- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
November 24, 2009
China: Ideal Versus Reality
The best spin that can be put on President Barack Obama’s first visit to the People’s Republic of China is that it was a learning experience. It certainly was not a demonstration of U.S. leadership. Indeed, the impression left with Chinese leaders was the same one the American president has been giving to the rest of the world; inexperience and indecision masked by naïve and empty rhetoric. Obama’s outward confidence, even arrogance, is a bluff. Inside, he feels he must retreat and avoid confrontation because he knows he cannot handle any real challenges. What else can be made of the keynote address he made in Tokyo just before heading to Beijing?
“I know there are many who question how the United States perceives China’s emergence,” said Obama, “In an inter-connected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another. Cultivating spheres of cooperation – not competing spheres of influence – will lead to progress in the Asia Pacific.” This is the kind of liberal nonsense that has been spewed forth in the name of idealism for over two centuries—two of the most violent centuries in history. Such talk can usually be dismissed as diplomatic hypocrisy, but the danger is that Obama, whose only knowledge of world affairs comes from the ivory tower, may actually believe this tripe.
And he should get no points for idealism when he “fails in a good cause.” There is nothing ideal about embracing doctrines that leave the country unprepared for the rigors of the real world. To fail is to fail, with all the horrors that result.
Let’s look at specifics. Obama claimed, “We welcome China's effort to play a greater role on the world stage -- a role in which their growing economy is joined by growing responsibility. China's partnership has proved critical in our effort to jumpstart economic recovery.” Yet, China’s trade surplus with the United States has been a drain on American finances, jobs and production capacity. The U.S. will run a trade deficit with Beijing over $200 billion this year, by definition a drag on American growth and recovery. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke have said that such imbalances are a threat to the economy. But Obama has no plan of action to bring balance back to the trade account.
Obama also claimed that China “is now committed to the global nonproliferation regime, and supporting the pursuit of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” This is patently untrue. Beijing’s role both as host of the Six Party Talks on Korea and at the United Nations has been to oppose the imposition of pressure on either North Korea or Iran sufficient to end their nuclear and missiles programs. Both rogue regimes have continued to progress in their armament plans with Chinese diplomatic protection and material support.
Obama hardly needed to tell his Japanese audience that “The United States does not seek to contain China” since it has been the transfer of American money and technology that has allowed Beijing to rise so rapidly under a Communist dictatorship. To believe, however, that “the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations” is an inexcusable error that can only come from complete ignorance of Chinese history, world history and current events. In every theater of conflict around the world, Beijing is on the opposite side of American and allied interests.
President Obama said the U.S. would seek China’s cooperation in tackling the world’s biggest problems such as climate change. And he brought this up when he was in Beijing. President Hu Jintao quickly put him in his place during their joint appearance Nov. 17. Hu reiterated what has always been Beijing’s position, that China will only conduct climate talks on the basis of the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This means the U.S. and other developed countries must cut back their growth if they want to save the planet, while China, as leader of the developing countries, rejects the premise of climate change and continues to grow as fast as possible.
The President should read the annual report for 2009 of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Reform Commission that was released November 19. The USCC is composed of 12 civilian experts on Chinese affairs appointed in equal numbers by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate (three from each party in each chamber). The USCC was established by Congress in 2000 and has consistently done the most serious work of any Washington think tank on the challenges posed to American interests by the rise of a would-be peer competitor grounded in millennia of brutal power politics.
Consider the following list of topics in this year’s USCC report and get a taste of the issues that divide the two great powers facing off across the Pacific.
·China’s increasingly aggressive espionage efforts to obtain U.S. secrets and technology for the benefit of China’s military and its economy.
·China’s stepped-up cyber espionage and cyber warfare capabilities that constitute a growing threat to U.S. computer networks.
·China’s extensive use of foreign propaganda and China’s efforts to influence public opinion and policymaking in the United States.
·China’s detailed industrial policy designed to attract foreign investment and production and to create “national champions” to compete on a global scale.
·China’s use of subsidies and other trade-distorting measures in violation of its international commitments.
·China’s role in the creation of the economic imbalances that that helped produce the global financial crisis.
·The expansion and modernization of the Chinese navy and its effects on U.S. access to the waters around China and Taiwan and the likelihood of a maritime arms race.
·The use of new and more sophisticated methods by Chinese authorities to control the Chinese news media and the Internet.
·China’s activities in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia.
·Mainland China’s increasing influence in Taiwan and Hong Kong.
·The effect of China’s policies on the economy of the upstate New York region.
There is far too much information contained in the 367 page USCC report, and in the research papers and public hearings that went into its compilation, to cover in a single column. Fortunately, all the material is available on the USCC website [www.uscc.gov], along with past reports. The reader is encouraged to start with the commission’s conclusions listed at the end of the executive summary
[http://www.uscc.gov/annual_report/2008/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.pdf].
The USCC does not just report, it also recommends to Congress actions to take to correct the problems it finds. The Commission’s 42 recommendations are divided by topic and appear at the end of each chapter as well as in a comprehensive list at the end of the report text.
Beijing takes a dim view of the USCC’s work. Four days after the 2009 report was released, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang declared, “It is full of prejudice, and out of ulterior motive. We urge the so-called commission not to see China through colored lens and not to do things that interfere with China's internal affairs and undermine China-US relations.”
In October, the Commission released a report “Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation” which had been prepared by defense contractor Northrop Grumman. Thousands of computer attacks have been, and continue to be, launched against U.S. government and business targets from sites in China. PRC Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a press conference, "These [charges] are totally groundless and also reflect a Cold War mentality." The term “Cold War mentality” is used on a regular basis to describe any study of Chinese military, economic or diplomatic operations in the world arena as if these are improper subjects to think about. Though Beijing had been using this term long before Obama took office, it much prefers American talk about “sphere of cooperation” to divert attention away from China’s pursuit of “sphere of interest” in trouble spots around the world.
Americans whose ulterior motive is to advance the future prosperity and security of their country should turn to the work of the USCC for a realistic view of the U.S. –China rivalry.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
