Hopefully Not Fighting the Next War
Blake's point about China is extremely well-taken. I don't think you can write a book about the present day politics of foreign policy without a heavy focus on Iraq, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that when people from 2108 look back on early 21st century U.S. foreign policy they'll be primarily interested in whether or not we dealt with the rise of China or India in a reasonable way. What's more, as Blake says this is one issue at least on which we can be glad that the Bush administration has generally eschewed the counsel of the neocons (recall that back before 9/11, the dynamic duo of Kristol & Kagan took to the pages of the Weekly Standard to pronounce the pragmatic diplomatic resolution of the EP-3 spy plane incident a "national humiliation").
This, I might add, is one of the more troubling things about John McCain. He's spent most of the past ten years being the main political patron of the circle of intellectuals most eager to see the 21st century dominated by Sino-American strategic conflict. McCain himself has tended to be more responsible than some of his friends, but as I argued earlier things like McCain's effort to create an "alliance of democracies" and his position on missile defense could seriously worsen our relationship with China. At the same time, while I don't think any Democrats want to see a new Cold War with China, the combined political temptations of trade bluster and human rights bluster do pose some risks in that direction and certainly militate against any kind of creative efforts to lock in a cooperative relationship.
As for what ideas might work, you should probably ask a real China expert, but the abstract point that I think needs to be made about this is that when we say we want China to be a "responsible stakeholder" in the international system, we need to make sure we're making China a reasonable offer. If we define the international system as one governed by rules like "the United States can launch preventive wars but nobody else can" or "non-democracies are second-class citizens in the international community" then of course China isn't going to be a responsible stakeholder in a system like that.
As an American, the idea of a ruleset that privileges America appeals to me. As a decent human being, the idea of a ruleset that privileges democracies appeals to me. But Chinese officials won't -- and can't -- look at it the same way, and we need to be cognizant of that and not define the system in a way that precludes China being a responsible participant in it.
When it comes to China we have to be reality based.
We can't ostracize them even if we want to since we're to dependent on their imports. We also can't ignore them because they compete with us for resources.
China is also the clearest case where a concert of democracies would fail because China has already countered any sort of group like that by building relationships with client states throughout Africa. China builds the infrastructures of struggling dictatorships in exchange for exclusive contracts to China's state-owned companies and for exclusive rights to their client's natural resources. In exchange these dictators get China's military and industrial support, and enough money to stay in power. This is happening throughout Africa -- as we lose standing in the world China is using its savvy to insinuate itself into scores of developing economies.
Rather than retreat to the company of like-minded nations we need to be out there trying to persuade developing countries that a relationship with us is better than a relationship with China in the long run. At the moment we're being shut out of Africa, a continent that is growing in importance.
Having a weak currency and weak global standing certainly isn't helping.
April 24, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we should leave international relations in the hands of the Durban dockworkers.
April 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That's an incredible story.
April 24, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a really cool story. Hope it starts a trend. Thanks for the link.
April 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US has no intention of making a "reasonable offer" to China and it is in fact promoting a new Cold War with China. There is no evidence that Democrats would or could change this course. They probably recognize that there is a lot more profit in war than in peace, plus the US is in no position to offer anything to China anyhow, except of course more buying and more borrowing.
The Pentagon is spending its $70 billion budget on new weapons like it's the Cold War all over again – with China stepping in for the Soviets. Nearly $10 billion a year goes to ballistic missile interceptors originally designed to stop Russian missiles; $9 billion to new fighter jets meant to take on MiGs; $3.3 billion to next-gen tanks and fighting vehicles; $1 billion for the Trident II nuclear missile upgrade; and $2 billion for a new strategic bomber.
from Michael Klare:
"A close examination of the FY 2009 request indicates that the principal sources of future budget growth are not the GWOT or other such low-intensity contingencies but rather preparation for all-out combat with a future superpower. Probe a little deeper into Pentagon thinking, and only one potential superpower emerges to justify all this vast spending: The People's Republic of China."--Michael T. Klare
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/klare.php?articleid=12471
from the Pentagon:
WASHINGTON, March 3, 2008 – China not only is a rising international economic power, but also is a rising military power with new and developing capabilities that have global implications, according to the 2008 China Military Power Report released today.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49162
The new world alliance of note is Russia-China-India-Pakistan-Iran, not anything that the debtor-nation, bogged-down-in-war US can dream up. Taiwan is now making nice with China -- will Japan be next? That's the thing to watch and it is largely out of our hands.
April 24, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Foreign policy analysts need to pay more attention to the fact that we have a massive defense industry that depends for its profits on maintaining the perception that the United States faces vast military threats. The lobbyists working for that industry are stuffing the coffers of politicians like McCain and (as the New York Times reported just this weekend) hiring dozens of ex-Generals to influence public opinion and politicians' decisions. Any real reform in American foreign policy is going to have to begin, not with a change in philosophy, but with a change in process. Until we can ensure that our public and our politicians aren't being manipulated by those with a financial interest in promoting particular policies, we can't be sure that anything this country decides to do in foreign policy is really in the country's best interest. Much more likely, the decisions being made are decisions bought and paid for by Big Defense. Eisenhower warned of the dangers to democracy (and to the taxpayers' wallet, I might add) of the military-industrial complex. It's about time we heed that warning.
And belive me, McCain is certainly not the right candidate to move us in the direction we need to move.
April 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have already misplayed how we will "handle" China to the point where our decisions in the future may be of little consequence. They OWN us now! Their power is only beginning to grow, ours diminishes daily. We don't set the rules now... others do.
IMO, the United States has only a brief moment left as "the" superpower as our currency erodes as a result of our irresponsibility and the dollar is abandoned as the leading currency on earth. All this foolish speculation about foreign relations that does not recognize we no longer are calling the shots internationally is practically delusional in my opinion. America has blown it so badly the past seven years all the Chinese have to do is wait while we fall to pieces as the greed and desperation of our ruling classes grows more and more desperate and they wreck what is left of our once mighty economy.
But it's too late, I'm afraid, to regain our status as the collosus of the globe and it is deeply disturbing to have to recognize this and begin to think of new ways of approaching foreign relations as one among several powerful nations and not the final arbiter of international relations. Yet, I do believe that is what is required if we are to help to shape as favorable a set of circumstances for our nation as we can in the future.
April 24, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But it's too late, I'm afraid, to regain our status as the collosus of the globe and it is deeply disturbing to have to recognize this and begin to think of new ways of approaching foreign relations as one among several powerful nations and not the final arbiter of international relations. Yet, I do believe that is what is required if we are to help to shape as favorable a set of circumstances for our nation as we can in the future."
You've summed it up beautifully.
April 24, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
One reason that so many African and Asian countries (and not just dictatorships) welcome relations with China is that the Chinese have one record that the US can not begin to match: they have not invaded another nation since the Ming Dynasty. (And the Korean War is not an exception). They also have a very strict policy of not judging and interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. This means that countries can invite the Chinese into their nations to help build their economies without fear that an army of intelligence agents, IMF consultants and democracy advisors will accompany them and begin to control their politics and economy. Unfortunately, the US cannot give any such assurance, indeed any who allows the US into their country knows that they are bringing in "protection" from the US military.
April 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, the Chinese are happy to do deals with abusive and corrupt governments that we won't.
And when our own greedy, rapacious elites can't bring themselves to do the deals, that's saying something.
April 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you provide evidence that the US does not do deals with abusive and corrupt governments. If you can name a few how about comparing it to a list of such governments that we have delt with.
April 24, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miller's map's a bit out of date, but I don't think things have changed all that much.
April 24, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
One reason that so many African and Asian countries (and not just dictatorships) welcome relations with China is that the Chinese have one record that the US can not begin to match: they have not invaded another nation since the Ming Dynasty. (And the Korean War is not an exception).
Vietnam, India, Tibet, Mongolia and Turkistan might disagree with that assessment.
(If you meant the Qing Dynasty you can remove the last two from the list).
April 24, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
China invaded Vietnam in 1979 for a variety of reasons to include an effort to save their genocidal Khmer Rouge allies in Cambodia.
Ask any Vietnamese about their "peaceful" northern neighbor, and they'll give you a 1,000 year history of hegemony and invasion.
The PRC's boundaries are essentially the same as those of the Qing Dynasty. It wasn't called the Chinese EMPIRE for nothing.
This doesn't mean that China is looking to conquer their neighbors, but let's not accept the propaganda of a one party state.
April 28, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that with oil hitting $120, food prices skyrocketing to mass rioting level, a financial meltdown and global warming that many of our leaders are still talking about wars and geopolitical rivalries. India, Russia and China are rational nations, there are ways forward to manage the coming crises without piling on more, please, the future's too urgent.
April 25, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink