Meeting the Superpower
With George Bush in China on what has to be one of the most crucial diplomatic missions of his presidency, The Economist naturally has a lot to say about it.
Coverage begins in the editorial, which in typical Economist style accentuates the positive in terms of trade and economics.
I have to say that I don't agree with the opening lines:
It is never easy to deal with an emerging superpower. China may not justify that moniker quite yet, and perhaps it never will.
China not a superpower? Come on, who are we kidding here? It is without doubt the only nation that can take on America militarily, politically and economically. And already is. Some might argue that we are already in the midst of a new Cold War, just one that isn't leaving such an obvious frost.
The intro continues:
But its rapid economic growth, its huge population, its demand for resources and its energetic diplomacy are posing delicate questions for politicians around the globe. China may not be another Evil Empire, but it is still a repressive one-party state: can it be changed, or must it merely be made room for? And will what China has termed its “peaceful rise” really be that, or could it become more confrontational?
This is the question that has been in my mind for quite some time now, and hot one that I am really qualified to answer. But at least other people are asking it.
But then the question of free trade etc. rears its head. With all the business manoeuvering in the news, what is the US afraid of?
All this might be dismissed as a re-run of the ill-judged Japanophobia of the 1980s. But whereas that was based on economic anxieties alone, China-bashing enjoys a much broader constituency: moralistic neo-conservatives, who have objected to America's China policy since Nixon began “appeasement” in the 1970s; defence types, who fear China's arms build-up; fundamentalist Christians, angry about China's repressively atheist ways. It is easy to see why Mr Bush will be under pressure to look stern in the photo-calls in Beijing. He should nonetheless hold his nerve against the knee-jerk Sinophobes, especially in the case of trade.
Surely, however, trade is at the centre of all this. Does the West really understand what the Chinese trade block really is? I don't think so, and this is one of the things that worries me. It's all too easy to look to China for a quick profit, but this kind of short-termism could lead to a longer-term malaise.
The article concludes:
If you take a bleak view of the way history works, the great power that America is must one day collide with the great power China is destined to be. But there is no need to be so bleak. Much depends on when and how the Chinese Communist Party loses its monopoly of political power. For as long as China remains totalitarian in this respect, there can be no true meeting of minds with America. But in the meantime China and America have to co-operate. And part of the job of an American president is to prevent the narrow interests of protectionists at home from disrupting a relationship which, if it is handled correctly, could contribute so much to the peace and prosperity of mankind.
I hope so, of course. But increasingly I believe that the so-called Communist party is irrelevant to the leadership of China. Yes, the current regime may fall one day, but to be replaced with what exactly? I think it will simply hand over to a carbon copy of itself.
These are significant times, and the last thing I have to ask is: is Bush really up to it? No need to answer that one.
Comments
Interesting points. However, I would say that China is NOT a superpower at this moment for one simple reason. I do not think they are able to withstand ONE serious economic event and maintain any level of growth. It is easy to think a country powerful when they are growing at 8+ percent per year. Let China suffer economic hardship for a year and then let's see what their power status is.
Also, I am very intersted in the photo that the economist chose for Mr. Bush. It shows him frowning (why?) and it looks like it has been manipulated. Since it is a portrait style photo I'm not sure that it is genuine.
Posted by: dave | November 26, 2005 3:14 PM