article: These are Marxists. Control the means of communication. Embrace the means of communication. Fill it with Chinese voices. If they can block the outside and block relationships between Chinese voices, no one will listen.
Actually, controlling unorthodox views (especially those that could challenge the ruling power) is an ancient Chinese tradition having little to do with Marxism. Collective punishment, book burning, et al were all employed with equal vigor. Owning a copy of what the government defined as seditious material was a capital offense, long before 1949. Part of the Chinese government’s method of retaining control over Chinese minds is to glorify the past, convincing ordinary Chinese that they have nothing to learn from foreigners except their technology. So ancient and glorious a culture cannot possibly have anything to learn from outsiders except with respect to ephemeral things such as music or art. Highly-evolved Chinese political and moral values, in particular, must be walled off from nouveau riche foreigners, who have no concept of true civilization (the epitome of which is, of course, embodied in the Chinese people). What may not be apparent to expats like Ethan Guttman is that the Chinese view the West as some intrepid (but unfortunate) European explorers of the past viewed their cannibal captors - as people who had a leg up on them, but were in no way civilized as they were. And none of these Chinese views have anything to do with Communism, having persisted through thousands of years, in which one neighboring “barbarian” after another had its day in the sun, before being subdued by the Chinese state.
Very interesting comments, Zhang Fei, all the more reasons to remain wary of the Chinese long into the future.