On China
A series of articles putting the future of China as well as our relationship to them in some perspective.
The first, from The Atlantic Monthly discusses how the financial and trade relationship between the US and China as proped up American standards of living (consuming more than producing) while keeping the Chinese standard artificially low. It goes into great detail on the arrangements and policies that both have used vis a vis each other and it is an enlightening read that does not paint a positive picture for the American future. I am not quite as pessimistic, but there are elements of truth here that should be disturbing to the average American. In essence, the Chinese can sink our economy (though it would be just as disasterous for them as well if they did so). The problem is less likely intentional acts, but sort of like the Cold War and "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD), legitimate mistakes and misunderstandings that unintentionally "blow up."
The second article discusses how China's untrammeled pursuit of natural resources is not advanicing the goals of human rights.
The third can be encapsulated in this section and parallels similar postings I have placed here before:
"To come back from near destitution and bloody tyranny in one generation is a great feat, and China should be saluted for it. But China's success story is also the most serious challenge that liberal democracy has faced since fascism in the 1930s. This is not because China poses a great military threat. War with the U.S., or even Japan, is only a fantasy in the minds of a few ultra-nationalist cranks and paranoiacs.
No, it is in the realm of ideas that the China model is scoring victories because the country's material success (despite its consequences for the natural environment) is making its political-economic model look like an attractive alternative to liberal democratic capitalism."
No, it is in the realm of ideas that the China model is scoring victories because the country's material success (despite its consequences for the natural environment) is making its political-economic model look like an attractive alternative to liberal democratic capitalism."
This section also raises a profoundly troubling long-term potential that no sane policymaker should ignore:
"No economy keeps growing at the same pace forever. Crises occur. What if the bargain between the Chinese middle classes and the one-party state were to come unstuck because there is a pause, or even a setback, in the race for ever-more material wealth? This has happened before. The closest thing, in some ways, to the China model is 19th century Germany, with its industrial strength, its cultivated but politically neutered middle class and its tendency toward aggressive nationalism. In the case of Germany, nationalism became lethal when the economy crashed and social unrest threatened to upset the political order.
The same could happen in China, where national pride constantly teeters on the edge of belligerence toward Japan, Taiwan and, ultimately, the West. Aggressive Chinese nationalism, nascent for the moment, could turn lethal too if its economy were to falter and the pact with the middle class were to fall apart.
The only way to deflect domestic unrest would be to deflect it toward targets abroad."
The same could happen in China, where national pride constantly teeters on the edge of belligerence toward Japan, Taiwan and, ultimately, the West. Aggressive Chinese nationalism, nascent for the moment, could turn lethal too if its economy were to falter and the pact with the middle class were to fall apart.
The only way to deflect domestic unrest would be to deflect it toward targets abroad."
Taking the first and third of these articles into an appropriate context- one might conclude that things are good today and may be tomorrow, but risks long forgotten are just beneath the surface (and not merely in the Middle East).
Comments