China's 60th Anniversary
I recently commented on several articles over at the Atlantic Community concerning China's 60th anniversary.
Here is the first piece and a synopsis,
"As China rises so too does its ability to gain leverage internationally. Beijing is now using this to gain increasing influence from the Russian Far East to Central Asia and opening up a new sphere of influence regionally signaling that China’s long phase on the periphery may be at an end."
My comment below,
"Indeed the days of a silent China are long gone. However, despite the impressive gains that China has made, as well as its clear potential to evolve into an economic colossus that outstrips the United States, this outcome is not preordained.
Too often, those in the West (of both pro and anti- China persuasions) get lulled into believing into the inevitability of the "Dragon's Rise" without recalling that China used to be one of the largest economies in the world prior to its ill fated encounters with the West and, subsequently, Japan.
While it looks impossible to foresee new "Opium Wars" or new "East Asian Co-Prosperity Spheres" emananting from Tokyo, uncertainty about China's trajectory remains. Can it survive its own economic growth given the fears of global warming? Can it sufficiently resolve rural/urban disparities? Can it secure the necessary natural resources? Can it evolve politically or remain politically stagnant?
Perhaps, there are no looming catastrophes and, perhaps, all of China's apparent future prospects will become reality. Yet, there are enough question marks to make it prudent to consider a narrative different from the dominant "Rise" scenario.
History seems to show that progress is not necessarily linear, but sporadic. Thirty years ago no one would have believed where China would be today. Might not that also be true in another thirty years?"
Here is a second piece and its synopsis:
"If the conventional idea is that liberal democracy is superior to authoritarianism then China’s sustainable rise poses no threat. Either China will eventually become a liberal country or its political system will stunt its growth and it will remain a manageable, medium power."
My comment below,
"For years it has been axiomatic that as an economy liberalizes, so too must its political system. China is going to prove top the ultimate testing ground.
It would seem to be impossible for China to move beyond its current neo-mercantilist, export driven economy and towards a more mature, domestic driven economy without some sort of political liberalization. Indeed, the author of this article makes the point that without political liberalization, China will remain a "manageable, medium power."
This seems likely to be true over the very long horizon. However, that horizon may well be much longer than many, especially American foreign policy practioners, care to admit. China has no intention of following in the footsteps of Mikhail Gorbachev and his "Glasnost" and "Perestroika." That is one of the leadership's key lessons.
Consequently, the single party grip on power will not loosen in the foreseeable future. Though some internal "democratization" has already been tried (and will continue), it will ultimately take several generations of leadership working within a stable system to move towards a position where liberalization is a risk who benefits outweigh the negative potential consequences.
In the meantime, America must continue to hedge its bets with China across a wide range of policy issues."
I anticipate another op-ed being run in the Atlantic Community on China soon too.
Here is the first piece and a synopsis,
"As China rises so too does its ability to gain leverage internationally. Beijing is now using this to gain increasing influence from the Russian Far East to Central Asia and opening up a new sphere of influence regionally signaling that China’s long phase on the periphery may be at an end."
My comment below,
"Indeed the days of a silent China are long gone. However, despite the impressive gains that China has made, as well as its clear potential to evolve into an economic colossus that outstrips the United States, this outcome is not preordained.
Too often, those in the West (of both pro and anti- China persuasions) get lulled into believing into the inevitability of the "Dragon's Rise" without recalling that China used to be one of the largest economies in the world prior to its ill fated encounters with the West and, subsequently, Japan.
While it looks impossible to foresee new "Opium Wars" or new "East Asian Co-Prosperity Spheres" emananting from Tokyo, uncertainty about China's trajectory remains. Can it survive its own economic growth given the fears of global warming? Can it sufficiently resolve rural/urban disparities? Can it secure the necessary natural resources? Can it evolve politically or remain politically stagnant?
Perhaps, there are no looming catastrophes and, perhaps, all of China's apparent future prospects will become reality. Yet, there are enough question marks to make it prudent to consider a narrative different from the dominant "Rise" scenario.
History seems to show that progress is not necessarily linear, but sporadic. Thirty years ago no one would have believed where China would be today. Might not that also be true in another thirty years?"
Here is a second piece and its synopsis:
"If the conventional idea is that liberal democracy is superior to authoritarianism then China’s sustainable rise poses no threat. Either China will eventually become a liberal country or its political system will stunt its growth and it will remain a manageable, medium power."
My comment below,
"For years it has been axiomatic that as an economy liberalizes, so too must its political system. China is going to prove top the ultimate testing ground.
It would seem to be impossible for China to move beyond its current neo-mercantilist, export driven economy and towards a more mature, domestic driven economy without some sort of political liberalization. Indeed, the author of this article makes the point that without political liberalization, China will remain a "manageable, medium power."
This seems likely to be true over the very long horizon. However, that horizon may well be much longer than many, especially American foreign policy practioners, care to admit. China has no intention of following in the footsteps of Mikhail Gorbachev and his "Glasnost" and "Perestroika." That is one of the leadership's key lessons.
Consequently, the single party grip on power will not loosen in the foreseeable future. Though some internal "democratization" has already been tried (and will continue), it will ultimately take several generations of leadership working within a stable system to move towards a position where liberalization is a risk who benefits outweigh the negative potential consequences.
In the meantime, America must continue to hedge its bets with China across a wide range of policy issues."
I anticipate another op-ed being run in the Atlantic Community on China soon too.
Comments