More Bipolar Than it Seems
When you look around the global arena, who stands out? It certainly isn’t nation in Europe, Africa, or South America. There are really only two legitimate superpowers that harbor the necessary military and economic might backed by a sizable population: America and China. And, in case you’ve been sedated by the lofty peace rhetoric of the 1990s – frequently preached by the Anglo-Saxon West – let me burst your optimistic bubble. Security is the game and power is how you play.
The recent $6.4 billion arms agreement by the U.S. to Taiwan is one small illustration of the type of game that the U.S. and China play. Although this relatively minor quibble isn’t like to start a world war, China’s response shows that U.S. meddling within its sphere of influence (or, in this case, its backyard) is not something that sits easy with Beijing. In fact, it really pisses them off. At the 46th Munich Security Conference, the Chinese representative gave a rather confrontational response to the recent U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, stating:
Of course the Chinese government and the people have to react. It is within its sovereign right to do what is necessary. I think the Chinese people and the government of every region should feel indignant about this thing… We have one fifth of mankind. At least we deserve a chance to express our views on how things should be run in the world.
Sure, this could simply be fiery rhetoric, but it probably isn’t. As indicated, if the deal goes through China will respond by sanctioning certain U.S. companies related to the arms sales industry (whatever that means). What’s more significant though is that the U.S. seems to be playing with fire at the least opportune time. Quibbling between China and the U.S. over Taiwan is nothing new. However, what is new is the relative shift in power. Never has the U.S. been so confrontational with China when its fortunes seem on the decline and China’s future so promising. The roles have been somewhat reversed. China really does account for 1/5 of earth’s entire population and is on pace to take the reigns as global economic leader within the next 50 years. Generous forecast say that by 2040 China will account for 40% of the world’s GDP, dwarfing the U.S.’s measly 14% (more conservative estimates say a little above 30%). Add this to China’s somewhat unsettling latent power capabilities and the result is a prospective hegemon. One characteristic of a hegemon, or a potential hegemon, is their ability to project their powers outside of their immediate spheres of influence.
China, to no surprise, is perfectly capable of such feats. In addition to its comments about feeling indignant about the U.S. selling weapons in their backyard, the Chinese representative made known that the Chinese government would block any new UN sanctions leveled against Iran and would continue to work on a deal to import uranium for enriching. At first glance, such moves may appear as insignificant great power bickering. But there is more to it than than first meets the eye. As I remarked in an early post of mine about U.S.-Iran-China relations there is the inkling of a nascent Cold-War style international structure underneath all the fuss amidst Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Perhaps what’s most interesting in all of this is the emergence of a post-Cold War balance of power structure. What goes often unmentioned in discussions about Iran is their recent energy deals with eastern European and Asian states – and not the minor players either. Powerful states such as Russia, China, India, and Pakistan have enabled Iran to continue to develop despite the shaft its received from the West (primarily the United States) by making energy deals to boost its economy and further distance itself from reliance on energy from Western states or Western-based corporations. Most pointedly, these states have made it explicitly clear that they don’t intend to cease or alter the conditions of their deals with Iran because of U.S. pressure.
Much like they have in the past, the U.S. and China will compete for power in a zero-sum international vacuum. As China begins to assert itself as a competitive global power it will challenge U.S. hegemony on several fronts, Taiwan and Iran being two examples out of many. How the game plays out and what moves each player chooses to take are unclear. However, there is one thing that is nearly certain. The notion that the U.S. and China can peacefully coexistence without stinging each others nerves is more of a pipe-dream than a reality. Neither power is likely to defer to the other’s control over their regional spheres of influence and both are likely to engage in a Cold War-like bipolar struggle.
Lofty rhetoric and kowtowing aside, the bottom line is we don’t trust them and they don’t’ trust us. It’s a security dilemma. It’s been this way since 1648. It will be this way in 2048, granted the good Lord don’t come a knockin’, horses and all. CFR fellow Elizabeth Economy’s recent blog post nicely summarizes the real characteristics of U.S.-China relations, and it’s nothing knew under the sun.
There is nothing new here. We are merely witnessing the reality of the U.S.-China relationship, which is marked by almost no trust, a weak foundation of real cooperation, and a lack of shared values and commitment to true compromise.
Bismarck ain’t dead ya’ll, and Kissinger isn’t a ruthless baby killer. They simply understood the uneasy and always volatile relationship of nations. It would behoove (that’s pronounced be-hoooove) everyone to understand that.
The generous figures you give to China’s GDP can only be achieved through explosive growth – sort of like the 1920′s American explosion of growth. Market is highly manipulated, they don’t have a large pool of resources, and they have many mouths too feed.
I’ll return to this when I’ve got some time on my hands and give a more detailed breakdown; however, for now, I’ll simply say that one of the reasons China’s economy will more than likely “explode” (if it hasn’t already done so) is precisely because they “have many mouths to feed.” As for not having the resources. Well, I think the notion that China is unable to sustain a rapid and explosive growth is just wrong. China’s got quite an abundant supply of domestic resources to sustain large scale growth. Remember many of these mouths that will be fed will also contribute to domestic consumption and domestic market growth. Perhaps a more serious concern is maintaining internal cohesion and avoiding political instability.
I do concede that there are way too many palpable hiccups and unaccounted for “unknowns” to make a highly prediction model for China’s future economic growth (as if any prediction model is accurate). However, one thing is for certain, China’s relative backwardness and semi-super power status is a historical anomaly. Barring any catastrophic speed bumps in their industrial and agricultural development China is destined for bona fide super power status. Their latent power far exceeds that of any other potential rival – namely the U.S. Again, all those mouths too fed now will turn the wheel of power later. There is bound to be a greater degree of great power conflict between the U.S. and China. Unless, of course, you think the two can peacefully coexist as great powers and regional hegemons. Such a scenario, although not totally inconceivable, is highly unlikely bordering on impossible. Conflict, in some capacity or another, is probably inevitable in S.E. Asia and not improbable in other “hot spots” (e.g. Persia).
More later.
export concerns, domestic economic instability, inequality and poverty, pollution, social unrest, or even corruption and slow political reform – carnegieendowment
(I also think they are missing a dozen economic arguments in what could slow down China)
I agree that the “mouths to feed” represents a domestic economic consumption; but it is also 1 billion in poverty to 300 in the middle class. Did you know China actually had to switch from using wood chopsticks to plastic because they were destroying the forests to rapidly? Each person consumes lots of resources, China is a big country – but it has a lot of people.
I think the problem is going to be expanding the economy at the 10% growth that we currently have seen, its totally unstable according to most economists. Also, remember if the country does start to see a shift in the type of production (say manufacturing goes to India because of cheaper labor), then China has to adapt and shift into a new market. Lots of hurdles to say the least.
I think ‘peacefully coexist’ is all dependent upon the couple hundred leaders in each country… or the natural resource struggle of that moment. Linking economies is a good start.
Personally, I think China’s tense response amounts to little more than saber-rattling.
The U.S. has sold plenty of weapons to Taiwan in the past, and China comes forward with a similar reaction each time. Then, each time, China and the U.S. “negotiate,” reach an agreement to back off, and then the dance begins again. Such is the nature of international diplomacy.
Like you said, neither side trusts the other. But why is this groundbreaking? No two countries truly trust each other, especially among power players; China and the U.S. just happen to be the most prominent example.
You’re right. It isn’t groundbreaking, and it isn’t gong to escalate into anything other than an exchange of words and perhaps a few import tax hikes. What’s perhaps different though is that this time, as opposed to times past, the U.S. doesn’t have the same preponderance of political or “moral” power. Now, and certainly in the near future, China is much less likely to tolerate “bullying” from the U.S. Relative positions of power notwithstanding, I simply wanted to point out the true relationship between China and the U.S. There’s a lot of talk about a peaceful coexistence between two super powers. I think that’s an inaccurate assessment of the dynamics of interstate relations, particularly amongst great powers. See HERE for more.
Quite honestly, I wished I had picked another, less obvious, example to reflect the dynamics of power play between the U.S. and China. I should have stated the obvious (what I’ve said) and then discussed the ‘new’ changes in U.S.-China relations. One change to discuss is the loss of “moral leverage” by the U.S. It seems that the U.S. is no longer in position to criticize China’s human rights abuses. Again, its a rather minor thing (if you can allow me to call human rights a minor thing), but its reflective of a larger issue: the perception of power. Those who feel they have the more powerful position will be more willing to “preach” to others less powerful than themselves. I’m not so sure America soars high above China like in times past. They still soar, just not nearly as high. As a result, they’ve dropped the somewhat Sunday morning attitude. Either that, or Obama is just more dove-like. I doubt that though.
Also, thanks for stopping by the site, Rebecca. I visited your site. It seems interesting and insightful. I see you attend MU. Go Tigers. I’m from St. Louis and a Tigers fan to boot. Tough loss to Baylor. Sort of makes the Texas game a must-win, if they want to steer clear of bubble-status. I’m still a devoted fan, even if I’m halfway across the globe.
Anyway, I hope you stop by more often. We always welcome well-informed people who are capable of sparking intelligent debate. I’ll try to make my way over to your blog from time to time! :)