The Great Power That Wasn’t There
Having the Olympics in Beijing and watching the Chinese dominate the gold medal category naturally leads to an uptick in the “China anxiety” you expect from citizens of the existing hegemonic power watching the rising number two. Some figures, like Robert Kagan, have already taken the arguing that China is inevitably bent on an aggressive foreign policy that will lead to clashes with the United States — and thus we must prepare for clashes with China and not at all worry that such preparations will look threatening to China since, allegedly, we’re already destined for conflict.
It’s interesting to observe, though, that when you look at concrete cases, far from seeming hell-bent on world domination, China is actually oddly passive on the world stage. When the PRC clashes with Western positions on the UN Security Council — over Iran, for example — it almost invariably hides behind Russia even though in the real world, as in the Olympics, China surpassed Russia some time ago as an important country. And when something happens that China can avoid taking a position on because it’s neither geographically in China’s backyard nor formally up for discussion at the UN, China usually says and does nothing at all.
This should be somewhat reassuring to Americans, but it can also actually be a problem. The Georgia situation, for example, has gotten to the point where some third-party mediation would probably be quite useful. A downward spiral in US-Russian relations across the board would be bad for both sides and the issues in play in Georgia just aren’t that important in the scheme of things, but nobody’s going to want to back down. It’d be a big opportunity for a China that was interested in becoming a traditional global power to kind of butt-in, do some mediating, and grab a bit of glory and it’d probably be a good thing for the world if it were to happen. But the Chinese leadership has seemed disinclined for years to try to play a global role in that sense and they give no indication of a desire to change that.
Anyways, consider that a bit of a not-quite-on-point introduction to CAP’s report on outlining a progressive approach to China policy.
35 Responses to “The Great Power That Wasn’t There”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It is not clear to me that the change in US – Russian relations are necessarily bad. The disasters of the last 8 years would, by and large, have not happened if the old USSR had been in place. The US, for example, would never had invaded Iraq – Saddam Hussein would have cozied up to the Soviets, and that would have been that. I dare say that W would not have let New Orleans die in a bi-polar world, and certainly Georgia would not have been so reckless. If it takes an adversary to keep the United States from running amok, then we should be prepared to have an adversary.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
China has learned from history that real power comes from the pocketbook and access to resources. Russia still seems to think it’s from the gun.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
China – the Justice Thomas of the Security Council.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
China is not a warlike nation. It’s not a warmongering nation. For centuries upon centuries, it has been reluctant to wage war against significant enemies. Sure, it has flexed its military muscles around Taiwan and Tibet, but these may be seen (in their view) as regional policing matters.
No doubt they’ll take a major role in world affairs, but one needs to look at historical character for clues to identity. One would also say, for example, that they are also not fantastic diplomats. These characteristics can change, but not with any fluidity.
Here’s another one: Iran has not attacked another country in forever. Not literally forever, but it might go back to the days of Persia.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
On China, it is pretty clear that the PRC has made a very conscious decision to not be aggressive and not behave as a typical great power while they grow richer and stronger. I remember a pithy Chinese maxim about this, but I cannot find a link.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
China rules Tibet with the gun. Monasteries burned, monks killed, a picture of the Dali Lama will get you prison. Wonderful, passive folks.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
The first act of war is defense.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
China has way too many internal problems to be considered a player on the world stage. First it has to deal with all its enviromental problems,and with the improverished peasants in the northern part of the country. Plus there is also the problem with the ethnic minorites in the western half of the county. This makes the Chinese deeply entrenched with the Russians when it comes towards taking an harsh stance on breakaway or newly indepedent states. Because the Han Chinese fear that what happaned to the Soviet Union may be replicated in the PRC. Due to the above mentioned factors it would be impossible for the Chinese to take an neutral position when it comes to the Georgia crisis.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
When China holds 20+% of our debt, it is silly to think they aren’t an active player on the world stage.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Maybe Kagan should argue for policies that don’t make us Red China’s biggest debtor.
Just saying.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Matt: an interesting thought. Basically I think you are saying a multi-polar world is more stable. I think this is right. But the Chinese have prospered in the current uni-polar situation and probably quite like the prospect of the US driving itself into the ground in pursuit of psychotic neocon projects, and becoming ever more dependent on China. Damn it they could just contract out all the dirty work to the Pentagon. That would be smart.
Garuda: China’s policy in Tibet is very stupid and counterproductive, and brutal, but by great-power standards it is small beer. For starters the Chinese do have a long shared history with the Tibetans and the whole tragedy should be seen in that context. (I am a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner and indeed a follower of HHDL BTW.) Great powers screw up whole regions half way across the world–look at the European and American recent history in the Middle East. China is not doing any of this–yet. Once the tentacles being stuck into Africa get tempted things may look quite different (or I suppose you could argue that it has already started).
August 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The disasters of the last 8 years would, by and large, have not happened if the old USSR had been in place. The US, for example, would never had invaded Iraq – Saddam Hussein would have cozied up to the Soviets, and that would have been that.
What does this even mean? The US invaded many, many Soviet-affiliated regimes during the Cold War. It was basically our favorite hobby.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Marshall–
I think the maxim you are thinking of is the Deng Xiaoping 24-character one that includes what is often translated as “hide our capacities and bide our time”…….
As for MY’s description of the Chinese as passive on the world stage; they are not passive so much as obstructionist (see: Doha round; Burma resolutions; Darfur peacekeeping) usually in the service of their nasty client states. They just have a very different style from Americans who like to loudly proclaim what it is we’re doing.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Where China and the U.S. will lock horns is natural resources. In this regard, China’s foreign police is just as imperialistics as the American. China will give Iran what for guaranteed oil deliveries? Ditto Sudan. They are much less interested in humanitarian efforts, genocide and democracy but much more interested in face.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Beat for gold on the ten-meter platform by a twenty-year-old gay Aussie, though.
That’s gotta sting.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Eric,
Persia invaded northern India in the mid-17th century, along with attacking Turkey and Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
I believe they also invaded Afghanistan sometime in the 19th century?
‘Bide our time’ is right. The Chinese take the long view. I’m always reminded of Zhou Enlai’s assessment of the French Revolution: “Was it a good or bad thing? It’s too early to tell.”
August 25th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
China already has most of the land it reasonably aspires to owning, Taiwan being the glaring exception. It’s now got, say, Inner Mongolia, so why would it need Outer Mongolia? A little Mongolia goes a long way. Russia, in contrast, is bordered on the West by flat, fertile land full of Slavic-speakers who have been ruled by Russia in the past and might be again in the future. That makes the situation more unstable.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I’d guess that China’s leadership wants China to increase in power and wealth: naturally this means that their foreign policy is not going to look a lot like ours.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I have to agree with Eric. China, throughout its history, has never been an expansionist nation. Eric also rightly points out that the Tibet and Taiwan issues are internal territorial ones. (For instance, if say, South Carolina decided to claim independence and secede from our Union, I’m pretty sure we’d go into Charleston with guns blazing. That’s just a hunch.)
The thing that China bashers in the West don’t understand about the Chinese government’s psyche is that they are obsessed with the idea of stability. But nothing is more destabilizing than military conflict. Just look at what Iraq/Afghanistan has done to our economy. We always hear about this looming threat that the Chinese represent, but seriously, do you honestly think China would move aggressively against Japan? The U.S.? For what reason? How does aggressive expansionism benefit the Chinese?
August 26th, 2008 at 9:17 am
What does this even mean? The US invaded many, many Soviet-affiliated regimes during the Cold War. It was basically our favorite hobby.
The Cold War was, by and large, a fairly stable and in some ways traditional balance of power with client states and spheres of influence (mostly belonging to the US and the USSR). We never directly invaded a Soviet or Chinese client state after North Korea, and the Soviets never directly invaded one of ours. Even at the height of the Vietnam War, when we had 500,000 men in South Vietnam and were dropping megatons of bombs on Cambodia, we never seriously considered invading the North, and there were no Soviet or Chinese troops in the South.
I am not trying to say that this enforced stability was a panacea. When the Warsaw pact ended the Prague Spring 40 years ago this month I remember LBJ saying “Let no one unleash the dogs of war,” which seemed to me at the time as an incredible cop-out, but, looking back on it, LBJ was correct. And, while the Vietnam War was a tragedy and a disaster, the tragedy and disaster was contained. Since apparently neither the American Congress nor the American people have the ability to constrain the foreign adventurism of the Second Bush administration, I think it was inevitable that that balance of power politics would reassert itself – we lost any chance of preventing that in 2004. Now we will just have to live with it.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:25 am
The PRC Economic giant geopolitical midget. Reminds me of the USA really up until WWII and look how that turned out. My guess is that the PRCs refusal to play geopolitical Risk means that they will win (which isn’t necessarily a problem for anyone so long as the Chinese Geolge Bush Juniol doesn’t gain power)
Of course the economic giant political midget of the 2nd half of the 20th century was Japan and they are now an economic tall guy and geopolitical midget so maybe it won’t happen.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:26 am
I received a lot of spirited comments from the last post, so I thought I’d keep poking the bear with the stick. There’s an assumption going through the topic of Sarah Palin’s (non)relationship to the Alaskan Independence Party that works
December 9th, 2008 at 1:34 am
The 700 billion dollar US financial bailout package is
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
cialis information
December 25th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
dutasteride studies
January 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
bkma orwe qudvfn zyswle ngifhvrzd tpfb wsmnfqpt
March 1st, 2009 at 5:52 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Incredible site! viagra
April 19th, 2009 at 8:58 am
zGZACF bgdgrwjrmyah, [url=http://cntpjhqwrrrd.com/]cntpjhqwrrrd[/url], [link=http://nbfalrvkxcbg.com/]nbfalrvkxcbg[/link], http://oeqfecfrzdyk.com/