Nearly everybody realizes that China’s meteoric rise in the international community will lead to some sort of conflict between it and the current hegemon, the United States. Right now, the United States has a chance to decide how this tension will play out over the coming years and decades. We cannot hope to stall China’s economic rise, nor would we want to even if we could. Instead, we have to work to integrate China into the existing international system rather than isolate them so they feel compelled to overthrow the system and put in place their own.
G. John Ikenberry writes in the last issue of Foreign Affairs that China can easily overpower the United States if it comes down to a one-on-one economic duel. However, China is unlikely to rise to the level necessary to overthrow the current (Amercian-conceived) international order if that order remains strong and united.
This is a very good point that Ikenberry makes, but it conflicts with a very popular mindset among Americans right now, that we don’t need anybody else in the world. George W. Bush’s unilateralist cowboy diplomacy and the neoconservative anti-UN agenda is ultimately weakening the United States’ chances for success in the long term. We need the other nations of the world now and we will definitely need them as China becomes even more powerful in the future.
Why don’t we join the ICC? Why aren’t we paying our dues to the UN? Why do we think we are so special that we can break international law with respect to torture and indefinite detention without trial? Remember how Republicans scoffed at any suggestion that we should consult the UN before invading Iraq?
It is past time for Americans to realize that international cooperation helps us now and helps us in the long term. We invented and initiated the international system as it exists today and we should continue to invest in it.
David M. Manes
Chris McNeal
S.C. Denney
Heather McIntosh
Becca Burley
Guest
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Steve
Dave
I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the phrase, “meteoric rise”, since meteors are mostly noted for their tendency to fall to the earth (i.e., meteorites).
Thanks,
Steve Manes
February 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm
CJ Rivenbark
Actually, the modern international system dates back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (which was before the existence of the U.S.). Just wanted to clarify that, since it sounded like you were saying that the U.S. was responsible for the modern international system.
With regard to the China issue, I completely agree that the neo-conservative agenda has hurt us, possibly beyond immediate repair. I believe that we should decrease our reliance on China to fund our national debt (since they are the number 2 foreign owner of U.S. treasury securities). In order to do this, we must decrease our military spending and the belief that we are the police of the world. We need to bring China in as a partner, rather than us being dependent upon them. There is a way for our competing economies to provide mutual benefits, we just have to get past the whole issue of needing to be the sole decision maker when it comes to international affairs. However, China needs to make some major reforms before this can happen. They are increasing their economy at a fantastic rate, but at the expense of the chinese populace and the environment. Beijing alone was 10 times more polluted than LA last year. Something needs to be done to get the chinese to understand that they may be enjoying this economic rise, but they will suffer along with causing the rest of the world to suffer in the future. If China wants to be a partner, then they must acknowledge that they are causing significant harm to their country and need to stop that. They are going through an industrial revolution that we went through many years ago. We have seen the effects of that, and know that it is necessary to prevent the negative effects while obtaining the positive results.
February 27, 2008 at 9:05 pm
jkkuwitzky
I would assume that the international system to which David refers to is the postwar economic and collective security regime that broadly governs the affairs of nations today. Westphalia holds the origins of some parts of the modern system, but other parts developed out of the failures of the Westphalian system. Bretton Woods and its aftermath, as well as the UN, are indisputably the product of American interests and actions.
February 27, 2008 at 9:12 pm
David M Manes
That is exactly what I meant. I didn’t mean to assert that the United States invented the concept of the nation-state, but that we initiated most (if not all) of the important international organizations and regimes that exist today. The UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICJ, and tons of other acronyms.
There is power in those acronyms, though. Through these organizations, conflicts are resolved in alternative ways (as opposed to the good old-fashioned way of just killing people). I like the system and I think it is worth reinforcing for the future.
February 27, 2008 at 9:14 pm
David M Manes
As for “meteoric,” a crash is a possibility for China. No other nation in the history of the world has grown at the rate that China has been recently. China’s bottom line looks very good moving into the future, but that bottom line may betray some underlying crises that are brewing. China’s population problems, hyper-urbanization, and environmental destruction may catch up to them and bring them crashing back down.
But that wouldn’t be good for anybody, so let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
February 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm
S.C. Denney
It is perhaps conceivable that China will have some sort of environmental catastrophe, is it not? Say like the contamination of an entire region’s drinking water leading to a viral or bacterial endemic, resulting in the death of millions and a destabilization of the already volatile political landscape. See: Tienanmen Square Redux.
Environmental catastrophe aside, it seems like the natural order of things would be for the United States to unit with the rest of the western powers to unite under one economically and ideologically formidable block.
February 27, 2008 at 9:52 pm
S.C. Denney
Or we continue along suicidal unilateralism.
February 27, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Chris McNeal
Ikenberry made a great point in saying that China, which will certainly pass the United States in GDP, will not pass the OECD in GDP. As a matter of fact, they won’t even come close. That said, as long as we maintain healthy relations with our allies and embrace collective security, I don’t think China is a big problem.
Many people who say China will be a problem point to the tensions which led to WWI. In that case, you had a multi polar international system in which all great powers distrusted each other. The international system of today is much too different for those comparisons. Countries are much more interdependent and transparent these days.
Others point to the Cold War’s bipolar nature. Again, I have problems with this. The volume of trade between our countries is a great safety net for whatever disputes may arise. China is also not out promoting communism around the world. They are much less interventionists than the Soviet Union.
There is one explanation for a great conflict that I think has merit. That is, China’s trading partners. Were China to support a country atagonistic to our interests simply because of economic ties, this could lead to a showdown with China. In my mind are Burma, Iran, Sudan and others. China invests lots of money in these countries to facilitate oil infrastructure. Should these countries use the resources from China against us, who knows what could happen.
Maybe I should be a novel writer. That would make a good book.
February 27, 2008 at 10:56 pm
S.C. Denney
The increase in trading interplay between China and the 4 Asian Tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan) could make for an interesting global trade scenario.
As of now the Tigers have maintained their relatively high economic standing by focusing on exports to richer industrialized nations, most notably the United States, and by sustaining a trade surplus with those nations.
February 28, 2008 at 5:55 am
David M Manes
Do you think that the Asian Tigers may intentionally prefer the US over China in trade relations out of ideological reasons? I don’t know, they might. But if they are just selling to the US because we are the best customer right now, that could very well change in the future. That would create an interesting dynamic.
February 28, 2008 at 6:10 am
S.C. Denney
To be quite honest, I can’t say for sure. But keeping in line with “free-market” ideology it would “make economic sense” to trade with the nation that will provide you with the best incentives. Will China ever be able to provide the best incentives for the Asian Tigers? Perhaps.
Although the predictions fair well for China in the foreseeable economic future, it really discounts the absolutely horrid environmental conditions the Chinese industry sector is inflicting upon the infrastructure and the people.
Globalization is another factor left out or downplayed (perhaps with the exception of Ikenberry). A unified west would do much to alter the course taken by a rising China.
March 21, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Jesse
a unified west is very dangerous.
don’t you see what’s going with NATO?
we do not need war or the threat of between the west and east.
this is not condusive to peace but is antecedent to major conflict and world war.
watch the news and tell me you see “good reports” in the MSM with respect to Russia and China. combine the buildup of NATO even more, the middle east powder keg, and anti russian/chinese sentiment and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.