|
Getting
China right
By
Jonathan
Power
TFF Associate
since 1991
Comments to JonatPower@aol.com
April 4, 2005
LONDON - When in 1964 China first
tested a nuclear weapon the West had every reason to be
worried. Here was a country that had recently fought the
U.S. in Korea, had threatened countries as far afield as
India and Indonesia and which supported revolutionary
movements all over the Third World.
But today China's policies of
would-be military domination worry us very little. Its
nuclear arsenal is rather small - a mere 24
intercontinental nuclear missiles that are able to reach
the U.S.; no aircraft carrier battle groups for
projecting its power; very few destroyers; it is
constructing no long-range bombers; and has no military
bases abroad. Its seventy submarines rarely venture
outside Chinese territorial waters. Even vis a vis
Taiwan, against which it has deployed 600 short-range
missiles, it does not have the makings of an invasion
force that could overwhelm Taiwan's defenses.
Nevertheless, both the White House
and majority opinion in Congress, continue to act as if
the U.S. must contain China militarily, even while
professing engagement. In Tokyo recently, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice asked to defend the presence of
such a large number of U.S. troops in Okinawa replied
that they were there to balance the rise of China.
Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, America's most
influential balance of power theorist, argues, "China
cannot rise peacefully" and there is "considerable
potential for war"
The assumption seems to be that as
the economic juggernaut continues to roll that this must
in the long run turn into a military threat. But it
simply does not follow that an increase in China's
regional power and influence need translate into a
reciprocal decrease in U.S. power and influence.
Neither power nor wealth is baked
only in one size. The cake can grow for both. It is not a
zero sum game whereby my big slice is less for you. Why
Washington feels that the U.S. long time presence in East
Asia is threatened by China owes more to paranoia than
good sense. Often overlooked is what Chinese foreign
minister Tang Jiaxuan clearly told Secretary of State
Colin Powell, that China "welcomes the America presence
in the Asia-Pacific region as a stabilizing
factor".
It is six years since the late
Gerald Segal published his much-discussed article in
Foreign Affairs "Does China matter?" The essentials of
many of his arguments have not really changed. China's
success has been grossly over-hyped.
China still accounts for only a
small proportion of world trade and even in its region
the latest figures show that China is a long way from
dominating East Asian trade. Total regional imports from
China are about 9% compared with Japan's 17% and the
U.S.'s 18%. Although Germany is Europe's biggest exporter
to China its exports there are only 7% of its total.
The apparent high inflow of foreign
investment into China is used to trumpet China as the
wave of the future. But most of that inflow comes from
ethnic Chinese and much of the so-called investment from
East Asia makes a trip from China via places like Hong
Kong and then comes back as foreign investment to attract
tax concessions.
China, unlike India, still does not
yet have enough ingredients for long run success. It does
not have any world-class companies of its own. Its legal
framework is rickety and there is no guarantee that a
dictatorial political system will have the flexibility to
contain the stresses and strains of economic expansion
pursued at the current rate of knots. In terms of
literature, films or the arts in general China is
overshadowed by much smaller Chinese communities- in Hong
Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore.
It is probably only a matter of
time before the faddish fascination with China switches
to booming India and once it does it is unlikely ever to
switch back again once investors realize what it is to
have a haven where the law does work, albeit too slowly,
and democratically elected politicians are not just
accountable, but persuadable and approachable.
When it comes to China, time is on
Washington's side and the time should be used to engage
China further, not to fear it or aggressively seek to
counter it.
That said, it will be always
important to stand up for Taiwan's democracy and not to
brush under the carpet the memories of Tiananman Square.
Maintaining the arms embargo and pushing Europe to do the
same sends the message that the U.S. is not setting aside
any important principles. All the more strange, then, is
the inexplicable contradiction to its otherwise too tough
China policy: the U.S. has recently given notice that,
unlike in recent years, it is dropping its policy of
voting to criticize China at the UN Human Rights
Commission.
Get
free articles &
updates
Copyright © 2005 By
JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by
phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Här kan
du läsa om - och köpa - Jonathan Powers bok
på svenska
"Som
Droppen Urholkar
Stenen"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|