There is nothing so dismal as a superpower on the wane. The geopolitical reality that emerged in the wake of World War II left London and Paris adrift for years. The Brits could not fathom the demise of an empire upon which the sun never set. The French clung to visions of grandeur even as Algiers and Vietnam burned. And now Washington seems beset with similar delusions. Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, American statesmen have become accustomed to serving as body of unassailable international potentates. When diplomacy failed, U.S. policy makers could always resort to an employment of arms. Beijing is now making it clear this unilateral pursuit of our national interests has come to an end. I just wonder how long it will take for Washington to process the message.
We certainly can't blame Beijing for Washington's confusion. The Chinese have been signaling concern with American economic, military, and political decisions for well over a year. Think back to March 2009. Justifiably bewildered by Washington's profligate spending habits, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao publicly declared China is "worried" about its U.S. Treasury holdings and wants assurances Beijing's investments are safe. As Wen put it, "We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States. I request the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China's assets." Washington wasn't listening--instead we sent Tim Geithner on a goodwill tour.
This bit of Treasury-tourism in June 2009 was certainly less than successful. When asked about the long-term security of Beijing's investment in U.S. Treasury notes following a speech to Chinese college students, Geithner's response -- the "assets are very safe" -- drew laughter from the audience. Vice Premier Wang Qishan went so far as to bluntly inform our Treasury Secretary that "What is important to me is the issue of our investments in U.S. debt." Given the latest budget proposal from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue--a projected deficit approaching $1.3 trillion for the coming year--Tim Geithner apparently forgot to tell the President about these incidents.
And then there were the expressions of concern about our military decisions--specifically the proposed arms sale to Taiwan. Despite a year and half of historic progress in cross-Strait relations, and Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou's clear intent to continue pursuit of his reconciliation policies (how else does one explain abandonment of Taipei's 16-year old bid to reenter the United Nations?), Washington decides to proceed with a $6.4 billion arms sale to the "renegade province." Not only that, but then some members of the Beltway foreign policy cabal express shock and dismay at Beijing's response to same. Why? As best I can tell we knew how the Chinese were going to react. Hu Jintao and company were going to be pissed. What we seemingly forget to end-game was the possibility Beijing might also chose to target the commercial participants in this foolishness.
If I was sitting in Beijing you can bet I would advise singling out Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Sikorsky. Given the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, I would be announcing an intention to boycott any American corporation that served to benefit from a political decision inimical to Chinese national interests. Sure, one can go through the usual futile gestures of lecturing diplomats and canceling military-to-military exchanges--but if you really want to send a message to an American politician go after the corporate entities that can now directly contribute to efforts that might result in his or her loss in a forthcoming election. That's exactly what Beijing has done. Perhaps we should have been listening when Chinese leaders warned there would be consequences for proceeding with this decision.
So now we have the Chinese peeved on the economic and military fronts. What's next? Well, why not poke sharpened bamboo in the Panda's political cage? So let's announce an intention to meet with the Dalai Lama and continue to lecture Beijing on the need to revalue its currency. Let's package the Dalai Lama decision as a sop to human rights activists and the currency argument as a push to address unemployment in the United States. Because, lord knows, we've done a stellar job in shutting down Guantanamo and bolstering the strength of the U.S. dollar. (The yuan is pegged to the dollar--so Washington's fiscal irresponsibility directly benefits the Chinese, but that's a discussion for another day.) Of course the Chinese are peeved--we would be if they engaged in similar tactics.
Which brings me back to Washington's inability to recognize the consequences of being a superpower in decline. A case in point, the Washington Post's response to Beijing's demonstration of national fortitude. In a 4 February 2010 editorial titled "Rising China?" the Post intones "Bursting with hubris about its emergence as a global power, [Beijing] is testing to see how far a new and inexperienced U.S. president can be pushed." This none-too-subtle allusion to the 1961 Vienna summit between John Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev is dramatically off the mark. Obama is not governing Camelot and Beijing is not the battle-tested Khrushchev. The players in this new game of international chess are not so unevenly matched. But, that's exactly my point.
The Beltway participants in this foreign policy debacle have yet to realize they no longer operate from the economic or political high ground. Oh, I'm certain we could defeat the Chinese in an offshore naval engagement--but the military element of this balance of power is an increasingly moot point. Too bad the Post--like many in Washington--have failed to recognize this is the now the case. Quite frankly, Mr Obama, nor anyone else in Washington, is in position to follow the Post's advice and "prick the bubble of inflated ambition that has been growing in Beijing." Beijing's ambition is not "inflated"--it has been earned, as China's leadership is quite aware.
What do the Chinese want? First, the Chinese Communist Party wants to be recognized as a responsible member of the international community--both at home and abroad. Second, China is positioning herself to equip, train, and maintain a modern military required by a Westphalian world--but which is less threatening to the neighbors. Finally, China is seeking to "sell" her governance model--from economic development to serving a domestic constituency--as a direct competitor to the version of liberal democracy Washington has long sought to peddle across the planet.
This, as I have noted elsewhere, is no mean agenda, and has been the cause of alarm and planning in Washington. Such reactions are wise--it is better to wander into the wilderness prepared--but, as we shall see, largely unnecessary. Beijing's plans for the future should not be confused with Moscow's apparent bid to recapture the "glory" that was the former Soviet Union. Beijing is not beset with delusions of imperial grandeur. Rather, China is governed by pragmatists who seek to re-establish a sphere of influence conducive to continued economic development.
This objective is neither so dangerous--nor benign--as some might suggest. On her way to achieving these goals Beijing will have to act as Washington's "peer competitor." That means we can expect China to seek means of securing her energy supplies--and to participate in international peacekeeping operations. We can expect China to deploy military forces abroad--and to back away from her confrontation from Taiwan. We can expect Beijing to challenge our leadership in the United Nations--and to facilitate U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts around the globe. We can expect Beijing to bridle at efforts to condemn her human rights record at home, while simultaneously advocating Chinese socialism abroad. In short, Washington is now confronted with a contemporary who understands the benefit of maintaining the current international system, but is not enamored of the existing leadership. Hopefully, someone in Washington is ready for this new reality--it would be a shame to fall into the decades of delusional foreign policy that so haunted London and Paris.
The first thing Americans should know is that for 4000+ years (yes, a lot longer than the US and Europe have been around), China was the dominant group in Asia and in comparison to Europe, more powerful.
Starting in the 1600s, Europe had a large technology leap and forcibly bent China to its will in the 1800s and 1900s. Then EU and US **GAVE** all their technology to China and now China has caught up and wants to regain its place as a world leader.
As for China being "communist" it really isn't. A look at Chinese history, shows the Chinese people have co-opted everything external that has been presented to them. That is, they very pragmatically keep what proves to be useful and discard the rest. They are not ideological about it but very practical. Much of the government structure in place today would not seem out of place in the past.
Americans have so much to learn and so little desire to learn.
+++Despite a year and half of historic progress in cross-Strait relations, and Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou's clear intent to continue pursuit of his reconciliation policies (how else does one explain abandonment of Taipei's 16-year old bid to reenter the United Nations?), Washington decides to proceed with a $6.4 billion arms sale..."++++
How did the US sell arms to Taiwan without its approval? A few Google searches will soon reveal that the arms purchase has the approval of the pro-democracy DPP, along with the current pro-China KMT President Ma Ying-jeou, who also called on the US to supply much needed F-16s. Anderson simply omits the widespread support for the arms deal in Taiwan. An Apple Daily poll released Sunday found that 57 percent support buying the arms, while 30 percent said they weren't necessary (13 percent expressed no view).
Anderson completely misunderstands China's "anger." If China really cared about arms sales to Taiwan, it could easily punish Taiwan. But instead it directs "anger" -- a policy response, not a visceral reaction -- at the US, knowing that commentators by the bushel will fall for the line that we should be wary of that anger -- as if it were anything but political theatre. The goal of this, ultimately, is to separate Taiwan from the US.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan
No kidding. Maybe it's time for the US to put its own interest in front of Taiwanese, who for the most part are for status quo rather than independence anyway.
If you look at the investments and exports, the relationship between Taiwan and China is crystal clear. China does not need to engage in a military conflict to win Taiwan. The arms sales are symbolic. If Obama disapproves the sales the conservatives will just bash him as "aiding dictatorship". The same would be said of the Taiwanese government.
The reality is as the author states, the relationship between Taiwan and China are as close as ever. Some people need to use their logic and think for a once; you don't invest in your enemies. Most of Taiwan's investments are in China. No one forced Taiwan to do this, Taiwanese did this because they wanted closer relationship with China. The same with China, if it really wants to crush Taiwan just raise the tariffs on Taiwan exports. China is Taiwan's largest customer. There will be no war.
THE BRIDGE MADE OF TRASH -
http://www.weirdasianews.com/2010/02/05/shanghai-wonderbridge-trash-collapses/
So these are the people who are supposed to become the New Masters? Yeah, right.
Face it, America (as a "superpower") is gone.
All nations dislike outsiders attempting to dictate their internal affairs. China has more reasons than most to dislike it.
The policy springs, in part from the reality that in the 'modern' era the Chinese people were victimized by endless waves of imperialist invasions and attacks, A few of these were the opium war in which the Chinese population declined by 60 million; the partial occupation of Tibet, until then a stable but partially autonomous, part of China, by the British around 1900; and the polirticial 'separation 'of Taiwan from the mainland due to the U.S. seventh fleet interfering by blocking the PLA from what otherwise would have been the reoccupation of Taiwan - which until then was a Chinese province recognized as such by the U.S. - by the new socialist government at the end of the civil war in 1949-1950.
It should also be noted that Japanese imperialism occupied a large part of China during world war II, that 20 million Chinese people were killed or died as a result, and that something like 5 million Japanese soldiers were killed by the resistance forces, most of which consisted of the Red Army.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan blog
According to these posters, there must be one party that is the cheater and the other the cheated. But in any cheating situation, the cheated party is stupid to be cheated. Nobody forces the cheated party to get into a deal that is too good to be true - especially, in this case, when the supposedly cheated party is so much stronger than the supposedly cheater.
So if we believe the Chinese are cheating us, why do we continue to act stupid and continue to be cheated?
And you can't blame Kissinger - he's history, gone for the last 25 years ago or so.
When will American citizens realize that America is not a "superpower" any longer?
As America continues to increase it's debt in attempts to continue as a superpower it becomes weaker.
Must I explain how US short-sightedness enabled China's rise (when any number of other countries could've produced all those cheaply-manufactured goods).
You know, countries that are multi-party, multi-ethnic Democracies (that don't torture their own human-rights lawyers and violate every principle of fair-trade while we were chasing a few terrorists around).
Without Wal-Mart, Clinton, Nixon, Wall Street, foreign-policy "experts" on "engagement" like Flyntt and Hilary Mann Leverett and especially the Henry Kissinger's of the world, this phenomenon would've never put us behind the eight-ball so rapidly.
Why Kissinger agreed with the Kennan policy for USSR "containment," but wanted to build up China to benefit multi-nationals-- at the expense of the American worker-- may never reach today's 24-hour news-cycle (or even historian's agendas).
But until we learn a lesson from it, we'll never be able to change course. The Kissinger Group sold America down the river and neither party even cared one whit for Democracy (as that was only branding rhetoric to make the "evil" Soviets look worse in the Cold War).
It was always about access to their cheap-labor, while supposedly open Chinese markets were simply the carrot the media led us by the nose to, ever so maturely.
Well, who's laughing now at our naivete? Like with the bankers, good will without strings is folly (that will be forgotten over time).
.
Upto the 1950s an average Tibetan living in Tibet's Himalayan mountains was lucky to see a gun or two in his lifetime. Now those peaceful mountains are laden with millions of assault weapons of all types, including nuclear. It was Mao Tse Tung's desire- and of his successors from the mainland. During 2008 Olympics in Beijing, visitor travel to Tibet was banned. There never have been free elections in Tibet to see if the Tibetans wanted millions of immigrant Han Chinese and their supplies brought in by truckload and trainload. Tibetans are held subservient and their wishes don't count.
Also, Yuan should be a floating currency like Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, India and countless other nations. Why should it be pegged to the dollar- it just promotes Communist Chinese exports everywhere and inhibits imports.