Centerfield

We have found out the hard way that our fear of communism and the spread of communism has backfired on us in the form of our creating a real monster - islamic extremism.

So I agree, I do not think China is a monster.

We should have left korea and vietnam and afghanistan well enough alone. It would have saved a lot of bloodshed and we would not have the islamic terrorist monster we have now.

Posted by: JimG at December 19, 2005 12:48 AM

I agree that we would do a lot better with "soft power" in our relationships with the emerging nations, but Satin is taking a pretty simplistic worldview. I assume it is just to make his point. Working to gain trust by listening is a good idea, but there is going to be some conflict when nations compete for a part of the pie. Especially when it is seen as a static or shrinking pie. The US has lectured and tried to force our vision of what is "right" on what we percieve to be the second class citizens of the world. We are building mistrust in our motives (which have been and are now, far from pure in the equality sense). And we have a past history of economic colonialism. It is exactly the opposite of what is in our best interests in the long run IMO. We should be actively seeking _equal_ partners. To many this sounds like we are giving something away. I see it as increasing our (humankind's) capacity for many things. The longer we try to hold onto our role of dominance as a nation the harder we are going to fall. I'm not advocating that we give it away, but that we be willing to share it before it is taken away from us.

Posted by: Dennis at December 19, 2005 02:36 AM

Every time I run across such speculation, it tends to boil down to this:

"One nation will emerge to be the most substantive challenger to America's position as the pre-eminent military and economic superpower. Why not China?"

Why not indeed? It's speculative, but not an unreasonable speculation, because China has a ton of people, a ton of real estate, and therefore vast untapped natural resources. It also has really low labor costs. IMO, it's virtually inevitable that the 21st century will see the further rise of China.

But how worried should we be about it? It makes more sense for us to respond not out of fear, but by using our power to make it an opportunity. If indeed this wave IS coming, we have to figure out how to surf it.

Posted by: bk at December 19, 2005 09:16 AM

We currently have a trade deficit with china of 200 billion dollars.

That's like shipping 200 billion dollars of our property to them every year.

Posted by: Susan at December 19, 2005 12:18 PM

I'd prefer to see Taiwan resolved peacefully, too. But that's not exactly in our power to guarantee. And whether it happens or not may well depend on the Chinese government knowing that taking Taiwan militarily would be enormously expensive in lives and materiel. Which would, of course, require continued defense spending on somebody's part, probably ours.

The government of China is brutal and repressive. Yes, it is evolving in a positive direction, and I believe that, from an historical perspective, increasing economic liberty results in increasing political and religious liberty. But China is still a long way from that. Tiannamen Square wasn't all that long ago.

So, engage them, yes. Work with them economically and politically rather than isolate them as pariahs. But trust them? I don't think so. We may have our "militarists", but when was the last time we threatened China with the use of nucear weapons?

Posted by: PatHMV at December 19, 2005 12:46 PM

We currently have a trade deficit with china of 200 billion dollars. That's like shipping 200 billion dollars of our property to them every year.

We'll, it's sort of like that, but it's not the same. As long as the amount of perceived American wealth grow, it's entirely sustainable. If perceptions change, THEN it's a problem. But if there are more american dollars in 2006 than in 2005 and no one really bitches, it's not a problem.

IOW, it's a potential problem, but we know neither when nor if it will be a problem.

Posted by: bk at December 19, 2005 12:52 PM

I don't think we need to look at China as a rising enemy or as a friend. Most countries are neither. Americans have a view of international relations in which we have allies or enemies; in fact, the world is much more complicated, especially the post Cold War world. There is a saying England--I believe from Churchill but I could be wrong--to the effect of "we don't have friends or enemies, we have interests." I think that's a good way to look at the world, at least with respect to China. We should,I think, understand China's point of view and how they view their interests; where we can constructively work with them--in areas such as terrorism, we should. On the other hand, we should realize that China and US interests and values will not always be in harmony and that there are times we will not be able to cooperate. The key is being able to oppose without demonizing and without creating an unnecessary enemy. China will undoubtedly be a rival in many parts of the world--but this rivalry need not require constant enmity. In other words, I don't think the choice is between treating China as an enemy, a la the Soviet Union, and treating it as a strategic partner. The United States and England in the 19th century seems to me to be somewhat of an analogous situation--the US was a rising power while England, as the world leader, had interests in a lot of the world that the US was challenging. Our relations were both adversarial at times and cooperative at others.

Posted by: Marc at December 19, 2005 01:23 PM

Actually, that means that China is in reality shipping $200 billion of THEIR property to US--and getting back paper redeemable for US goods at US prices. If they can produce those goods cheaper than we can, we profit from the deal.

Trade balances are one of the most misunderstood stats in popular economics--and likely THE most misrepresented.

Hong Kong is not integrating very well into the Chinese version of government.

Posted by: Tully at December 19, 2005 01:32 PM

And what Marc said.

Posted by: Tully at December 19, 2005 01:33 PM

I just see a lot of people in my dad's homeland who have very long memories about being powerless against the Japanese onslaught in WW2. The words "never again" is not the sole property of Holocaust victims and their families. The idea of pushing Japan, not Taiwan, into the sea is not unusual in the mainland.
Understand that and you'll see the attraction of the strong central government in China to its people and the reason why it is pretty solid about projecting its power on a regional basis(except for a little excursion into Viet Nam).
By maintaining it's regional interest and avoiding US style military budgets and adventurism it invests more in its own infrastructure and economy. (Shanghai and other cities are almost totally fibre optic as an example. Can you find a US city with the same claim?) It's also freer to wield its economic power around the world, which it is very good at. The 8 new container cranes at the Port of Oakland are very nice.....

HK is a schizoid dilemma for the Chinese government - how to use HK's powerful economic engine while maintaining a degree of political control. Screw with one too much you eff up the other.

Posted by: Marcus at December 19, 2005 01:43 PM

Strangely, I mostly agree with Marcus.

I have (had) a great-aunt who was in Nanking in December 1937 when the Japanese invaded, and escaped because US & British citizens were evacuated downriver to ships in Shanghai harbor. The Japanese let them go because they weren't ready to take on America and Britain. I still have her diaries about what she saw. After that she loathed the Japanese the rest of her life.

No matter how many changes of government they go through, the Chinese have long memories for such things.

Posted by: Tully at December 19, 2005 05:03 PM

Well, it must be Bizzaro day, as I also agree with Marcus. While I distrust the Chinese government and find them to be repressive and cruel, I agree that demilitarization would not be helpful (not that it could ever happen, anyway). It seems like all the peoples in that region have ample historical reason (some recent, some ancient) to distrust each other. A certain balance of power is probably necessary to prevent any one of them from resurrecting ancient territorial claims and ambitions and taking back what they consider to be theirs.

Going back to Rick's mention of Taiwan... Rick, you say you would prefer to see Taiwan reintegrated into China a la Hong Kong, rather than go to war to preserve its independence. But what if that's not the option? What if the people of Taiwan refuse to accept that option? What if China refuses to offer that option? Where do you stand on military action then?

P.S. It was Lord Palmerston who said that there are "no permanent friends and no permanent enemies; there are only permanent interests."

Posted by: PatHMV at December 19, 2005 05:44 PM

By maintaining it's regional interest and avoiding US style military budgets and adventurism it invests more in its own infrastructure and economy.

Marcus; I thought China's military budget was signficantly increasing.

The "strange bedfellows" of this thread seems consistent with the schizophrenic views we Americans have of China.

Posted by: c3 at December 19, 2005 06:54 PM

Marcus; I thought China's military budget was signficantly increasing.

It is, although "significant" is a relative term when compared to US military spending and interestingly enough, their funding is not being distributed to the army as a whole, but rather to an elite "army within an army"-- a few formations are receiving the lion's share of PRC investment, while the vast majority of PRC Army units remain poorly trained and poorly equipped.

Combined with their investment in certain critical areas (i.e., air-to-sea bombing capability), Beijing may indeed be developing a "first strike" capability with respect to Taiwan-- a capability that it still lacks and may be at least a decade or more away from achieving given US superiority in this dimension.

Taipei, meanwhile, has responded with their own military upgrades as well as improving relations with Japan and Australia. The latter may represent manifestations of their fear that an America that abandoned South Vietnam and is now clamoring to abandon Iraq (their interpretation), may not turn out to be the most reliable partner upon which to base their independence-- and so they might be seeking alternatives (they have also improved their ties with our South Korean allies).

If Beijing democratizes (as democratization scholars assume it eventually will), and the as yet unrealized "peaceful rise" concept becomes more of a reality, then the whole point may more or less become moot (depends on whether or not you buy into Russett/Doyle's "democratic peace theory").

But ultimatly, Americans may have to ask ourselves if we're willing to go to war with Beijing to protect Taiwanese freedom. If we are, then we should prepare accordingly so that we establish the conditions to ensure that we never have to (i.e., continued military superiority over the PRC, at least with respect to defending the invasion); if we're not, then all we're really doing is bluffing with a very weak hand, and Taiwan better hope that Beijing never calls us on it, since they'll be the ones paying the bill...

Posted by: Bobby at December 19, 2005 07:56 PM

Thanks Pat for the assist on the Palmerston quote.

As for Taiwan, my feeling is similar to the way Eisenhower and Dulles thought about Eastern Europe in the fifties, ie, we'd like them to be free, but we aren't going to fight the Soviet Union for it. Morally, I think Taiwan should be independent, but I am not willing to fight China to help them achieve it. I would make it clear to Taiwan that we will defend you if China invades to take you back, but if you declare independence unilaterally, you are on your own.

Everything I have read suggests that China is increasing its military spending but that its primarily designed to help its power projection capabilities in the region. But they are far away from being in the same league with the United States. They don't have significant transport capability even to invade Taiwan and they are still struggling to develop an air force that could compete with the US. Of course, all this could change and, as we have seen, intelligence can be wrong, but it appears that China isn't likely to be able to defeat the US in a sea/air war in the foreseeable future, although they could make it costly for us. Thus, I think it's probably unlikely that China will unilaterally try to take Taiwan unless Taiwan makes some definitive moves toward independence.

On the note about Japan/China, I find it strange that Americans aren't more upset about Japan's nationalist revisionism about WW II. It's not just the Asian countries that suffered from Japanese militarism; remember Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, etc? I think the Bush Administration has, in its desire to develop a stronger alliance against China, facilitated some disturbing trends in Japan. Not that I think Japan is going to go on the rampage again, but given what it did in the region in the forties, I think we ought to be more sensitive to feelings toward Japan and not so encouraging to the nationalists calling for a Japanese miliary revival. I am not opposed to Japan developing a stronger military presence in the region per se, but I am concerned about the nationalism and revisionism that is occurring in Japan--for example, school textbooks that whitewash what Japan did in China.

Posted by: Marc at December 20, 2005 09:41 AM

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia!" --Vizzini

Ok, so he lost the battle of wits, but it's still not bad advice or the most part.

Germany is also deep into revisionist history about WW2, Marc. Just so we don't leave anyone out.

Posted by: Tully at December 20, 2005 10:06 AM

Marc, some of us are concerned, but I don't think the attitude you reference can be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration. However, assuming that America has fostered increased military strength in Japan, is that not consistent with the idea which most of the world seems to favor, that the U.S. not remain the only military superpower in the world? Don't the Democrats and isolationist Republicans want us to rely more on our allies rather than shouldering all the security burdens of the world alone?

On a slightly contrary note, Japan has apologized and continues to apologize for its aggression. As recently as August 15, its Prime Minister said:

"In the past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. Sincerely facing these facts of history, I once again express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology, and also express the feelings of mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, in the war. I am determined not to allow the lessons of that horrible war to erode, and to contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world without ever again waging a war."

As an aside, just because I stumbled across it doing some quick research, it is amazing to me how the Communists... um, I mean, Socialists, can paint the incursion by a Chinese submarine into Japanese territorial waters off Okinawa, as an example of Japanese beligerency.

Posted by: PatHMV at December 20, 2005 12:08 PM

But almost every culture has difficulty accepting and acknowledging some of the more hideous acts of their past. It's as if we're afraid that acknowledging the mistakes of our fathers somehow translates to failures on the part of our generation.

For example, President Clinton apologized for the American role in the 1954 coup in Guatemala, and was immediately criticized for doing so. The CIA's overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz is now a matter of public record, but that didn't mean we wanted to accept responsibility for it forty years later.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has apologized to African Americans for the unconstructive role the GOP played in the recent civil rights period, and he has been scoffed at by Democrats and mainstream media for it (of course, they're more likely angry that he is daring to make inroads into "their" constituency).

And even now there's a strong-enough bloc in the American South that refuses to allow the Senate to issue an apology for over a century of slavery in this land. America's ending slavery wouldn't have ended the evil (it persists to this day, though few wish to acknowledge it), but that didn't mean our forefathers weren't culpable in participating in and propagating a system of unmitigated evil.

Japanese culture has its shortcomings, and they definitely made their mistakes-- it's disappointing that they're not making a larger effort to recognize the WWII-era aggression. But they are hardly alone in their crimes, and should not be singled out (as they so often seem to be).

Posted by: Bobby at December 20, 2005 07:41 PM

Back to Taiwan, though,

I would make it clear to Taiwan that we will defend you if China invades to take you back, but if you declare independence unilaterally, you are on your own.

That is essentially the effective position of every Presidential Administration since Nixon. And while the Taiwanese would prefer to officially secede, they understand the practical limitations of doing so: loss of American support, inevitable Chinese invasion, and destruction of Taiwan's social and political-- if not physical-- infrastructure. They aren't looking to score a Pyrrhic victory of any kind, and-- combined with American military superiority in the Straits-- the policy has worked thus far.

But the Chinese are improving their own capability-- they have come a long way in the last ten years, and are investing in advanced assault landing crafts and air-to-sea munitions (among others), which will only enhance their ability to retake Taiwan through force (if it comes to it). The concept of "peaceful rise" notwithstanding, the day may very well come when some desperate ruler tries to prolong his dictatorship by launching a popular invasion of their long lost island, a la Argentina's Galtieri and the Malvinas/Falklands War.

Posted by: Bobby at December 20, 2005 07:59 PM