The prize for China is ejecting the US from Asia, says Madhav Nalapat. Its best chance to claim it? NATO’s defeat in Afghanistan.
One of the reasons the United States and its NATO allies are losing ground to China in the global geopolitical race is the belief in the permanence of tradition and precedent in world affairs—this in an age when paradigm shifts are taking place at an accelerating pace, and when even core realities can change beyond recognition within a decade.
There’s no better example of this trend than the People’s Republic of China itself, which has morphed several times since its founding in 1949. Indeed, to understand present-day China better, and to adjust policy accordingly, some Western analysts might need to set aside the fundamental preconceptions they’ve picked up from studying China’s evolution. Because the fact is, many of them are no longer valid.
Broadly speaking, each decade since 1949 has seen changes in the form and spread of economic progress and societal evolution in China. The first saw the consolidation of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) power. The next, 1959-69, saw the establishment of Mao Zedong’s personal dictatorship over the party. The third, 1969-79, reflected the leadership's efforts at fashioning a strategy for ensuring the global success of China, even if this meant allying itself with the United States. The period from 1979 to 1989 saw the reversal of the economic stagnation of the previous three centuries.
But if the 1990s were a period of experimentation with Western culture and possible strategic alliances, the next decade saw the growth of a Han nationalism that had as its core objective the restoration of China's long-cherished status as the world’s leading nation. This was reflected in a deepening self-reliance in technology as well as a geopolitical push to wrest primacy from the United States—first in Asia and Africa, before moving on to South America and finally Europe.
Because China has emerged as a serious challenger to US pre-eminence, it’s not surprising that one of the arenas of confrontation is Afghanistan. If this rivalry hasn’t received the attention that it’s due, it’s more than likely because China has typically attempted to fulfil its objectives there in as ‘silent’ a way as it can (this is in stark contrast with the United States, which usually advertises its engagement and confrontation, in part to bolster perceptions of US global primacy).
Many of those who suffer the misfortune of still remembering the words of Rudyard Kipling believe that the present Afghan situation resembles his ‘Great Game,’ which was played out between the British and Russian empires for mastery of Central Asia. But while current events in Afghanistan are indeed following an already-trodden path, it’s one that’s less 19th century and more 20th —specifically the 1980s. In this age of accelerating change, history seldom gets repeated beyond a 20-year cycle (a cycle which itself is likely to shorten further).
Photo Credit: Richard Fisher
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
John Chan
I hope nobody in India government takes the ideas from the author seriously. The article is full of greater Hinduism paranoid. One of the bad analyses is that China wants the US to leave Afghanistan. The presence of the US in Afghan shields a lot Muslim problems for China. Now China can focus on doing business with the Muslims instead of dealing confrontational issues with the Muslims. At the same time the PLA can learn a lot of the real military arts from the US in Afghan without costs. If the US leaves Afghan, Pakistan will no long get aids from the US and it has to face the Taliban along. Making the US to leave Afghan seems not a cost effective move for both Pakistan and China.
I can assure the author that China has no desire to invade India. China has enough problems to feed its 1.3 billion mouths, taking on responsibilities to feed additional 1.3 billion mouths in India; the leadership in China would be either nuts or idiots. China only wants to protect its sovereignty, even the 1962 war with India was forced upon China by Nehru’s forward policy, which was a handy work of CIA. Pakistan faces a hostile neighbor 10 times of its size, which posts millions of soldiers along their common border. The alliance between Pakistan and China is to keep Pakistan independent and China from being attacked both sides by the US, Japan and India.
China does not hate USA, it just wants the US not to interfere its internal affairs, such as Taiwan, and sling guns in front of its door. The US is China’s biggest customer, no one want his biggest source of income gets hurt.
Western government structure, which was copied by India, has been practiced many times in the China’s history. The West has too short of history to know its pitfalls. PLA is always an apparatus of CCP, all orders in PLA have to be approved by an CCP officer. State council and PLA are separated organs that govern China. The author seems not knowing this basic fact.
India and China are two oldest civilizations in the world; they shouldn’t be fooled by a young kid on the block, the US, into destroying the peace and prosperity between them. The hostile rhetoric in this article is undermining China’s effort to rise peacefully.
Sam Jha
Mr. John Chan stated that China has experimented with the western democracy many times before, that I understand from your statement that you are communist, or a simpathiser. If you are one, please dont get into this discussion as people like u abd your govt. dont support freedom of expression.
John Chan
@Sam Jha, you are wrong quoting me stating “China has experimented with the western democracy many times before.” A government structure has nothing to do democracy. I only said “the western government structure has been practiced many times in the China’s history.” Because it is necessary to dispel Madhav’s effort using China’s non-western government structure to demonize China. As matter of fact China did experiment democracy in the beginning of Zhou Dynasty. The Diplomat is a forum for sharing ideas free from fear, the different ideas put up in the Diplomat is the freedom of expression in real form. Only people in the dictator governments prevent people sharing ideas like you do. It’s year 2010, humanity has passed the dark age of McCarthyism and Nazism. So please do not frame me as a commie like McCarthy and Nazi, so that you can silence me. This article misled the general public about China, printed China in a totally distorted image. As a Chinese regardless his nationality, it is his duty to correct the misinformation presented in this article. I have the full right to participate in the discussion of this article because it’s about China. In fact the people who are undermining China’s effort to rise peacefully must refrain themselves from being exposed as neo-cons who are trying to destroy the peace and prosperity of the world for their own greed and benefits.
Chris
I’ll be more direct. Sam Jha, you are framing an argument in terms of who is communist and who is not. Just because Mr. Chan defends China, doesn’t mean he is a communist, and even if he is, that shouldn’t preclude him from making informed opinions on a matter, something you have failed to do.
Hariharan
This is an excelllent article. There has been a lot of talk about “Asian triumphalism” and how the West is going to have to come to terms with its declining role in global affairs. Some Americans think that the West still has a disproportionate share of global power. China should hope that it does not catch America’s disease.
A subtle mistake in this article is to equate the West with the United States only while ignoring the European Union almost completely — a conglomerate of 27 nations, 500 million people, and a GDP of $16.8 trillion — an amount estimated to be 30% of the world’s GDP. The GDP of the United States is comparable to Europe and is miles ahead of the PRC.
Is China in a geopolitical push to wrest primacy from the United States -— first in Asia and Africa, before moving on to South America and finally Europe?
China doesn’t even have a credible plan for Asia, let aside other continents. It is not China but Western scholars who have called for reforming global institutions like the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the G-8 — to give Asia full representation. And yet one of the key blockers of the proposed Security Council reforms which would have finally brought in India, Brazil, South Africa, and other developing countries was China — because it could not digest the idea of India and Japan joining the Security Council. Furthermore, a foreign policy tailored to infuriate neighbors over childlike territorial disputes clearly shows that China can’t see beyond its limited self-interests and does not have a long-term plan or vision for “Asia.”
Secondly, the transatlantic hemisphere is squarely under Western control, which includes Europe all the way to Russia, North America, Central and South America, and Africa. It will remain as such.
> This is why the PLA is even willing to make a foe of India—riling Delhi over Kashmir
The US doesn’t rile Western alliances or make much ado about nothing. China’s dumb display of its newfound muscle wherever it can is not a recipe for a stable Asia. The world let China double up on its size to include Tibet and Xinjiang. But China’s expansionism must stop. In fact, China should take the lead to assure its neighbors via treaties and through the UN. Until that happens, there’s a strong case for Asian nations to work with China strictly as a trade partner but tilt themselves toward the West on global security issues. China replacing the US as the dominant military power in Asia is much harder an act than what the Chinese strategists would like to assume.
John Chan
The anti-China people on this forum have given too much credit to China. Even China doubles its navy and air force, it still cannot match Japan’s military might. Japan has 2 flat tops, 40 Aegis warships and hundreds of US front line warplanes. Then there are the high tech weapons operated by India, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia. On top of that there is the all mighty US arsenal. If the US, the old imperial powers, Japan, India and Vietnam join hands and conduct a modern Opium War against China, I doubt that even China doubles its military strength can survive that onslaught. The only ways that China to survive a modern Opium War are: 1. Rise peacefully and has enough deterrent to make the instigators to pay a good price for their militarism adventures, which most likely end up in Armageddon for the world. 2. Learn from Israelis on how to fight a multi-fronts war and win. Or 3. Do what the Qing dynasty did in its dying time, pay ransoms to the new imperialists.
Any major reform of UN has to be supported by the majority of the UN members, the nations like Japan, India, etc. fail to convince the majority of UN members to support their proposal of reforming UN Security Council, they should ask themselves why, instead of single out China as a scapegoat for their failure.
Since China is lightweight in GDP and global power comparing to the EU, the US, Japan and India as Hariharan pointed out, as well as it is agreed by all anti-China people on this forum that under the arms embargo by the US and the EU, the China’s arms is no match to the West’s. So all the hysteria about China threat seems crying wolf too often too loud. Is it the shadow of the Mongol conquest still in effect? Or is it a grand conspiracy by the neo-cons to undermine China’s effort to rise peacefully? For the world peace, people should tone down their war charms. Live long and prosper is better than wars.
Rupesh
A very enlightened article indeed, the country that is most affected by US presence in Afghanistan is China that finds an equally concerned partner in the form of Pakistan which is seeing its strategic depth being eroded. China for long has been using Pakistan as a force that may check India from emerging a major challenge in Asia and securing her routes for supply of energy and trade from and with the middle east through Pakistan. The development of Pakistani ports and roads leading to China are the proof of the same. China faces Japan and Vietnam as a challenge to her authority in the east, Australia from south and India from west; all of whom are increasingly associating themselves with US to safeguard their own interest.US on its part along with NATO allies in Europe is facing biggest challenge in the form of China to her economic and military sovereignty that may eventually push her to No.2 position abolishing or significantly reducing the clout and pre-eminence that US enjoys for now as a leading Economic and Military power. Close strategic relations with Europe cemented US’s position against Russians during the cold-war era and same kind of relations with India, Japan Australia, Vietnam and South Korea may ensure an upper-hand for US in her dealings with China in the times to come.