Man leads a bull in Kashi, Xinjiang, China, 2007. Photo by Colin Cookman
It seems predictable to me that almost as soon as China is declared an enemy by the Department of Defense's new defense strategy-- or at least, that's how the Asian press and analysis see it -- then we start to get the US liberal agitation that China is a model we should emulate, not an enemy. All of these factors are integrated -- our government's belligerence, the predictable Asian backlash, the liberal peace-making and emulation of "the other". We've seen it with the Soviet Union and Islam; now we will see more of it with China.
So first, there's Obama's shiny new Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century: which sounds like sort of a "do more with less" after killing Osama bin Laden and and the winding down of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars after more than a decade and a switch to focus on China:
U.S. economic and security interests are inextricably linked to developments in the arc
extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South
Asia, creating a mix of evolving challenges and opportunities. Accordingly, while the U.S.
military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance
toward the Asia-Pacific region. Our relationships with Asian allies and key partners are
critical to the future stability and growth of the region. We will emphasize our existing
alliances, which provide a vital foundation for Asia-Pacific security. We will also expand
our networks of cooperation with emerging partners throughout the Asia-Pacific to ensure
collective capability and capacity for securing common interests. The United States is also
investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India to support its ability to serve as a
regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.
Furthermore, we will maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula by effectively working with
allies and other regional states to deter and defend against provocation from North Korea,
which is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The maintenance of peace, stability, the free flow of commerce, and of U.S. influence in this dynamic region will depend in part on an underlying balance of military capability and presence. Over the long term, China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the U.S. economy and our security in a variety of ways. Our two countries have a strong stake in peace and stability in East Asia and an interest in building a cooperative bilateral relationship. However, the growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region. The United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations and with international law. Working closely with our network of allies and partners, we will continue to promote a rules-based international order that ensures underlying stability and encourages the peaceful rise of new powers, economic dynamism, and constructive defense cooperation.
That all sounds like traditional goals -- Asian-Pacific stability, deterrence of North Korea, etc. I'm puzzled why China is being admonished to make its strategic plans more clear -- aren't they pretty clear already? Go to Africa and Central Asia, talk to the bosses, get the Thorium Widget, get the hydrocarbons, avoid the ogres, go home. Despite Ron Paul's wacky viral video of Chinese troops in Texas, China isn't going to be projecting military might anywhere.
But really, China became a threat because of a lot of other things -- mainly because it become our creditor, with our own massive debt; and because of the enormous amount of Chinese hacking that goes on that the tech press seems mum about, but about which Vanity Fair reported boldly:
Hackers have attacked America’s defense establishment, as well as companies from Google to Morgan Stanley to security giant RSA, and fingers point to China as the culprit.
Naturally, the focus on China is going to cause some backlash, even if artfully phrased as cooperation with partners like India (I wonder what they really think about this) and stability-building:
So there's the experts such as this one quoted by the Hindustan Times:
"The assertive moves by the US may cause potential military tensions between China and the US," said Yuan Peng, an expert of American studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.
Then there's this one from Xinhua quoted by Hindustan Times:
"While boosting its military presence in the Asia Pacific, the US should abstain from flexing its muscles... If the US indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop, and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability," state-run Xinhua news agency said in a comment piece.
So, to continue my thesis: then there's Daniel Bell to tell us in The New York Times, "What China Can Teach Europe" (and by extension, all of us).
Bell's article talks about various Chinese models for reducing income inequality and providing health care, some of which are coercive and others more mild (but, I would submit, still involve the state moving the population around possibly against its will.)
The Chinese housing registration system is still ineffect which is like the Soviet propiska. So they can offer farmers some registration in the city and some perks in exchange for giving up their one plot of land -- but it's not clear to me what they get then in these cities, i.e. whether there's a job waiting for them.
While Chongqing’s model is the most influential, there is an alternative. Chengdu, Sichuan’s largest municipality, with a population of 14 million — half of them rural residents — is less heavy-handed. It is the only city in China to enjoy high economic growth while also reducing the income gap between urban and rural residents over the past decade.
Chengdu has focused on improving the surrounding countryside, rather than encouraging large-scale migration to the city. The government has shifted 30 percent of its resources to its rural areas and encouraged development zones that allow rural residents to earn higher salaries and to reap the educational, cultural and medical benefits of urban life.
Chengdu, we dream of you!
But...why McDonalds?!
