China's Keenness for A
New Type of Great Power Relationship
Chinese leaders seems to
have been quite keen to bring up this topic of "Great Power
Relationship" in recent meetings with US leaders. The latest example was
at Sunnylands. This seems to be indicate a deep-lying desire to cement the
structure of a G2 with the US. It reveals not just a desire for greater
recognition but more than that it is a demand for full acceptance of
China's Great Power status so that they can start wielding greater weight
on the global stage.
A number of experts from
both China and US have commented on these latest development which provide help
to shed some light on this issue. Stapleton Roy
a a senior retired United States diplomat specializing in Chinese affairs has succinctly described the search for a Great Power Relationship as an effort to reverse the flow towards
Strategic Rivalry. Let us cover below some speakers who have been speaking currently on this issue.
Robert Zoellick
Robert Zoellick the
ex-President of the World Bank and a Deputy Secretary of State in the Bush
administration (and a Goldman Sachs managing director) has come out with what
can be seen as the American response to these Chinese overtures. He has written
a long article "US China and Thucydies" in The National Interest dated June 25, 2013, wherein he says he
has explored the likely nature of this new type of great-power relationship
between China and the United States. But more than that this is a clear
articulation of American expectations from the Chinese side.
He begins by clarifying,
for increasingly worried readers, that the US is not in decline and that China
has not really achieved Developed nation status. He points out that since 1960
out of 101 middle class nations only 13 have reached developed country status.
And China is not even really a middle class nation. This seems to be a valiant
attempt to bolster US softpower and tackle the attractiveness of the Chinese
growth story. Many in the West have begun pointing out to a
world over-awed by China, that, despite China's astonishing rise in per
capita income over the last three decades, the per capita income of China is
still low vis-a-vis the West. However, such analysts quietly forget to mention
that for international relations GDP is the more significant indicator
- Comprehensive National Power (CNP) is a function of GDP and not per
capita GDP. By all indications Chinese GDP should cross the US GDP (in PPP
terms) somewhere in the 2017-2020 range when China will become the number one
economy in the world. This awareness of a coming era of unequalled Chinese CNP
is in itself creating a new climate of international relations. Witness how
Australia despite the Asia Pivot has made a radical turn towards China in the
Boao Forum this year culminating in a Strategic Partnership between China and
Australia and a commitment for annual leaders meetings. (Please click HERE.) And this is a fact which cannot be brushed
away by diverting to the relative poverty of a Chinese citizen (low income and
a much lower wealth/ asset base of each citizen which will only build up after
decades of high per capita income).
He has concentrated
mainly on the economic and security issues. He uses arguments made by others to
politely but skilfully build a tight argument against the Chinese side.
Although diplomatically toned one can read a note of exasperation when he list
the numerous things which need to be done to improve things. His quiet
frustration becomes evident when one finds that most of the deliverables on
these contentious issues are being awaited from the Chinese side. For example
he raises the need of a new global service-sector agreement under the auspices
of the WTO and greater respect for and adherence to intellectual rights. He
also points out the anachronism of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in the
modern world as it reports not to the State but to very high-levels within the
Party. The PLA behaves like an autonomous power center which through its
independent (sometimes arbitrary) actions has the potential to vitiate diplomacy
with China. He adds that in the new monetary system there will perhaps be
multiple reserve currencies but for that China will have to move to an open
capital account. Like all westerners he tends to proselytize about the need for
a greater private sector role to spur innovation and efficiency.
On the whole, through
this laundry list of issues, he seems to be demanding a shift in the Chinese
governance system from the Chinese towards the Western model. That the Chinese
model should give up its distinctiveness and become more like the Western
model. No doubt the Chinese model has always tried to "use" the
Western model as a guide. But one must remember that this "use" of
western institutions and processes and economic policies has simultaneously
been accompanied with a fanatic determination to make people-centric or
security-centric alterations and then call these as "Chinese
characteristics" of the western model. These deliberate and crucial
alterations are the essence of the Chinese model despite its clearly western
roots. Zoellick perhaps wants to prod the challenger (China) into accepting the
leader's (West) model in toto so that the softpower of the Western model stays
unchallenged. And that a real End to History can be ensured. A judicious mix of
carrots and stick seems to have been adroitly used. One can sense that perhaps
the US is regaining confidence and returning back to the driver's seat. That it
has not given up abjectly on the Asia Region as Obama had once almost done
quite early on in his first term.
At one point he refers
to the growing and unbecoming aggressiveness of the Chinese and challenges
Chinese motivations quite bluntly: "Have Chinese critics of the current
international system considered the costs of, and others’ reactions to, new
Chinese aims?" He then lists a number of advantageous points of mutual
interest between China and the US but says these can be overwhelmed by
the issues which have risen in the Asian-Pacific region. He is alluding here to
the host of South China issues which have embroiled China lately - with
Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. At this stage he clearly goes into warning
mode and says that China has few friends and most of them poor and America has
lot of prosperous allies who look upto the US as a friend and ally and cautions
that China's assertion should not look like a threat otherwise it will lead to
counter-reactions. He says should China should make allies with the US allies
if it wants to avoid its encirclement. He highlights Japan and these strong
protective words by Zoellick should offer considerable reassurance to Japan.
Japan like India had been apprehensive about the impact of G2 and specifically
of the Sunnylands summit. There had been some talk that the Senkakus dispute
had not been raised by the US. This portion of the article referring to the
Asian-Pacific security issues must have been worked over and reworked over many
times in policy circles. One needs to go over it carefully.
And then he goes on to
speak of North Korea at length. He seems to be putting the onus of change in
North Korea clearly on the Chinese and not just on the North Koreans. He seems
to be saying that just getting the North Koreans to the negotiation table will
not be considered enough.
And then he comes to the
issue which was to have taken center-stage at Sunnylands but was sidetracked by
the personal surveillance and tracking story which arose at the time of the
summit. He lists the various aspects of cyber issues like espionage; economic
espionage; sabotage; warfare, etc.
He also mentions the
issues of human rights and freedom but briefly and only in passing. He avoids
going into it, because he says that China is probably deliberating on these
issues in its quest for better governance and rule of law. It appears he does
not want to use this forum to raise negative issues which are received with
hostility and suspicion by the Chinese side. It seems his aim is much bigger.
He is looking at the bigger picture and the longer term. He wants to point out
the big American concerns in the strongest possible manner without getting
sidetracked into diversions and lesser issues.
Probably with an intention to provoke a clear response from the Chinese, he refers to an ongoing debate in the US about whether China’s understanding of
International Relations will in the long run allow it to accept only a system
where it is the “Middle Kingdom” and it has only accepts tributary
relationships. He seems to be dismissively setting aside the current stated
Chinese position of multilateralism and quizzing the Chinese quite bluntly
about their longer term objectives in the International Relations arena.
Finally he concludes by
saying that the the reality is just the opposite of the perceptions. US though
the existing power is not afraid of change. Changes is what it has handled very
well since its founding. On the other hand the Chinese, though a rising power
have been traditional. Perhaps he might have been itching to add just
good imitator-tinkerers. He says that US-China relations should not fall into
the "Thucydides trap". He refers to this concept described by
Prof's Nye and Graham Allison. They have said that Thucydides pointed out to
the fear which a rising Athens had created in Sparta. And how this animosity
had trapped the two city-states into a downward conflictual spiral. Zoellick
says that the challenge which the US and China face is to avoid such a trap
which can vitiate the atmosphere and lead to conflict. The mutual destruction
is pointed out as a possibility but maybe it is also brought up as a veiled
threat.
On the whole one can say
that this is a clear and even blunt article which states that the Great Power
status needs to be earned and cannot be achieved by reckless, arrogant and
destabilizing behaviour. However, at the same he also holds out the hope of a
great shared future. He does not fall into the trap of looking at China and the
world with rosy eyed spectacles.
Please click here to read the full article.
There are a few other
interesting article on the same topic.
David Lampton
First is by a very
well-know China expert. Prof David M. Lampton who has written "A New
Type of Major-Power Relationship: Seeking a Durable Foundation for U.S.-China
Ties" in the latest Asia Policy (July 2013). Please click here to read.
Jeff Bader at Brookings
One can find a couple of
discussions of this issue at the Brookings website.
First, Jeffrey Bader has
analysed the issue while delivering the 2013 Barnett-Oksenberg Lecture on Sino-American Relations on May 14, 2013. Please click here to read.
Bader point out through
several examples that the co-existence of a dominant power and a rising
contender has been the source of a number of conflicts in history. He says that
the US-China relationship also carries the potential for conflict. He qualifies
his remarks by saying that there is nothing dialectically inevitable about such
conflicts. There is a significant role which is played by leaders and people.
Therein lies the potential for developing trust and rising above conflict.
However conflict avoidance and trust building is not a small and easy matter.
Presently, there is a growing trend within the US-China relationship, towards
mutually reinforced suspicions and degenerating perceptions. He says that,
"there is a belief on the Chinese side that the U.S. side seeks to contain
China ....a belief on the American side that China seeks to supplant the United
States and corrode its global influence". Continuing with this theme he
refers to a recent essay by leading scholars Kenneth Lieberthal and Wang
Jisi, "Addressing U.S.-China Distrust", which ominously forecasts
growing distrust unless significant course correction is made.
Finally, Bader goes to
the core of what he believes should be the basis of a New Great Power
Relationship between the US and China. He identifies four significant areas
where they must focus their attention because he feels that is where there is a
major potential for cooperation. Or conflict. These areas are:
- Bilateral economic relations - which can include trade imbalances and unbalanced
China model. And competition in third country markets - say Africa or
Latin America.
- Global problems where China and US are significantly involved - say in
climate change, non-proliferation, disease control, counterterrorism,
cyberintrusions.
- Competition in the Asia Pacific - with growing Chinese power including naval power
(implies aggressiveness) and the American focus in the region
- Handling Third country instability/ Hot spots
Basically this can be
said to be a laundry list of the American side which focuses on American
perceptions. The Chinese would of course come up with a similar list of what
they expect from the American side as a means of restoring mutual trust and
'harmony'.
Madame Fu Ying
The topic of a new
US-China Great Power relationship has also been discussed at the Brookings
website in a talk given by Madame Fu Ying, who is currently the the
spokesperson for China’s national legislature the National People's Congress
and is also the chairperson of the NPC’s Foreign Affairs Committee. She is a
career diplomat who has served in various capacities as Ambassador to Australia
and United Kingdom and very recently as former vice minister of Foreign
Affairs. One can see, she is eminently qualified to provide the Chinese
perspective on the topic. Interestingly, she is an ethnic Mongol from and
speaks in English. The transcript of her talk at Brookings on June 12, 2013,
can be downloaded by clicking here. The mp3 audio link of this talk can be
accessed here.
Her talk covers a number
of issues including the Great Power relationship issue. It starts with the
differences at the terminology level. US side uses the term "Great
Powers" for US & China, while China prefers to use "Major
Countries". China does not accept that it is a Great Power, though these
days many Western people regard China to be a world power or a No. 2 power.
Next she clarifies why
China asks for equal treatment. In US analysts ask "Why is China so
ambitious to try to be equal to US?" Is it a demonstration of ambition?
China believes in equality of countries irrespective of size or power.
She goes on to identify
what is the greatest achievement of modern China. She says with certainty that
it is the provision of food for 1.3 billion people. Till 1993, Chinese people
were distributed food with coupons but now hunger and food shortages are
eliminated.
She lists the current
set of problems which China faces.
She goes on to describe
the leadership's vision of the Future China. In this connection, she specifies
two paramount goals which China has set forth for itself at the 18th NPC.
First, China intends to double per capita income of 2010, by 2021 the centenary
year for the Communist Party of China. China should be able to achieve this
goal in the eight years, if it maintains a growth rate of 7%. Therefore, this is a crucial minimum benchmark
of GDP growth which the Xi-Li leadership faces. Second, by centenary year of
the Communist republic 2049 China plans to develop into a strong, prosperous,
democratic and culturally advanced and harmonious socialist society. The
leadership is firm on continuing reform and opening up to the outside world.
Government functions will be readjusted to allow Market and Society to allow
both of them to maximize performance with good regulations. Government will
provide framework for competition and looking after the marginalized. The
country will strive towards industrialization, informatization, agricultural
modernization and urbanization. Urbanization in the near future will be the
greatest in the world - 600 million.
A long problem consists
of environment pollution, energy security, slowing down of economy. A new model
of development is required. Underlying all this improved rule of law. NPC will
have to increase its law making capacity - especially in people-centric area's.
Law quality, compliance and enforcement needs to improve. US can join in as a
partner in this endeavor. There are so many opportunities for all. China cannot
achieve its goals unless there is a peaceful world environment. Many developing
countries are now growing fast and their share in world economy is expanding
and their gap with the developed world is narrowing. But China does not share
the view that "World power is shifting to East". In reality power
does not seem to be changing hands. World issues are more globalized and due to
globalization and internet power is getting diffused and trans-national.
She says that America is
at a great peak with the highest end technology, strongest brands
She says that the main
trend of the world - shi - towards which all national leaders should lead the
is in the direction of peace and development. Asia is on the road to
development because of the long period of peace it is enjoying. Deng was able
to foresee this and in view of this peace directed China towards development.
China hopes that
principles agreed to with ASEAN countries on how to maintain tranquility in
disputed areas are respected to maintain peace. The US has long had an
influence over Asia which China has respected but questions are being raised in
recent years. In the past US has invested in Europe in the Cold War and then in
the Middle East against terrorism after 911, but it has now shifted attention
to Asia which has been doing well. The countries in the region including China
expect that US-China can work to maintain the ongoing trend of peace and development
and that this trend is not disturbed. A new model of relationship between US
and China is necessary and in process. On global issues like nuclear
proliferation, cyber threats, ecological sustainability, etc. all countries are
on the same page.
Wang Yi
Another instance of the
Chinese perspective on this issue has been obtained, during a recent talk (June
27, 2013) given by the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi at Tsinghua University
at the World Peace Forum. His talk was on a similar topic - Major Power Diplomacy.
He covers the recent foreign visits of President Xin Jiping, talking first
about his first foreign visit to Russia. Importantly, he pointed out the China-Russia relationship as a model "for major countries to deepen trust and
cooperation in the new era". He then goes on to mention the meeting
between President Xi Jinping and President Obama at Sunnylands. While
giving a positive spin, he says, that Obama and Xi Jinping,"agreed to
build a new
model of major-country relations between China and the United States. The core elements of this new model are mutual
respect, win-win cooperation, no conflict, no confrontation. President Obama stated that the United States
welcomes a strong, successful, prosperous and stable China and is willing to
work with China as equal
partners(!) in
dealing with many of the global(!) challenges. President Xi hopes that China and
the United States will work together and act as the anchor of stability and propeller of peace in
the world." Note the
involvement of China by the US at the "global" level! These crucial
points need to be verified from the American side. Please click here to read the full speech.
Another article is related to the topic. "Can U.S.-Chinese Relations Be Saved?" by Michael Auslin, also in The National Interest dated June 12, 2013. Please click here to read.
Another very fascinating
secondary International Relations trend is visible to those who are watchful.
The American Pivot to Asia despite all the denials of the US government is
working in the direction of containing China Rise. But this Pivot to Asia has powerful implications in other
regions. It has created huge
domestic turmoil within power circles in the US and Israel. The powerful group
of "supporters" of Israel in the US government; in the
media and in public forums have erupted in anger at this growing America
emphasis on Asia. They would like a continued focus on the Middle East to make
sure that the vast US foreign policy and military resources continue to
be pumped into the Middle East in support of Israel. They have been unable to
tolerate this downgrading of emphasis on the Middle East. This group is
extremely powerful and capable and inventive and very good at marketing their
own agenda as if it is the American agenda and have been able to divert
American resources for decades in support of Israel.
One can make further
intelligent deductions based on the above facts. The resolution with which
American foreign policy has stuck to its Pivot to Asia in the face of powerful
resistance from the dominant actors who support Israel, indicates that a group
of patriotic American foreign policy experts have emerged who are very focussed
on and alarmed by China Rise. They have realized that things cannot go on as
usual. China Rise needs the complete attention of the US and diversions as in
earlier days can no longer be tolerated. The very fact that the powerful Israel
supporters have been over-ruled is a clear indication of the seriousness and
determination with which the China challenge is being viewed in the US foreign
policy circles.
The latest and most
fascinating example of a US foreign policy experts standing up to the
pro-Israel discourse and persisting eloquently with the China Pivot can be seen in a debate between Richard Haas, current
President of the Council of Foreign Relations and former Deputy Secretary of
State and Jane Harman a powerful former Congresswoman. Please
Click here to read more....
