I'd like to focus on the "China rising" side of the debate, not the internal issues (which Barnett covers in a better fashion than I could).
Mann focuses on the growth of Chinese influence after the Iraq war. His argument is that the decline of American prestige has led to a Chinese renaissance in international affairs. This renaissance will lead to the spread of Chinese-style despotism throughout the world.
However, Mann ignores the following:
- Chinese influence was on the rise even during the post-9/11 higher water mark of American militarism. They plied with nations tired of America's obsession with security (not democracy, as Mann claims) with diplomacy and trade. China also fills an ideological need for a counterweight to American power among both world elites and the masses.
- Chinese reinforces states that are already authoritarian. No dictator would willingly "adopt the Chinese model" because doing so would mean a great change in political procedure that would greatly reduce the power of an individual like Mugabe. However, everything has a consequence. They will come to face the kind of armed backlash American corporate power has wrought in Africa, especially the kind seen in Nigeria.
- China, at this point, is ultimately a status quo power. It seeks to preserve the world system that has allowed it to prosper, and that world system is currently guaranteed by American military security and American-dominated diplomatic and economic institutions. China will seek to advance itself, but it will not overturn that system because doing so will hurt it more than it will hurt us.
8 comments:
As I said at NYIDC my comment became a post.
We seem to be of one mind on this issue.
As for Mann--I think he's in for a drubbing on this one. All of the commentary I've seen on his book has been quite negative.
Hey A.E.,
Thanks for linking. I concur with your assesment on the things Mann ignores. These are but a few, he also ignores many changes we've seen with regard to how China reacts to crises that reach the international press. Examples of this are the SARS debacle, the more recent melamine issue with food and finally, the CCP backing down from their push to have all Chinese bloggers register using their real names after the tech sector criticized the measure and made clear that investment would suffer. Political freedom? No, but you can see the very early development of a feedback loop, and a measure of accountability for the CCP.
I agree with the idea that China is a status quo power, but only to a point. A number of things point to China quietly positioning itself to challenge US hegemony at some stage, e.g., developing a blue water naval capacity; modernizing the navy, air force, strategic rocket forces, and elements of the army; developing strategic nodes along SLOCs, like in Pakistan, Burma; locking in exclusive foreign oil supplies.
Strategist,
That's to be expected. As China rises, it will seek to acquire a military that reflects it's power. What we need to do is move to integrate them and find a use for that million man army of theirs, i.e. Sysadmin capability.
One thing which China is not doing...trying to match America's nuclear deterrent and currently owns only 24 ballistic missiles capable of hitting the U.S.
To challenge U.S. hegemony (by this I'm assuming global) they would need to build these forces up, something they are not showing a hurry to do. As for regional hegemony, yeah, that's not unexpected. It's one of the reasons why establishing an Asian NATO is so important, as a mechanism for constricting Chinese power and pushing it to more constructive endeavors.
I would also stop trying to actively antagonize China. This administration has done it's best, especially with its spacewar policies, to try to scare the Chinese, and it hasn't succeeded.
Perhaps it's wise to consider cultural history and context. For centuries China referred to itself as the "Middle Kingdom" - the center of the world. I can't cite instances, but I remember reading that even during WWII once one (a westerner) got away from the central government's small circle people still thought of China that way. This sort of cultural context is learned in the home more than in any school and I'm not sure it would have been driven out in the 60 years since the Party came to power.
In this world view the US is still the long nosed barbarians and is inherently inferior, leaving aside the inevitable victory of Marxist-Leninist history.
Strangely enough, America also reinforces states that are authoritarian, and has done so at least since the end of WWII. Is this because authoritarian regimes tend to quash social and monetary reforms? Of course, change is always suspicious when you achieved power through change.
I would speculate that if China is a "status quo" power that is only because they take a longer view of the tide of history than even the Japanese.
The Central Committee understands that we are bleeding ourselves into insignificance because we buy and consume, yet manufacture less and less. We foolishly export production to other countries, and out of our control. Time is on their side, and not all conquest comes from the barrel of a gun.
That's an interesting perspective, Lurch. I suspect the Chinese do have a grand strategy that probably extends at least 100 years into the future.
Post a Comment