My last article, a review of Eamonn Fingleton's provocative (but hard to dismiss) book In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate Under Chinese Hegemony, has drawn enough comment that I feel I should respond.
There have been basically two schools of response:
1) Yes, China is eating our lunch, but it's our own fault and when will we stop being such fools that we let them do it? By the way, can at least a few token traitors from corporate America go in front of a firing squad at Ft. Leavenworth? It's 1930s-style appeasement all over again.
2) Lay off the warmongering. China isn't a threat now, won't be in future, and you're either a yellow-peril racist or a neocon pining for a new Cold War. And did I mention Bush lied last time, and right-wingers are trying to lie us into another war? Oh and yes, the economic interests of all nations are in harmony.
To be sure, I can't be certain of the sincerity of all of the latter responses, as Beijing is known to employ an army of amateur Internet propagandists, known as the "50 cent party" after the per-post fee they receive, whose job it is to spread commentary favorable to the regime's interests on the web. But at least some of the above responses appear to be genuine, and even if they are not, they still represent a possible interpretation of the facts and some corresponding policy choices for the U.S. So we'd better take them seriously.
Let's begin by remembering that America's past political mistakes don't, on their own, prove anything about the present. For example, there is no doubt that the U.S. was at one time seriously prejudiced against Asian peoples. But dismissing American fears of China today as mere racial prejudice is silly: we're not imagining China's nuclear warheads, its dictatorial government, or its predatory mercantilism. Even if racism is a part of the motivation of some of China's critics--it may be; I can't read people's minds--this doesn't make their criticisms false, just dishonorably motivated.
Similarly, have a care with the Cold War analogy and the ghost of McCarthy. Granted, there are people in the U.S. who are spoiling for an enemy. I recall attending a conference in Washington--it was in 1997 or 1998--in which there was literally a panel discussion entitled "Should We Make China the New Soviet Union?" Hmm... I recall thinking at the time that China either is or isn't whatever it is, and Americans don't have much option to "make" it anything otherwise. I still think so. Even if vested interests in the U.S. want to ramp up defense spending and some people just can't face the day without an enemy to crusade against, again this doesn't make them wrong, just dishonorably motivated.
I also can't resist noting at this juncture that, perverse though it sounds, having an enemy is not always entirely a bad thing. It's painfully obvious, in retrospect, that the vast surge of broadly-shared middle class prosperity, not just here in the U.S. but in Western Europe, at mid-century was in large part a riposte to Communism engineered by America's ruling elite. Minus the competition with Stalin, I'm not entirely sure they would have built Levittown. You think it's an accident that inequality surged as the credibility of the Soviet threat receded? And that's not to mention the fact that the Pentagon created most of the effective industrial policy the U.S. had during this era.
Might a drawn-out competition with China similarly force America to get its act together and deliver decent economic performance for its own citizens and the foreign peoples in its sphere of influence? It just possibly might, especially as the success of the East Asian model of planned-economy capitalism is intellectually killing the mythology of laissez faire that is strangling this country right now. Sometimes it takes rivalry to bring out the best in people--even the USA.
Another theme that often came up about China was that "authoritarianism, no matter how strong it looks at the moment, can't last. Freedom is on the march, and there is a mile-long list of dead tyrants to testify to that." Sounds inspiring, and it's an easy idea to drape in red, white, and blue. But this analysis is misleading in the case of China, barring some extremely unexpected events. The authoritarian societies of the past have tended to fail for specific reasons--problems which the regime in Beijing is very carefully avoiding:
1) They were personalist dictatorships that depended upon the vigor of a single despot whose luck eventually ran out.
2) They were stuck in the past, and did not adapt to modern technology. In this category go traditional societies from Spain to Zululand.
3) They went broke because they didn't understand economics and thought they could create wealth by political fiat. In this category goes the USSR and all its imitators.
4) They got arrogant and blundered into wars they couldn't win. In this category go Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein.
In China's case, we can rule out #1 and #2 above with ease. Problem #4, of course, refers, from our present vantage point, to the future, as we cannot be absolutely sure they won't do something stupid militarily. But the evidence appears to weigh against it. Beijing for now appears to be a disciplined player of the game which, while certainly willing to use force (ask Tibet!), isn't going to romp into strategic catastrophe from sheer excess testosterone.
War? Personally, my suspicion is that a corrupt deal will be struck by the rulers (I mean the real rulers, not necessarily the elected government in our case) of China and the U.S., and there will no violent clash between the two nations. Too unprofitable. I can certainly gin up scenarios for the opposite, but these get tendentious. Much easier for two elites to unite on their true common ground: aggrandize their own money and power, and the populations they rule take the hindmost. Behind closed doors, I think they already realize how much they have in common.
Follow Ian Fletcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IanFletcher
Huh?
Perhaps the writer should study the foilbils of racism, like mis perceptions, steroetyping, demeaning, making the object of ones racist hate an object so it's KO to target them, etc, etc, etc. If ones arguments are motivated by racism, ones arguments FAIL.
DAH!!!!
Even if I belonged to “50 Cents Army†am I allowed to voice an opinion? What if I make a good argument? A bad argument? What happens if my opinion happens to agree with yours, or not agree with yours?
Truth be told, I have yet to identify a “50 Cents Soldier†on HP. Maybe that says something about me. Or about you?
no
Sounds like what we are doing today!
Yes, interesting that Mr. Fletcher couldn't bring himself to at least consider putting us on that list. And that's the underlying problem that his article only touches on. If America is unwilling to make an honest appraisal of our policies, and their effects here, it won't much matter what the Chinese do in face of our inability to admit to our own mistakes.
Also, there are plenty of other societies that plan their economy and do not rely on the political methods that Chinese do, and though I recognize this article is about China, Mr. Fletcher needs to look at some of the other examples of economies that can plan as it is there where we may find some of the solutions to our problems.
I tend to agree with Fletcher's last paragraph. I guess that's what passes for optimism these days.
I do not know if this is true or not. Perhaps you could provide EVIDENCE?
However, here in the US we are supposed to have freedom, free speech, free press, free assembly. We should have freedom of religion, and we have freedom to join various political parties. Are these freedoms something you oppose? because, whenever an American expresses a view about China, that you disagree with, you seem to question their loyalty to America. It eminds me of the McCarthyism back in the day. And since I have been repetedly accused of being a "59 center" for posting true facts, instead of anyone debating the facts, I must woneder who pays you.
Economies compete but the score card is not the balance of trade. It is the wealth and freedom of it's citizens. The last 200 years prove that countries respect freedom and reward innovation by allowing innovators to keep the gains they earn prosper. China is finally heading down this path and it is a great thing.
Your ideas restrict consumer's freedom through tariffs that reward old and uncompetitive companies at the expense of the innovators. These ideas lead to lower growth and a poorer future.
Fanned. While I cannot confirm our appearance in Asia, my cousins and friends in Europe have been voicing the same concerns, about America, for years. And it is not always matters of security and economics that causes them to call. Whenever a particularly trivial event will consume whole sections of our press - Lindsey Lohan comes to mind - one or more will call me and ask if we have any idea how we appear to the world.
This as far as I'm concerned is an Internet myth. What evidence do you have that this practice actually occurs? It seems very unlikely. First the respondents would have to be have very good language skills to be able to pass themselves off as legitimate commentators. Anyone who could successfully pull such a stunt off would certainly not use those skills for 50 cents per post. 100 posts would garner $50 not a great deal of money given the time and effort needed to intelligently respond in English to a wide variety of sites which have articles dealing with China. The myth does however serve as a convenient means to discredit those who may have opinions that are supportive of or trying to understand China from a perspective that some may disagree with.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8363260.stm
I think what we're dealing with are plain old fenqing. These posters follow a very common pattern of displaying Chinese exceptionalism on one hand while bashing American on the other hand and typically respond to criticism against China by pointing out problems in America. There's an interesting discussion on the topic posted here:
http://granitestudio.org/2009/03/15/lonely-boys-and-losers-are-we-overstating-the-fenqing-phenomenon/
We need emulate China trade policies, instead of aiming our criticism at China. Just tell China manufacturers that if they want to sell their manfactured products here in the USA, they have to make them here and employ USA workers for as long as it takes to balance trade between our countries.
Tariff all products that enter the USA from countries with huge trade imbalances as Ian recommends. The USA consumer will fix the problem and that includes oil. Make USA oil cheaper at the pump as the result of tariffs and watch how fast new domestic oil and energy sources develop along with new jobs and opportunities.
Congress is the enermy, not China.
We no more lose when we trade with China than you lose when you trade with your local grocery store. You both gain what you want.
Nor does trade with China destroy US jobs.
I know this has happened not only with jpbs that produced products but with support jobs outsourced to India'
Thje frosting comes later when the employee is asked to tell the outsourced employee how to operate the machine or how to do the task of the job they lost.
And then when his unemployment benefits run out, the displaced employee tells his creditors he can't pay them anymore so the creditor deducts the loss from income taxes while the displaced worker finds a part time job and no longer makes enough to pay taxes either.
Unbalanced trade not only creates unemployment but it also depletes tax revenues that become unbalanced because 50 % of USA workers no longer make enough livable wages to qualifiy to pay taxes.
When the scale is unbalanced on one end, it is unbalanced on both sides.
1. China presently owns 2 trillion USA dollars in USA Treasury Bonds that was profited by trade inbalances with the USA, not with middleman as you imply.
2. China is a 51 % owner in every plant in China The other partner puts up the investment in order to produce a product that China insists be manufactured in China in order to be sold in China. or imported to USA. That is USA dollar investments that create jobs in China instead of the USA.
3. The WTO recognizes in their charter that unbalanced trade is harmful to a trade partner and recommends tariffs to correct the inbalances.
Meanwhile, us Americans have never been more angry and divided, with entire channels basically dedicated to hating anyone who disagrees and whole political movements founded on the idea of no. Let's face it, nobody anywhere on Earth will ever be free from the elites of their society. At least in America we have some upward mobility, I don't know about Chinese upward mobility as much, but it seems better than most societies.
That being said there's no reason for us to keep throwing money at security problems around the world while the Chinese and Europeans profit off of it. If they want our military might, fine, pay us for it. Like this whole Libya situation. It's Europe's problem, and if they don't want to spend 5%+ of GDP on defense, they should either pay us to help them or go back to wringing their hands. Helping other countries fight for free is not wise for America.
No other nation will pay for us to remain in Iraq/Afghanistan, I think we need to completely pull back from both nations and cut aid to Pakistan. If China fills the vacuum, which is very unlikely in the absense of security, we should welcome them and tell them what we've learned.
As for Libya, it hasn't yet been terribly expensive compared to our nation building exercises and so far Europe is playing a much greater role this time. In this case the proximity to the EU makes the conflict more manageable and probably more likely to achieve long term success without significant American support.
You guys make some very good valid points, but miss the mark on the roots of US involvement around the globe. The mistakes engendered in WWI led directly to WWII. The result being 'the Marshall Plan' and our ever expanding MIC. All Presidents since Truman have had to cater to the desires of the DOD. The DOD, for lack of a better term, 'bribes, bullies, coerces, & funds' politicians to act in their best interests. Our entire economy is intrinsically tied to the success of the MIC, but to succeed they need a boogeyman to exist into infinity.
Unless we can wrest ourselves from this entanglement there is no practical way to extract ourselves from committing permanent forces in the places we chose to occupy whether it be by necessity or maintaining security. If you don't know much about 'the Marshall Plan' please read the link below for enlightenment because it's remains in effect today, tomorrow and into the foreseeable future.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmarshallP.htm
“China’s nuclear arsenal poses the most serious “mortal threat†to the United States among nation states, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate on Thursday.
In candid testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Clapper said he considered China the most significant threat among nation states, with Russia posing the second-greatest threat. “
http://en.rian.ru/valdai_foreign_media/20110311/162950730.html
Not that they will attack us anytime soon but they are the folks that have and continue to attack and infiltrate every major defense contractors computer systems – and they attack government sites as well. I am sure the DNI has more data than any of us so lets just say that they bear watching…..
We do know for example they are close to fielding a “carrier killer†missile that our fleet of aircraft carriers has no defense against. We know they infiltrated the embedded computers in our electric grid as well. And they are building subs at a rate many times ours.
Guess we just need to keep an eye on em…………