China Does Not Own The Future
Though I usually strenuously avoid big picture stories on where China is going to be fifty years from now, a recent op-ed piece by Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of the book, "God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World" is too good to ignore. Entitled, "China Doesn't Own the Future," it basically says China is rising, but so is the rest of Asia and this means China will not dominate:
The conventional wisdom is that China is rising and the United States is on its way down. According to this view, the 21st century challenge for U.S. foreign policy is to manage our inevitable decline as gracefully as possible as the new superpower of the East reaches for the stars.The conventional wisdom almost always sounds smart -- and is almost always wrong. The U.S. doesn't need to contain China, and it doesn't need to fight China either. Nor does it need to prepare to gracefully let China replace the United States as the world's leading power.
The first reason is simple. The rise of China is only part of a much bigger story -- the rise of Asia. China isn't ascending in a vacuum, destined to dominate its region the way the U.S. dominates the Western Hemisphere -- or the way Germany once tried to dominate Europe.
China is rising, but so is India. So are Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea (where South and North may be united before too much longer). Japan will remain a powerful economic, military and technological force for the foreseeable future. Taiwan is not sinking into the sea; Australia is prospering as never before. Bangladesh is beginning to industrialize; even Myanmar, or Burma, may possibly follow the road to prosperity through global economic integration that has made East and South Asia growth rates the envy of the world.
"The new Asia taking shape is too big, too diverse, too independent and too rich for one country to rule. Not China, not the United States, not India."
I concur.
Mead's piece is at least one cut above the usual China foreign policy fare and I recommend you check it out.
Comments (16)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endDavid Scott Lewis (Startech Global Corporation, Tsinghua University) - October 16, 2007 5:55 AM
We can only hope that he is right.
As your readers know, this is propaganda week on CCTV due to the National Party Congress. What I see and hear on CCTV-9 requires taking a Zantac or two at least once a day.
I like the current leadership, especially Wen Jiabao, and I'd give two thumbs up to Hu Jintao even though I don't agree with his positions on basic freedoms and human rights issues, like freedom of speech and religion. Also, like them, I do NOT support democracy for China, at least not over the next five years. Peasants voting for a Hitler in 2012 are not in anyone's best interest -- and the peasants here can easily be manipulated, just as they were 60-70 years ago. Hu's "Harmonious Society" stuff is mere fluff, but his "Scientific Development" principles are absolutely, 100% what China needs. And whereas "Harmonious Society" is merely a slogan, "Scientific Development" is what the Hu/Wen team is all about.
I've said this in print before and I'll say it again: Even though I'm a lifelong Republican (albeit a "true" conservative, NOT a war-mongering neocon), I'd vote for Hu/Wen over Bush/Cheney; no doubt about it. This place (China) is a mess. Way more problems than most people can imagine. And technocrats are the best people to handle these problems. The CCP nonsense is just that, i.e., it's nonsense. But it's a banner than the Hu/Wen team needs to operate under, for worse, not better ... but a practical reality.
I sincerely hope that the Hu/Wen team will loosen up a bit regarding various personal freedoms, but democracy: Keep it on the back burner. Also, even though the Hu/Wen team takes a "Scientific Development" approach, I believe that they're doing so in a half-assed way -- although I don't believe other world leaders function with a better MO. The problem, both in China and the States, is that information is politicized before it's presented to the top leadership. The result is skewed and biased data. I see some of this in China and we all know that this was perhaps a key reason for America's dumb ass decision to "liberate" in Iraq: Faulty and/or skewed data. (Chinese refer to 1949 as "liberation," too. It might be the most misused word in modern history.)
But China is trying. I have a love/hate relationship with this country and with mainland Chinese people. A fundamental problem in China is a basic disregard for anyone's life except one's own or the life of a family member. People are often not just rude, but simply couldn't care less about anyone else. It's not personal and it's not (necessarily) racist: They treat each other like scum, too. But it makes life here quite challenging.
Like I said, I'm overall pretty much pleased with the current government. Better than the Bush administration, although this is setting a pretty low bar. But I'm concerned about Xi and Li (not the Li we'd likely want, but the Li that we probably don't want). Time will tell where they'll take China from 2012-2022. They're not Hu and Wen. And I'm betting that this will be a bad thing, not a good thing.
Maybe China is ready for a country run by lawyers -- although where there's not a system of checks and balances, the greatest strength of the U.S. political system IMHO, this might be problematic in its own right -- China may still need Hu's idea of "Scientific Development." With the problems that China will likely face for at least another 15-20 years, technocrats may be a much better leadership option than attorneys.
Inst - October 16, 2007 6:10 AM
If you read Michael Pillsbury's writings, you can ascertain the Chinese don't even expect to run the world in the long-term. Instead, they expect the world to degenerate into a multi-polar world, where no single power is able to make significant action in any other's sphere of influence. It starts to look a bit like 1984, then, with the EU forming one pole, the United States another, and China the third.
What they were wrong about, this was the 90s, of course, was that there were no significant competitors in China's own region. The Chinese thought that Japan was on terminal decline, which is what it still looks like, and that poor Russia was doomed to become yet again a second-rate power. The latter is not necessarily true, it has a better position than Japan, with a newly vigorous government making odd moves against the United States, it's odd because Russia's military is decaying and its economic base doesn't have enough people. However, with regard to Russia, it seems too early to tell. Chinese strategic thinkers also seemed to have underestimated India; it's finally taken off with 9 percent growth this year, and that without a one-child policy.
However, with regard to the smaller countries in the region, they're too small and will just end up falling in someone's sphere of influence. Taiwan is going to be eventually absorbed into China within a hundred years, barring some major mistake by China or some odd outcome in Taiwan. And a unified Korea is far in the horizon.
Thus, I'd disagree with the assertation that China would become utterly inert. Further, describing China, Japan, and India as three equals seems a bit strange. China is willing to damage its long-term relations with India with intrusions into Arunachal Pradesh, indicating that it perceives that it can get away with bullying India, and overall China's position currently looks better than India's. India's economic growth is many years behind China's, and unlike the Chinese economy versus the United States economy, India's economy grows at about the same pace as China's.
So, overall, I don't see how, provided America does nothing, China can't carve out East Asia as a sphere of influence.
Andy - October 16, 2007 1:46 PM
I don't know where Mead is getting his "conventional wisdom" from.. at the moment, there are a myriad of opinions about China, but I know of no reasonable opinion that says China will rise at the expense of the US. However, within the context of Asia, the rise of China is significant - the so-called rise of Asia has already happened. You can see this going back to articles from the 80s, from the rise of Japan to the Four Tigers. The fact that the rest of Asia is rising would be a non-issue were it not for the rise of China. China changes the equation completely, in a way no other country can, in a global sense. And what reasonable opinion would argue that China would "rule" Asia? Beyond sensationalist or scare-mongering articles, who exactly is making those claims? Maybe Mead's article is directed at Joe 6-pack who knows nothing about the situation in China, but it's nothing new to anyone who's followed the developments in China. I disagree with Mead's claim that Japan's dream of domination died in 1945.. why then, are they so keen on erasing that past? All parties still need to be vigilant..
David - October 16, 2007 4:57 PM
China "getting old before it gets rich" is what might stop their economic rise this century.
Maybe they will get it right after that and the 22nd century will belong to China. :-)
nanheyangrouchuan - October 16, 2007 6:41 PM
China won't own the future if we don't let it (we being the US, Oz, India, Russia, E. Asia and even Europe).
For motivation, let's look at China's current condition, how the Chinese gov't treats its own people and how China treats its neighbors. The US is far from perfect on top of the heap but would you trade the US for China?
zzyzx - October 16, 2007 7:58 PM
It is true China’s booming economy has been recognized by the whole world, but China still has a steep learning curve for its future role as the world’s leading power. Like India, China has to depend on large numbers of low skill jobs to keep its GPD rapidly rising, 800 million shirts for one Airbus A380, and has more than 200 million people still living in dire poverty. Keeping excusing Chinese unreadiness for democracy, lumping things together between law enforcement and judiciary work, less transparent and less accountable governments, etc. won’t win the respect from the rest of the world, not even from people of its own.
David Scott Lewis (Startech Global Corporation, Tsinghua University) - October 17, 2007 12:01 AM
We can only hope that he is right. If he isn't, China 2036 might resemble Germany 1936. I could back this statement up with scenario analysis, Delphi models, Fisher-Pry (looking at energy and other resources issues), but I'll simply go with my gut as an expat who has lived here for just about four years, both in Beijing and in Qingdao. I've also held VP, Business Development positions with the two largest U.S.-focused, China-based IT outsourcing firms, and I'm currently affiliated with the outsourcing hub (Startech Global) for Tsinghua University (China's MIT and Hu Jintao's alma mater) and a Spanish solar modules (panels) manufacturer (Zytech Solar, a Going Green 100 winner) with R&D in Germany and manufacturing in China. (BTW, I moderated the nano/MEMS panel at GG; it can be viewed here. We had a pretty good panel.) My point: I'm not yet another English teacher in China; never have been, never will be. I'm also a Microsoft (new markets), Oracle (Director, E-Business) and Samsung (Director, Strategic Planning) alumnus. No, I'm not another English teacher in China.
As some readers may know, this is propaganda week on CCTV due to China's National Party Congress -- and this Party Congress will have a large say in determining China's future through 2022, i.e., through the next 10 year team. (Hu and Wen will remain in power through 2012 ... thank God!!) What I see and hear on CCTV-9 (the central government's national English-language channel) requires taking a Zantac or two at least once a day.
I like the current leadership, especially Wen Jiabao, and I'd give two thumbs up to Hu Jintao even though I don't agree with his positions on basic freedoms and human rights issues, like freedom of speech and religion. But, like them, I do NOT support democracy for China, at least not over the next five years. Peasants voting for a Hitler in 2012 are not in anyone's best interest -- and the peasants here can easily be manipulated, just as they were 60-70 years ago. Hu's "Harmonious Society" stuff is mere fluff, but his "Scientific Development" principles are absolutely, 100% what China needs. And whereas "Harmonious Society" is merely a slogan, "Scientific Development" is what the Hu/Wen team is all about.
I've said this in print before and I'll say it again: Even though I'm a lifelong Republican (albeit a "true" conservative, NOT a war-mongering neocon), I'd vote for Hu/Wen over Bush/Cheney; no doubt about it. This place (China) is a mess. Way more problems than most people can imagine. And technocrats are the best people to handle these problems. The CCP nonsense is just that, i.e., it's nonsense. But it's a banner than the Hu/Wen team needs to operate under, for worse, not better ... but a practical reality.
I sincerely hope that the Hu/Wen team will loosen up a bit regarding various personal freedoms, but democracy: Keep it on the back burner. Also, even though the Hu/Wen team takes a "Scientific Development" approach, I believe that they're doing so in a half-assed way -- although I don't believe other world leaders function with a better MO. The problem, both in China and the States, is that information is politicized before it's presented to the top leadership. The result is skewed and biased data. I see some of this in China and we all know that this may have been a key reason for America's dumb ass decision to "liberate" Iraq: Faulty and/or skewed data. (Chinese refer to 1949 as "liberation," too. It might be the most misused word in modern history.)
But China is trying -- well, at least the central government and certain provinces, e.g., Jiangsu (think Suzhou, Wuxi, Nanjing) and Shandong (think Qingdao, Jinan, Yantai), are trying. The central government and selected provinces and municipalities are trying their best to overcome the plethora of problems facing China, from the income gap between rich "citizens' and poverty-stricken "villagers," to environmental issues, to corruption. I have a love/hate relationship with this country and with mainland Chinese people. A fundamental problem in China is a basic disregard for anyone's life except one's own or the life of a family member. People are often not just rude, but simply couldn't care less about anyone else. It's not personal and it's not (necessarily) racist: They treat each other like scum, too. But it makes life here quite challenging at times.
OTOH, I'm overall very pleased with the current central government and my provincial government. Better than the Bush administration, although this is setting a pretty low bar. But I'm concerned about Xi and Li (not the Li we'd likely want, but the Li that we probably don't want and will likely get). Time will tell where they'll take China from 2012-2022. They're not Hu and Wen. And I'm betting that this will be a bad thing, not a good thing. BTW, you won't read about any of this just yet in China's press: Not in Chinese language press, Chinese blogs, China Daily, Sina, Sohu, nowhere. Thank you to the New York Times.
Maybe China is ready for a country run by lawyers -- although where there's not a system of checks and balances, the greatest strength of the U.S. political system IMHO, this might be problematic in its own right -- China may still (more accurately, will likely) need Hu's idea of "Scientific Development." With the problems that China will likely face for at least another 15-20 years, technocrats may be a much better leadership option than attorneys. (OK, they're more like public policy trained lawyers than ambulance chasers, so I'll give them this much credit.)
China, China, China: The most important foreign country to America and Americans ... and the country most Americans know the least about relative to other global powers. Ignorance is not bliss.
Based and living in China for the past 4 years (both in Beijing and Qingdao), David Scott Lewis is SVP with Startech Global Corporation, the outsourcing hub for Tsinghua University (China's MIT and Hu Jintao's alma mater) and Zytech Solar, a Going Green 100 winner. In addition to his bizdev/GAM responsibilities at both firms, he authors Startech's Tech China blog and Zytech's forthcoming blog on emerging solar technologies (e.g., a-Si, CIGS, CSP, BIPV, PV manufacturing R&D [a Zytech strength]).
Duncan - October 17, 2007 2:12 AM
I suspect the only place that "the US is on its way down" is the conventional wisdom is among certain slightly paranoid US think tanks. The US took the rise of Japan in its stride (well, with a lot of huff and puff, but it's still no. 1), and there's no reason why they couldn't do the same with China. Power and prosperity are not a zero sum game.
nanheyangrouchuan - October 18, 2007 8:19 AM
David Scott Lewis:
Overall good analysis, but Hu and Wen's "scientific development" model is as much huff and puff as anything else. They had to come up with a competitive slogan to compete with Mao, Deng and Jiang theories that could be installed in the constitution. The very words "scientific development" is meant to capture the hearts and minds of a government and people obsessed with that idea that quantitative sciences can solve all problems.
@ Duncan:
Japan's rise in the 80s didn't come with a list of revenge and territorial targets aimed at the West and China's neighbors. China is playing the zero sum game.
jms - October 18, 2007 10:04 AM
As my history professor once said: shit happens. Who knows what's going to happen -- each country has its strong points, weak points and historical baggages, no one is completely clean. China could be the next Nazi Germany, or maybe Japan or the US or North Korea or Iran or Singapore (hehe), there is no certainty -- we can only speculate on the degree of likelihood. Fortunately our interests are much more intertwined these days -- and I hope that serves as somewhat of a "check and balance" on warmongers.
Law Office of Todd L. Platek - October 18, 2007 3:04 PM
With respect to Mr. Lewis's comments, I agree but would point out that Mr. Lewis's graphic comments about how Chinese treat each other are more "politically correctly" described by the Chinese expression "mei you gong de xin." It is the lack of public spiritedness and consciousness which is the missing mortar to bind the social brickbuilding. Sun Yatsen and numerous luminaries have,for ages, noted this deficiency, and that for the society to move along in a truly harmonious way, "gong de xin" must be inculcated into the mass and individual Chinese mindsets. On the other hand, the very lack of public spiritedness is often the Chinese rationalization for the justification/need for authoritarian government to provide the framework for stability.
nanheyangrouchuan - October 19, 2007 4:39 PM
Oh, what happened to China'
s policy of non-interference in other countries' internal politics?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,4231217.story?coll=la-home-center
JL - October 20, 2007 8:00 PM
David Scott Lewis, for someone at Tsinghua, I would hope that you have some evidence for this:
"Peasants voting for a Hitler in 2012 are not in anyone's best interest"
Otherwise it looks just like the same line that dictators the world over give people to justify their rule. Is there any evidence of extremist nationalism among China's peasantry? I would like to see it if there is. Is there any evidence that peasants generally are more inclined to vote for facists? (Indian peasants have never voted in a Hitler.)
I agree that China should be careful when introducing democracy, though I think that Tibet and Xinjiang are the more likely problems.
China Law Blog - October 21, 2007 8:51 PM
David Scott Lewis,
I believe in going slow with democracy but I believe in democracy. Your they might vote for a Hitler is the excuse dictators (usually friendly to the US) have always used to justify their unwillingness to democratize. Nothing in China gives me the sense the peasants are out there angling for a Hitler and, if anything, the Hitlers, Stalins, Mussilinis and Francos of the world tend to rise up from the urban middle class, not the peasants. What support do you have for this?
China Law Blog - October 21, 2007 8:54 PM
Inst,
You are pushing me way out of my comfort zone here, but the topic is so interesting, I cannot resist. Japan is still powerful and though its economy has been somewhat stagnant, it is still a very wealthy country with a growing "military." India is on the rise also. Russia has gotten lucky with oil, without which it would be in big trouble or maybe would have had to have done things differently. If China gets too strong, don't you think Japan and India, and maybe Russia and others will ally against it?
excelmanking - March 4, 2010 3:29 AM
Hey I'd love to thank you for such a great quality forum!
Just thought this would be a perfect way to make my first post!
We believe the only way establish revenue it is usually a insightful plan to start a savings or investing game plan as early in life as obtainable. But don't despair if you have not begun saving your assets until later on in life. With the help of honest work, that is consulting the best investment vehicles for your assets you can slowly but surely increase your riches so that it extends to a large amount by the period you want to retire. Scout out all of the available asset classes from stocks to real estate as investments for your money. A well diversified portfolio of investments in different asset classes can make your money rise throughout the years.
-Ashlee Markgraf
currency conversion