While America Returns to Asia, China Regains Centrality

13 years ago, Andrew W. Marshall, the most influential Pentagon strategist, endorsed the "Asia 2025" report in which the scenario of Sino-American synergy was not even considered:

A stable and powerful China will be constantly challenging the status quo in East Asia, an unstable and relatively weak China could be dangerous because its leaders might try to bolster their power with foreign military adventurism.

The tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, modified the orientation of America's foreign policy for a decade, but as Washington exits from Iraq and prepares to withdraw from the Afghan quagmire, Marshall's assessment on China resurfaces and provides the fundamental rationale for Barack Obama's grand "pivot to Asia."

If Marshall's reasoning was taken seriously by the vast majority of the U.S. analysts when the Chinese GDP represented only 10% of the American domestic product, it has certainly a new resonance in a situation where the Chinese economy has become half of the American economy.

However, by assuming that the main challenges to the national security of the U.S. come from external factors and not from domestic inadequacies, the American "return to Asia" might illustrate what Andrew J. Bacevich calls "the new American militarism" but does not necessarily serve the long term interest of the Western world. A diversion from what really matters, the solidity of the internal conditions, is a regrettable corollary of this policy, "it is not alone by the rapidity, or extent of conquest, that we should estimate the greatness of Rome," wrote Edward Gibbon in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, "but the firm edifice of Roman power was raised and preserved by the wisdom of ages... the general principle of government was wise, simple and beneficent."

The global financial crisis caused by Wall Street's hubris and a national credit addiction has accelerated Beijing's relative rise, and a decade before China's economy really surpasses the U.S. GDP, the most recent survey of the Pew Global Attitudes Project concludes that China is already perceived as the world's leading economy.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based institute, the views about the economic balance of power have indeed shifted dramatically in the past four years: in 2008, before the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, 45% of the respondents named the U.S. as the world's economic superpower, while 22% mentioned China; currently, 36% refer to the U.S. but 42% believe that China is number one.

Despite a pervasive China-bashing, gross misrepresentation of the Chinese society and the gap between the American and the Chinese instruments of soft power, it is remarkable to observe that in the global public perception the U.S. does not lead the world any more, at least in the field of economic affairs.

More generally, China demonstrates a unique ability to navigate a world of paradoxes where multipolarity is concomitant with interdependence. In this unprecedented environment, the relevance of the American spectacular "return to Asia" can be questioned but this doctrine certainly underlines the striking contrast between a polarizing American outlook in which Beijing is framed as a power to contain and a 21st century China which operates beyond an East-West exclusive opposition.

Before the U.S. President Harry Truman orchestrated the containment of the USSR, George Kennan famously wrote in his 1946 Long Telegram that Stalinist Moscow "still lives in antagonistic capitalist encirclement with which in the long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence." If the American "pivot to Asia" hypothesizes that Beijing could opt for an antagonistic posture, it miscalculates Beijing's intentions since the core and the utmost subtlety of Beijing's global strategy is precisely to remain non-confrontational.

Moreover, China's socioeconomic progress should not be seen as a threatening development to be circumscribed while it is synonymous with stability and prosperity, the Chinese reemergence does not weaken the U.S. Asian allies but it offers them additional sources of growth.

Last year, while the Sino-Japanese trade reached $342 billion, the China-ASEAN commercial exchanges increased to $362 billion. China's economic links are on the rise with Central Asia and its trade with Russia and India will approach $100 billion by 2015.

The uncertainties in the global economy and the persisting turbulence in the eurozone have pushed Northeast Asia toward a collective rebalancing and diversification, but this significant redefinition of commercial and financial flows was not a planned scheme targeting any adversary but simply a reaction to the West's economic deficiencies.

China, Japan and South Korea have agreed to promote the use of their foreign exchange reserves to invest in each other's government bonds. The three countries accounting for 70% of Asian GDP are also moving toward the establishment of a trilateral free trade zone. Beijing and Seoul have already announced the launch of FTA talks which are expected to be completed before the end of 2014. China and Japan have started direct trading of their currencies in a policy which boosts the trade ties between Asia's two biggest economies.

The new Northeast Asian dynamics redesign also the Southeast Asian landscape. Along with the 10 ASEAN members, China, Japan and South Korea agreed on the occasion of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Asian Development Bank to expand a regional liquidity safety net by doubling the Chiang Mai initiative multilateralization agreement to $ 240 billion.

The highly indebted U.S. -- more than 100 % of its GDP and on track to add three times more debt than the eurozone over the next 5 years -- chooses to create the conditions for the bipolarization of the Asia-Pacific region 20 years after the end of the Cold War, but instead of a "pivot to Asia," the U.S. should have conceived a refocus on the American economy, the real long-term threat to the American national security, and beyond, a rethinking with the European leaders of the Atlantic relations.

Fundamentally, while contemporary China has learned to coexist with the West and continues to use it as a catalyst for the renewal of its ancient civilization, the West has not yet fully accepted the reality of a sui generis Chinese modernity which marks the limit of its global expansion.

By sticking to the notion that "either you are like us or you are against us" while the Chinese traditional wisdom has prepared the Middle Country to avoid such a dualistic mindset, the West takes the risk to become isolated in an obsolete world outlook.

In a Chinese context, management, governance, and more generally, the vision of international relations are deeply influenced by the "Tao of Centrality," a philosophy and a practice whose aim is to balance the opposites and to mediate between contradictory forces. The intelligence of centrality -- zhong -- presupposes contrary forces but as it targets equilibrium and harmony, it transcends the logic of exclusive opposition. The grandeur of the "Tao of Centrality" would not be in a victory of the East against the West but in their mutual nourishment.

In a global village where the absolute domination of one power over the others has become impossible, and where interdependence has considerably increased the price of tensions, the "Tao of Centrality" is a source of powerful effectiveness.

One repeatedly attributes to French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte a statement that he probably never uttered and which has become a misleading cliche: "When China awakes, the world will shake." However, China is neither a revolutionary force nor a power intoxicated by some Nietzschean will to shape a new global order.

As, in the unambiguous words of U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta at the Shangri-La Dialogue, "All of the U.S. military services are focused on implementing the president's guidance to make the Asia-Pacific a top priority," China concentrates on its domestic transformation and, gradually, peacefully, regains centrality.

Although the counterproductive "pivot to Asia" complicates the Sino-Western relations, it is not too late for the West to apprehend the Chinese renaissance with wisdom, it would not only contribute to its revitalization but it would also take the global system into an unprecedented era of cooperation and prosperity.

David Gosset is director of the Academia Sinica Europaea at China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), Shanghai, Beijing & Accra, and founder of the Euro-China Forum.

 

Comments

[godsamyth]

07:00 AM on 07/22/2012

US business is conflict China,s is a little bit more subtle, look at Africa ,expansion of chinese investments while AFRICOM has another agenda

[Sam Li]

10:40 PM on 07/09/2012

Agree with George Koo. This essay just cannot be read through by most US politicians.

[samuel liu]

10:11 PM on 07/03/2012

15 years ago the RMB-US$ exchange rate was noted
the cn stuck to it (mostly), and prospered
while the USA remained indecisive

Look what happened as a result of this inaction

[mike0]

01:03 PM on 06/29/2012

The policy toward China is always like a freaking attitude toward a religion: Starting with a false assumption, whatever derived seemingly "sensible" is total garbage. China has nuclear weapons for years, what can we do about it? Best strategy is to stay clear. We always wanted to "change" China, and eventually we are almost "changed." Stay clear, and the China issue will fade. We are too freaking obsessed with China. That's what our problem is.

[GeorgeKoo]

06:06 PM on 06/22/2012

Author Gosset's eminently sensible commentary is not likely to find audience in the offensively minded Washington.

[Phillip Wong]

07:33 AM on 06/20/2012

I think is rather obvious some "white" people want China to fall, and billions in hunger.It is also obvious they are demonizing China. It is not a cause normal people can muster around. By meeting Chinese people in real life, do people really see them as evil, and cold-hearted? Personal connection trumps propaganda. Chinese are good people, but the way they are treat, and the need for the US to remain in complete imperial domination in far away lands as Asia don 't seem right. Normal people would wonder why it is Ok for US to set up colonies in Asia, and not the reverse. My being in a morally inferior position, you can 't win hearts, and minds of billions in the planet. People everywhere naturally relate to stories of poor people attaining fame, and wealth by hard work, wit, and courage. The praise the weak David that won over the mighty Goliath.

[Robert Terry]

10:50 AM on 06/20/2012

White people as you say don't really worry that much about China, China is its own worse enemy. As a person married to a chinese lady I know the chinese think they are special, she is to me, but over all chinese are just another group of people trying to make it through life. America is putting more forces in Asia because the other countries living around China has ask us to. As I am sure you know China is hated by its negibors because china is a expansionish nation

Have a great day and do a little reading once in a while about what the real history of china is. It is not a perrty sight.

[Phillip Wong]

12:20 AM on 06/22/2012

Don 't lie to me. China is not expansionist. The US, and the west is most certainly is.

[Sam Li]

09:58 PM on 07/08/2012

"America is putting more forces in Asia because the other countries living around China has ask us to." You do think someone would buy it? If Africa asks, will America respond?

[SwiftJonathan]

01:14 AM on 06/20/2012

Interesting analysis. I would suggest to add another dimension to it: China's medium term response to the catastrophic economic and social fallouts of its (necessary) population growth policy, which will be its greatest challenge, yet.

[JamesJerico]

09:53 PM on 06/19/2012

Not sure what China you're looking at but there recently was a stinging article from someone with close ties to the Chinese government who indicated the prevailing view in China has been that relations with America is a zero-sum (win-lose) game. Nations will naturally look out for their best interests, but some have an easier time hiding it than others and lack of transparency will lead to mistrust no matter how much one claims to have good intentions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html