Beware the Dragon
This is my response to NPR’s Intelligence Squared U.S. debate on the proposition: “Beware the Dragon – A Booming China Spells Trouble for America.” Just thought I’d throw it out there. You can grab the podcast of the last season even though it’s over already. I’m not particularly knowledgeable about China, though I am interested in its history and the way that popular culture and digital media especially are aiding its economic growth and boosting its quality of life. Since I’m not a China scholar, I hope you’ll go easy on me if I come off as incredibly naive. I’m learning. This is just something I thought was interesting. Below, I’ve sort of paraphrased what I got from each speaker. Then I’ve responded after that. Feel free to respond.
Bill Gertz (for) – Militarily, China has become a threat, due in part to their leapfrog technological advance pattern. China’s “string of pearls” expansionism, due to need of resources, is also a threat. China’s “money diplomacy” is detrimental to U.S. policy towards China, which is basically to trade with China in an attempt to liberalize the government. The government is not liberalizing. (Side comment: environmental problems also plague China – for instance, 7 of 10 major Chinese rivers are now dead.)
Stapleton Roy (against) – Developing shared interests with China is the best move. The middle class has erupted recently, which benefits our relationships with them. They will help with the move towards representative government. China has abandoned Marxism for Market economics. Militarily, it can become a security threat. Taiwan is not necessarily an ignition point for conflict. Alarmism is problematic. Influence and soft power are more useful here than brute military dominance. A balance of power is necessary. America doesn’t need to prevent success in other countries in order to ensure our own.
Michael Pillsbury (for) – America has never received a pledge from China not to use force against Taiwan. Former President Nixon withdrew our military. We have enormous self-imposed bans on weapons sales to Taiwan. China neglects to acknowledge any of these concessions. The overall Chinese attitude towards America remains nationalistic, suspecting America for attempting to pull China down and team up with India and Japan to do so.
Daniel Rosen (against) – 3 economic arguments. 1 – China’s growth benefits rich and poor countries alike. Japan, with 40% of the labor force that America has, exports $10 billion (USD) worth of goods to China every month. America exports half that amount. Rich countries can export to China. Developing nations benefit too. Our fortunes depend on how we act in our relationships with China. 2 – China’s growth mitigates the troubles within China. The existential threats come from impoverished states that breed nihilism. Due to the embrace of capitalism, China’s climbed out of that crevasse. 3 – China and America refuse to accept carbon responsibility because the other party has not done so first.
John Mearsheimer (for) – The answer to “is a powerful China likely to be bad for the United States” is axiomatically yes. The U.S. wants to be a hegemon, as does any other country with the option. Being more powerful is an automatic deterrent to attack. We cannot know the future intentions of any country. So, it remains the best to try to stay on top. China will attempt to dominate Asia as America has dominated the Western Hemisphere. They’d be crazy not to do so.
James McGregor (against) – China has loads of internal problems that it needs to deal with. “Environment: China is trash. Sixteen of the 20 worst air-polluted cities in the world are in China. … Health care: … Two-thirds of people don’t have health care. … The have-and-have-not issue is growing and growing. … This is this colossus that’s going to take on the United States.” America’s not nearly as badly off as many imagine – we can handle a rising China quite well.
James Harding (moderating) – How can China rise peacefully when other powerful countries oppose them vehemently? How does the “don’t worry, be happy” view help when we have a real world superpower that is unclear on its own foreign policy and when the rest of the world is unclear about how to deal with that?
The results of the debate by audience poll: 37% in favor, 59% against. 6% didn’t know. Um…that definitely adds up to 98%. Oh well. Now for my thoughts, for which I’m sure you’re all anxiously riveted to your seats.
Mr. Harding, the moderator pointed out something that struck me as blatant after hearing the opening statements. These speakers, partially due to the variegated readings of the prompt, were arguing in different paradigms entirely. We had a debate that featured strong points, but sometimes attempted to compare apples with oranges. (Or, as my algebra teacher used to say…you’re attempting to multiply donuts by Volkswagens. Good luck with that.) Economics vs. Politics / Military Strength. That’s what it came down to. I very much agree with Mr. Stapleton Roy’s observation that it is not in America’s interest to keep other countries down – we should encourage capitalism and democracy in other countries when the desire to try them already exists. I would however caution that while America is doing well, that is hardly a reason to put on rose-colored glasses in dealing with other countries. I also agreed with 2 of Mr. Daniel Rosen’s points, though I fail to see how carbon responsibility is an economics problem and quite disagree with it, as those who read my posts on anthropogenic global warming surely remember. His first two points were spot on, in my opinion.
I think Mr. Mearsheimer came out looking like the crazy man in the bunch, but I really didn’t think he was far off the mark. He was analyzing the question in a very literal, political science manner. If you do so thinking only in spheres of influence and military projection capability, I’m sure that you’ll arrive at the same conclusion that he did. I tend to agree also with Mr. James McGregor, who notes that the image of China that we are currently presented with is different from China in actuality. The internal problems will have to be resolved. The nationalistic tendencies that Mr. Pillsbury brought up are, in my mind, another internal problem that needs to be dealt with. I’m hopeful that they will be, and that by that time China will have comfortably sorted out her position in the world, participating fully with other nations in commerce and politics.
It was an interesting, albeit lopsided debate, where everyone seemed to agree that economically China has a promising future, but militarily there is a threat too. I suppose I’m of the same mind as science fiction writer Joss Whedon, who imagined an alliance between China and the West as humanity expanded into space colonization (the show was Firefly, the film was Serenity, for those who missed them). I think that there is a good chance that China will become our ally if her government is given over to her people. I think that the impetus should come from them, though. For me, the threat in China is found solely in the government. Communism doesn’t work in practice. Even a Communism which has embraced capitalistic business practices. The government itself is what encompasses the internal and external issues. My stance on China then can be summed up as: stay armed and ready, but offer our hand sincerely in greeting – after that, here’s hoping.
