Why U.S., China Destined to Clash

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Why U.S., China Destined to Clash

By Minxin Pei

Forty years after Nixon’s extraordinary visit to China, a clash of political systems exists that not even shared economic interests can mask.
...

So this past week, four decades after the Nixon visit, the verdict is in: China has been the clear winner. Luckily, the U.S. didn’t lose, either. It has been a rare win-win game in geopolitics. Nevertheless, even in this win-win situation, China has undoubtedly gained far more than the United States. The tallying of such relative gains makes one wonder why so many Chinese elites should harbor such anti-American resentments today.
...

The underlying reason for the mutually beneficial U.S.-China relations since the Nixon visit is quite clear. The two countries shared important interests: security against the Soviet threat during the Cold War and growing economic benefits from trade and investment after the Cold War.
...

But today, the structure of U.S.-China relations has changed beyond recognition. In terms of security, they have become quasi-competitors, instead of quasi-allies, each viewing the other as a potential threat and planning their national defense strategies accordingly. Their economic relations have grown interdependent and have formed the most solid basis for continuing cooperation. But even here, strains have emerged, in particular in the form of massive bilateral trade deficits originating in part from China’s undervalued currency and restrictions on market access by U.S. firms.

The ideological conflict – between American liberal democracy and China’s one-party state – has grown sharper in recent years. Those who advocate engagement with China have based their argument on the assumption that China’s economic modernization and integration with the West will promote political change and make the one-party state more democratic. This “liberal evolution” theory has sadly not panned out. Instead of embracing political liberalization, the Chinese Communist Party has grown more resistant to democratization, more paranoid about the West, and more hostile to liberal values.

As a result, of the three pillars of U.S.-China relations, security, economy, and ideology, only one – shared economic interests — remains standing. In the realm of security and ideology, U.S.-China relations are growing more competitive and antagonistic. If anything, strategic competition will most likely become the principal feature of U.S.-China relations for the foreseeable future – as long as China’s one-party state remains in power. The underlying cause isn’t difficult to identify. Because genuine strategic trust is impossible between an America infused with liberal democratic values and a China ruled by a one-party state, the security competition between the U.S. and China will only intensify. Chinese leaders shouldn’t bemoan the so-called “trust deficit” because they know very well why it exists. In addition, the political economies of a liberal democracy (which favors free competition) and an autocratic regime (which favors state control) are fundamentally at odds with each other. Such institutional differences are responsible for economic policies that are bound to collide with each other. So the risks that even shared economic interests between the U.S. and China could erode as a consequence of the clash of their political systems are real.

Such a pessimistic forecast of the future of U.S.-China relations may not be appropriate for marking the 40th anniversary of the Nixon visit. Yet, if one accepts the premise that the persistence of one-party rule in China, not American desire for containment of a rising power, is the fundamental obstacle to an enduring cooperative and friendly Sino-American relationship for the foreseeable future, we will do ourselves a huge favor by acknowledging this reality and trying to change it.
Why U.S., China Destined to Clash | The Diplomat

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This is Cold War thinking. The USSR did not trade with the rest of the world, and it had a closed-off economy that actually shrunk every single year. During the Cold War, the world was divided into several camps that were openly hostile against each other.

Today is an entirely different scenario. China actually benefits the most from the current global status quo, since we are by FAR the fastest growing major economy in the world. Economic/political cooperation, while maintaining the status quo is the best option for us.

If America wants to regain the advantage in this scenario, they need to reform their economy away from debt-fueled consumerism, and bring back manufacturing to America. Rebuilding a national manufacturing base though, is a process that would take 10 years at the minimum. And so far, no American politician has been willing to risk their political careers for that.

 

[longyi]

The truth is US and China are already clashing in almost in everything. In American politics they always need an imaginary evil country so that their politicians can bash it in order to gain political capitals.

 

[fly2012]

If anything, strategic competition will most likely become the principal feature of U.S.-China relations for the foreseeable future – as long as China’s one-party state remains in power.

That's the reason I never like authors with a strong political ideology. They always reach a conclusion around their beliefs before checking the reality. US-China competition has little to do with one party state system. 40 years ago China was like today's North Korea but US and China had a much better relationship. Today's completion is all about resource, energy, capital etc. There're more and more anti-China voices in the media even China is way more democratic than the Nixon days. It is all about economics.

Also, what's the definition of "clash"?? If it is a hot war, I don't that's going to happen. Otherwise the two country are already clashing, which is not necessarily a bad thing to either side. Competition makes everyone better.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

They had been quasi-allies, but nowaday many of questions are raised as to why is more hostile even conflict between them? China has more benefits from that relationship, why today many Chinese are hostile to Americans? I like the article because it answered the questions.

 

[The SC]

Competition creates clashes.
Aggressive competition creates aggressive clashes.
Since capitalism is about competitiveness the hole world is clashing somehow.
This is far from the Ideal world where everyone can fulfil his needs.
The western mode of capitalism is more animalistic than humane since it is based on survival for the fittest.
Understanding this principle of the animal kingdom, the humankind can do nothing but clash violently most of the time .
So, it is not just China vs The US, It is the hole aggressive western way of life_anywhere it might be_ vs the more humane and moderate eastern way of life.
But since the Eastern World has more experience in life(civilisation) matters than the western bloc, the highest probability of survival favors the eastern world.

 

[longyi]

Instead of saying China is hostile to US you could say China is being put on a defensive position by US. The US Administration, the Congress, Federal Agencies and some part of the medias go out of their ways to search for China misbehavior so that they can use them to go against her. Just this week the Congress was in such a hurry to pass a bill that levy heavy duties against China imports. And this same bill was struck down by the Supreme Court awhile back. This is one of many examples.

I read news like that every day. So, how would you expect China to react.

Answering Battle of Bach Dang River

 

[canadian icehole]

Instead of saying China is hostile to US you could say China is being put on a defensive position by US. The US Administration, the Congress, Federal Agencies and some part of the medias go out of their ways to search for China misbehavior so that they can use them to go against her. Just this week the Congress was in such a hurry to pass a bill that levy heavy duties against China imports. And this same bill was struck down by the Supreme Court awhile back. This is one of many examples.

I read news like that every day. So, how would you expect China to react.

Answering Battle of Bach Dang River

I get the feeling that some members of Congress will pass bills knowing full well that it would be stuck down, just to show to their voters that they "did something" while in office.

 

[longyi]

I get the feeling that some members of Congress will pass bills knowing full well that it would be stuck down, just to show to their voters that they "did something" while in office.

The bill was passed almost unanimously. Unless Obama veto, it will stay. The point is why the Congress takes such swift action.

US Congress always treat China as a subordinated third world evil nation. They never recognized China's success. If it wasn't the Administrations, included the Bush's, defended China actions in the last decade, war probably started already if the Congress behavior was a guide.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

self deleted.

 

[shuttler]

If Obama does not veto the bill, then a ferocious trade war is bound to happen. China will retaliate. We will stop buying soy beans from the american farmers who have been receiving billions of government subsidies to facilitates their exports.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

I think All is not outside the conflict two of three pillars as the article analyzed: Security and Ideology. The ideological conflict between one side encourage of freedom (human, social and economic manager) and other side encourage of complete rule (human, social and economic manager) by Communist party.
The security conflict caused by the increase in China's muscle strength , while the U.S does not want to lose the dominant position of its.

 

[kalu_miah]

Large civilizational states with billion plus population, like China and India, are unique to the world. No other states come close to their size. List of countries by size:
List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the last 1000 years or so, both of these regions have been subjugated, humiliated, both have pent up frustration and victim hood complex and naturally will want to reassert their power on the global arena as soon as possible.

The US, in order to fight the Soviets, took China under its wing. But once the Soviet Union broke apart, it should have disengaged from China. It was a critical mistake, in my opinion. Problem for the US is that its controlled by an oligarchy that does not care about its own long term future, feel responsible for global stability or listen to the rare sane voices. Short term policy of making money by the elite 1% trumps any long term concern. So China, with its authoritarian govt. and strict labor control and other incentives was able to lure in the manufacturing sector. If I were in charge of US and EU national security, I would advise the US and EU to slowly disengage from China, as continued engagement will be suicidal for the West, instead it would be better for the West to build up and engage the Unions of smaller states I recommended here who will remain dependent and allied for the foreseeable future:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/164048-kalu_miahs-new-world-order-road-map-future.html

My apologies to the Chinese, I don't mean to be hostile to the Chinese, but I am writing objectively about my observations and opinions on the trends in the big picture, as I see them. And I would not worry too much, because the 1% oligarchy of USA and EU are invested in China, they will not disengage, even if continued engagement means suicide for the West. Mainly two reasons:

- probably White Western or US exceptionalism and feeling of superiority and invincibility (a confidence that non white China or India will never be able to reach their level)
- 1% oligarchy and its control of media and politics and continued inertia and resistance to change

So, my prediction is that, there will be a lot of political posturing, but if China plays its cards right, it will be the winner at least in the first round, but it has to avoid mistakes. I will go into those, if anyone is interested.

For one thing, I am an insignificant little Bangladeshi-American, not close to any policy establishment, so no one really cares or listens to what I have to say. But I present my views anyways, mainly because I want to find weaknesses and faults in the model I have constructed for the world system and its transformation in the coming decades, so at least I would be able find out that my model works and the best part of course is that I want to have the pleasure to say "I told you so" .

Even if China is the winner in the first round, I would advise the smaller states of the world to stick with the West for the time being, because despite all its racism, plunder and wrong doing over the centuries, it shares its living spaces with others in the world. Do we see China or India welcoming the refugees of the world or making them one of their own? So far only the West does that. Till I see such open mind and generosity on the part of China or India, which may take 50-100 years or more, I would advise the smaller states in the rest of the world to throw their lot with the people with more generous heart, regardless of their past mistakes. And of course getting organized into the Unions will be absolutely important to bargain with the status quo and emerging powers.

Among all the nations, I would expect the Japanese and Koreans to wake up first, take notice and make moves to ensure their security.

 

[shuttler]

I think All is not outside the conflict two of three pillars as the article analyzed: Security and Ideology. The ideological conflict between one side encourage of freedom (human, social and economic manager) and other side encourage of complete rule (human, social and economic manager) by Communist party.
The security conflict caused by the increase in China's muscle strength , while the U.S does not want to lose the dominant position of its.

Bill Clinton has something like this written on his wall in his oval office: "It is the economy, idiots!"
Of course China will keep building our military strength when there is a big wolf around. We are nuke capable. China has repeatedly saying there are enough rooms for both China and US. If the US politicians/ think tanks fail to understand this they should get fired!

 

[gambit]

This is Cold War thinking. The USSR did not trade with the rest of the world, and it had a closed-off economy that actually shrunk every single year. During the Cold War, the world was divided into several camps that were openly hostile against each other.

Wrong. The Soviets had an active foreign policy, only that they traded with the rest of the communist bloc.

Today is an entirely different scenario. China actually benefits the most from the current global status quo, since we are by FAR the fastest growing major economy in the world. Economic/political cooperation, while maintaining the status quo is the best option for us.

If America wants to regain the advantage in this scenario, they need to reform their economy away from debt-fueled consumerism, and bring back manufacturing to America. Rebuilding a national manufacturing base though, is a process that would take 10 years at the minimum. And so far, no American politician has been willing to risk their political careers for that.

How do you explain this...

U.S. manufacturing is No. 1, for now - Business - US business - Made in America - msnbc.com

Yet America remains by far the No. 1 manufacturing country. It out-produces No. 2 China by more than 40 percent. U.S. manufacturers cranked out nearly $1.7 trillion in goods in 2009, according to the United Nations.