U.S.-China relations: Paving the way for Cold War II?
A warning from Kristof: "The most important diplomatic relationship in the world is between the U.S. and China. It's souring and could get much worse. Alas, the U.S. is mostly to blame for this. And the biggest culprit of all is the demagoguery of some Democrats in Congress." Well, maybe. It is certainly true that economic protectionism, a fear-based response to globalization and the domestic pressures of outsourcing, is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to diplomatic relations, and our response to the emergence of China as an economic superpower should not be to cut ourselves off (or to try to isolate China, which wouldn't work anyway).
Kristof again: "There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be angry with China's leaders, but its trade success and exchange rate policy are not among them. The country that is distorting global capital flows and destabilizing the world economy is not China but the U.S. American fiscal recklessness is a genuine international problem, while blaming Chinese for making shoes efficiently amounts to a protectionist assault on the global trade system." I'm not sure that it's all the Democrats fault. Republicans, whatever the sincerity of their laissez-faire rhetoric, are just as capable of protectionism as Democrats. Indeed, Kristof is simply wrong to assert that Bush's adoption of protectionist policies is a result of Democratic pressure. Come on, when has Bush ever given in to such pressure? And let's not forget that any "souring" of U.S. relations must be attributed at least in part to Chinese nationalism, which is on the rise and not going away anytime soon -- see Robert Kaplan's excellent piece in the June Atlantic. And then there's North Korea, another wedge issue that needs to be dealt with seriously by the Bush Administration.
Regardless, these are the issues that we need to be thinking about if we are to avert a second Cold War, one perhaps more perilous than the first. ($2.35 for Kristof? No, I'll stick with $4.30 -- or maybe a few cents less.)
Kristof again: "There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be angry with China's leaders, but its trade success and exchange rate policy are not among them. The country that is distorting global capital flows and destabilizing the world economy is not China but the U.S. American fiscal recklessness is a genuine international problem, while blaming Chinese for making shoes efficiently amounts to a protectionist assault on the global trade system." I'm not sure that it's all the Democrats fault. Republicans, whatever the sincerity of their laissez-faire rhetoric, are just as capable of protectionism as Democrats. Indeed, Kristof is simply wrong to assert that Bush's adoption of protectionist policies is a result of Democratic pressure. Come on, when has Bush ever given in to such pressure? And let's not forget that any "souring" of U.S. relations must be attributed at least in part to Chinese nationalism, which is on the rise and not going away anytime soon -- see Robert Kaplan's excellent piece in the June Atlantic. And then there's North Korea, another wedge issue that needs to be dealt with seriously by the Bush Administration.
Regardless, these are the issues that we need to be thinking about if we are to avert a second Cold War, one perhaps more perilous than the first. ($2.35 for Kristof? No, I'll stick with $4.30 -- or maybe a few cents less.)
4 Comments:
I often get the feeling that people are yearning for a new cold war. China, despite its rapid growth since '78 is still about 20 years away from being something a kin to a superpower that could balance (arms race II) US hegemony. An interesting debate amongst China watchers right now is where China is going to end up politically. There are two camps: those who see China gradually transitioning into a democracy compatible with the west and neo-classical free market principles; and those who focus on China's institutional history and path dependence theory. Folks in the latter group see China becoming a relatively unique political entity dominated whith a highly professionalized technocratic elite. Seems like the recipe for radical nationalism though China, though the West has always had much difficulty understanding the dynamics that hold China together and define its national identity.
For a nice read on the former group, there is Bruce Gilley's "China's Democratic Future", a thorough and provocative read though admittedly biased and Eurocentric. Authors like Andrew Walder and Andrew Wedeman are for the most part in the latter group and write often in the China Quarterly journal which is a great source of China news.
Great blog Mr Stickings, I'm learning a lot and dare I say I even chuckled once or twice.
By Anonymous, at 8:56 PM
Thank you, Mr. Nash. I appreciate the kind words, and thanks for reading the blog. I'll try to make it even funnier in future.
Excellent comments on China. I'm not sure which way China will go. It's not my area of expertise, but I'm trying to read as much as I can, given that China will soon rival the U.S. more equitably. You're right that military equality, or an approximation of it, may still be a couple of decades away, but China is already a major economic player, and it's dominant presence in a tough part of the world means that it'll play a huge role in geopolitics sooner rather than later. Who knows what will happen with Taiwan, for example. Or North Korea. Or with all those former Soviet republics. If I'm not mistaken, Uzbekistan may be inching closer to China already.
I'll check out your recommendations, too. Where China goes may very well be the most important question of our time.
Once again, I'd recommend Kaplan's piece in the current Atlantic.
By Michael J.W. Stickings, at 11:02 PM
Definitely gonna check out that Kaplan piece, and Kristoff's pieces lately on China have been pretty good as well. Another interesting upcoming event will be the 2008 Beijing olympics. Remember what happened to South Korea after Seoul '88. The democratic movement that brought about Tiananmen is still there and stronger than ever actually. I'm reminded of a quote I came across that went something like "Democrats don't make democracy, rather Democracy makes democrats." So the Olympics and the world attention that comes with it may provide the conditions for a peacefull transition though I assume all 1 million CCCP soldiers ( or however many it is) will be present for each event.
By Anonymous, at 12:56 AM
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mirc indir
mircada
mirc yükle
mircada
mirc
mırc
mirc indir
mirc yükle
forum
sohbet
chat
catlak
kafkas
kafkasya
adige
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
mirç
mirc inndir
By Anonymous, at 5:05 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home