As Hu descends from the Heavens, the Right has found a new adversary to make American hearts race strong and true. China for its part is acting like a great power teen, testing limits and ready, at least rhetorically, to act out.
The big question raised by the Right, daggers barely hidden, is: Will China in future be a partner or a rival? And they for sure know the answer: They want the Soviets back!
But what does history tell us about such moments of truth? What about America's former rival-partner relationships? What about the Soviets? What was really going on between Us and Them -- for almost 50 years?
The record tells us things that the Right cannot see and will forever deny. But we must see, or we will surely get sucked into their narrative: Where America can only truly exist in Super-Hero incarnation; when, like Watchmen, it faces resident evil.
But history tells us something different. History says, partners, rivals: Why not both?
History tells us rivals often make the most productive partners. Here's why the Cold War is such a good guide here.
First: It's just you and me, Baby. If the rivals happen to be the two biggest states, the two baddest societies, and the two runaway-train enterprises in the system, then everyone else has to scramble to choose sides -- and become sidekicks. A big positive for the partners-rivals. Just look at the early Cold War: Great powers like Britain and France and China reduced to supporting actors.
How do they become supporting actors? Simple: They are outmatched by the primary reality set up by the partner-rivals. The partner-rivals, you see, are not equal. One is clearly the senior, and one the junior. This apparent status differential is important, because it establishes a condition of competition without argument. The surface vitality of there-could-be-conflict forces all others to deal with this, and presto! It becomes the predominant new system dynamic. How well this worked for both Americans and Soviets!
Not only do former powers have to choose sides and willingly subordinate themselves (de Gaulle's obdurate choice for France, and its ultimate failure, proving the rule!). Both senior and junior partner-rivals benefit as the other works to firm up their respective gaggles of clients, err, allies.
The junior partner-rival might also enjoy being relieved of certain senior responsibilities in exchange for slightly lesser status. Fewer upfront investment, fewer risks: Let the big guy carry the water while we get equal effect with probing low-cost initiatives, like fomenting insurgencies. The senior partner enjoys the status of, well, being senior. Worth the cost (which by the way we can afford).
Here is how rivalry becomes so productive to the two partner-rivals: It lays down, gives authority to, and absolutely reifies in the world's mind's eye the essential order of things. This shortly becomes a New Order of the Ages. Who really questioned the Cold War? Answer: The marginalized and the foolish and the powerless. Everyone else kowtowed (except of course de Gaulle!).
A final bonus: Both can instantly gang up to throttle 3rd Party upstarts, those would-be equals. But here is where a good thing can begin to go wrong, like Nixon going to China, instead of Moscow. Keeping China under Soviet thumb was essential to keeping our co-dependent Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf relationship going. We took our eye off the ball. We really blew it.
So now we have China as our prospective partner-rival of opportunity. Let's keep our head clear on this one. Let's try not to blow the big one again.
So let's review the bidding of what it takes to recreate the Cold War, the most productive partner-rival relationship of all time (or at least since Roman-Sassanian cohabitation in Late Antiquity!).
There need to be two clear top dogs. US and China: Check. But with a caution. EU and India and maybe even Russia and Brazil need to be kept in check too. A no-brainer. Just ratchet up partner-rival defense spending. Europe will not compete, Brazil will make a small show, while India and Russia will try and fail. The gun is the best talisman of world status.
Both partner-rivals must be "satisfied" powers. I hate ascribing states of the human mind to nation-states, but here it actually fits. The US -- as in the Cold War -- is the perfect senior partner-rival while China could be an even better junior partner-rival than the USSR. Its Commie-Confusionism (sic!) eschews the head-to-head but relishes the competition with a Sun Tzu wink. We are strategically well met.
Both must be acutely aware that the stability of a Big Two partner-rival world requires -- requires -- a well-rehearsed and convincingly sincere rivalry. The jockeying for advantage must keep the world's conviction that this is truly serious stuff: It must at all costs keep the tension alive ...
Or everything gained might be lost.
The Cold War should have taught us that the greatest bonus of "strategic competition" is that its reality transforms actual strategic objectives in the arena of mere bragging rights. There is no real competition. This is no high stakes game: Winner-takes-all. That would equal defeat for both partner-rivals. The real stakes are keeping the grand deception alive, keeping the partnership dimension real and true for the rivals' own societies and indeed the whole of humankind.
So here are the words of warning. Partner-rival condominiums fall apart when:
This is where the sure-thing bid for a US-PRC partner-rival could fall apart. Consider this scenario:
2020: Going great guns, thank you very much. There is a carrier-competition, bringing procurement bounty and blissful memories to a US Navy suddenly restored and beloved by the nation: While Zheng He pride swells the collective Chinese bosom as their new armadas fleet to Africa!
2030: Undone, undone! The slow-fuse intersection of energy need and peak oil finally hits a humanity lulled for two decades by the depressed demand of The Endless Recession (Hey it happened to Japan, why not us and Europe?). Peak oil is 20 years in the past, while the new price peaks under surging China-India demand. Much is about to crash. China sends out Zheng He to save the day! The USN mobilizes.
2040: Undone, undone! Climate change hits China harder than North America. China becomes the first rogue climate state. Desertification is ruining the North, while a water crisis of subsiding Himalayan glaciers, plus the Monsoon shift, is literally ravaging the heart of Han. Something has to be done -- now. So the never-discarded artillery parks are put to salvational use: Not in war but rather to hold back the heat. Billions of pellets in the stratosphere: Cooling, cooling -- but also bringing unpredictable and massive distortions to global climate. A provocation in this future, for us, might be worse than war.
China is desperate and under siege. It is willing to risk the partner-rival relationship with America. The US for its part needs those precious liquid fuels too, and China's torquing of global climate rings the dread tocsin in the American bell tower.
Da Capo al fine: We are into another historical rerun.
When partner-rival relationships end, the system itself (or in our case today, the whole world) can suffer severely. Thing might seem different at first, like the gushing pronouncements that attended the end of the Cold War, once known as
The End of History (sic!)
But the Apocalypse did not dock; instead the ship that came in was another balance-of-power world, more instability, a seriously declining hegemon shorn of ideas, and looming earth-shocks for which we are all determined to assign rhetoric in place of action.
So a US-China partner-rival might give the world coherence again -- and who knows? If we really understand the complex sublimities and nuances of this relationship, we might together help the world -- and ourselves -- skirt the foundering rocks of the negative outcome, the bad scenario, above.
Think about it, live with it, and more important, expect it: Partner-rivals.
This is our Sino-American future.
Scott Paul: Changing Our Dysfunctional Relationship With China
http://socyberty.com/crime/laws-no-more/
In order to advance as a species, we have to learn how to live together on this planet. We have to recognize that the polar dichotomies, like us versus them, or vertical dichotomies, like inferior and superior (super-state and minor states) are counterproductive and regressive. We need a multi-polar world, not a bipolar or unipolar one. We need a world where there are many centers of power, many valid viewpoints, not one or two "super" powers, and certainly not the arrogant and corrupt unipolar system where the US is the world's bully--and the planets chief busybody.
The difference is: China takes the rest of the world down with them.
The little publicized threat of solar flares can be addressed by a both the Chinese and ourselves once understoodÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.
See Green Light and other articles on: www.aesopiÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂnÂÂsÂÂtÂÂÂiÂÂÂtÂÂÂÂuÂÂÂÂtÂÂÂÂÂeÂÂÂÂÂ.ÂÂÂÂÂÂoÂÂÂÂÂÂrÂÂg for an outline of the potential problem and a few surprising possibilities.
We are at the edge of both a climate disaster and a new age of low-cost, decentraliÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂzÂÂeÂÂÂd energy.
China now has 200 cities with populationÂÂÂs exceeding 1 million - on their equally vulnerable power grid.
If we accelerate radically new science and technologyÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ, there is still time to avoid the worst.
A 10,000 watt "Cold Fusion" prototype was recently demonstratÂÂÂÂed in Italy..
With strong support, several other revolutionÂary, cost-compeÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂtÂÂiÂÂtÂÂÂiÂÂÂvÂÂÂÂe, energy products might begin to enter the market this year
IronicallyÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ, a truly adequate initiative to maximize the probabilitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂy of that prospect could provide large numbers of jobs and help revive the economy.
The difficult is sometimes done immediatelÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂyÂÂ. The seemingly impossible may surprise many skeptics and take a little longer.
Work emerging from laboratoriÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂeÂÂs all over the planet suggests that will prove accurate.
InexpensivÂe energyÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ alternativÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂeÂÂs will be the most realistic way to end the need for carbon fuels.
Why not see that they do!
With a determined effort, future cars can become power plants when parked, selling electricitÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂy to pay for themselvesÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.
The Brooklyn Project, on the Aesop Institute website, is intended to inform the public about new ways to accelerate a few of the urgently needed changes.
France 1905, partner or rival to Great Britain at the time of the Morrocan Crisis?
At that point the US will be the most potentially globally destabilizing force - evah. It will take an international coalition to contain us. We will be the evil empire.
the relationship is neither truly rival nor partner, but essentially symbiotic.
"rival" and "partner" imply competition for, or conjoined efforts toward a common goal.
In the case of US and China, there may not be a shared common goal,
but rather each seeks its own separate and individual destiny
in a manner that (hopefully) benefits from the presence of the other.
.
Let's cut to the chase. There is the interest of Wall Street and then there is the interest of America.
All the kowtowing you see on TV as Hu arrives is choreographed on Wall Street. The eyes of Wall Street are on the 2nd quarter profit and loss statements from the S&P 500. Bonuses depend on it. Think of Obama as a director of the collective S&P 500 corporations.
The interests of the people of America are different. Our interests are a proper balance of power, not som much between America and China as the blogger above posits in his false narrative but rather a balance of power in the region, that is, among chiefly, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, India, Russia.
The problem is that such power arrangements take meticulous planning and execution.
It is so much easier to dig into the big fat meal of slave labor in China and watch as the bonuses swell to immense proportions in the hands of the execs at the Fortune 500 corporations as China gains and eventually overwhelms the globe with its massive population. Why do you think Wall Street made Hillary the Sec of State?
Like the Japanese economy of the 80's, China is growing at neck-break speeds. But it has to pump out huge volume in order to compensate for the low profits and in order to carry the bad loans. Japan was soaring along until the early 90's when the profits from the exports fell behind the cost of the bad loans. The whole thing flew apart... at break-neck speeds.
I suspect China may be heading in the same direction. Like Japan, they too have invested in a lot of non-profitable endevours and rely heavily on exporting.
I guess we'll see.
If you really fear the Chinese economy, just stop buying plastic junk made in China and sold by Walmart. When our economy took a dive in late 08 and early 09, China's growth rate plummeted to 1% or 2%. Yes, that's better than our negative growth at the time, but it just goes to show you how vulnerable and dependent their system is.
How about buying back 30% of U.S. foreign debt China is carrying and agreeing to pay much higher interest rates for your house, car and credit card loans.
Oh, don't forget to turn in your Chinese computer, router, modem. printer and monitor.
May be stop taking that Tai Chi class and take Freedom Chi class instead.
The reality is that U.S. and Chinese economies are inextricably linked, and it is this economic ( and may be even cultural) interdependency that governs the dynamics of the relationship, not the vacuous demagoguery from either U.S.bourgeois Right or U.S. bourgeois Left.
And that's a very good thing.
China does not produce anything that we, or our other trading partners, can't already produce. We certainly don't need them as a source of laptops and modems. They just make these things cheaper. IOW, we don't need them for their products. We really don't even need them for loans, so long as we are willing to print $$ (admittedly very dangerous, but that's another matter).
China also has to deal with a very precarious domestic situation. The very inexpensive raw materials they use in their coastal factories are acquired from back breaking, dangerous work from those who live at the poverty line inland. These people want their share of the new found chinese wealth too. If/when they get paid more, the price of Chinese exports goes up.
Historically, wealthy Chinese businessmen of the coast have felt more allegance toward foreigners, their trading partners, than to their own government-du-jour. It's not like here where a rural Texan will be red-in-the-face enraged when a foreigner flies a plane into a building in NYC. Remember Tiananmen square. The government had to pull an army in from Mongolia to surpress the uprising because they didn't trust the loyalty of the local army sitting right outside the city.
This is true.
But ( as I have predicted) the empirical evidence presented here is that 100% of self-avowed liberals posting here are demonizing China with equal fervor.
The reality is that Americans, both left- and right-wing ( even the ones who regularly whine about American hegemony and imperialism) fear spreading Chinese influence and reduction of American influence in the region. Although they wouldn't admit it overtly.
Is this something one does to 'partners'? We'd call it 'an act of war' if they did it does us. Hypocrisy in our foreign policy is our main obstacle.
China has these problems periodically and it usually leads to a collapse. When Hong Kong was handed over in 1997 there was mass migration into the PacRim. Put those two trends together and I think we may see the rise of a non-national superpower in the Overseas Chinese.