A number of interesting essays over the last week on China
that are worth reading. Dr. C. Raja
Mohan had an excellent
essay on how India should approach China, arguing that “a healthy respect
for China’s power . . . rather than romantic notions about building an Eastern
Bloc against the West, must guide Indian diplomacy.” Romanticism unfortunately dies hard in Indian
foreign policy tradition, so we will have to wait and see how far his advice
finds resonance in Delhi.
The second essay that caught my attention was Geoff
Dyer’s take on China’s rise on the FP website. He argues that despite China’s impressive
rise, “China will not dislodge Washington from its central position in global
affairs for decades to come.” While I
found the essay convincing in many aspects, I did have some issues with
it.
First, the general expectation is not that China will take
over as the global hegemon next year or in a couple of years but only over the
next couple of decades. But Dyer is
definitely right to push back against the over-hyping of the China-rise story
and to that extent his essay is a necessary corrective.
Second, like many American writers, he overemphasizes the US
soft-power advantages. He dismisses the
various efforts that China has taken to spread its soft power including the
setting up of the Confucius Institutes around the world. He is correct about efforts like the
Confucius Institutes – this is nothing but a bureaucratic response to
half-baked notions about cultural soft power.
On the other hand, culture spreads with power: the spread of American
culture began after the US ascended
to hegemony, not before. Did American
culture suddenly become more attractive after the 1950s? Hollywood and Coca Cola predated America’s
rise but became global phenomenon only after – and most likely as a consequence
– of America’s rise. Another example I
use in my class lectures is about the spread of sports: it is not accidental
that former British colonies play cricket and countries like Japan, Philippines
and Cuba play baseball. Culture spreads
with the sword.
If China really becomes the global hegemon, its culture
would become naturally more attractive. Talent
would flock to China, just as it did to European powers such as Britain and
France in the nineteenth and early twentieth century and to the US after 1945. My sense is that too much is made of Chinese
soft-power weakness.
But I do agree with him that given Chinese heavy-handedness
over the last few years, other Asian powers are more likely to join the US to
balance against China, which reduces China’s options. On the other hand, China’s rise will also owe
a lot more to its domestic economic capacity rather than to international
circumstances – the rise and fall of great powers is ultimately the consequence
of domestic efforts though external conditions play a part.
Another notable essay last week was Ian Johnson’s review
of three recent books on China’s rise.
Johnson himself seems to lean towards a somewhat greater skepticism about China’s inevitable rise thesis, but I might be reading more into this
than he intended.
Finally, there was Sergey Radchenko’s great essay, also in
Foreign Policy, about the changing nature of Sino-Russian
relations. These changes have
garnered very little attention in New Delhi though they have an important
impact on India. A dramatic change in
Sino-Soviet relations in October 1962 had disastrous consequences for
India. I am not suggesting that anything
of that nature is afoot, but if the Sino-Russian relationship should move from
being a soft-balance
against the US to something more serious, it will impact India
severely.
To round this up, we also had a visitor at the School of
International Studies, Ron Pruessen,
who gave an excellent lecture about the current US debate about China’s
rise. A historian, Ron was much more
tentative about how these predictions stack-up and what might ultimately
result, but I think that is the prudent way to go. Theorists, of course, are much happier
jumping off prediction peak!
No comments:
Post a Comment