It’s a bold call to draw parallels between current great power dynamics and pre-World War I tensions in Europe, but that’s exactly what Telegraph columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard did yesterday looking at the ongoing spats between the US and China.
He writes:
‘China has succumbed to hubris. It has mistaken the soft diplomacy of Barack Obama for weakness, mistaken the US credit crisis for decline, and mistaken its own mercantilist bubble for ascendancy. There are echoes of Anglo-German spats before the First World War, when Wilhelmine Berlin so badly misjudged the strategic balance of power and over-played its hand.’
It’s perhaps a little early to be drawing these kind of comparisons, but the issue that he picks up on as arguably the most critical at the moment is pressure on China over its currency. He’s in good company—Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman also took up the issue in his New York Times column Sunday, following up on an earlier post calling for a tougher US response.
Krugman argues:
‘Some still argue that we must reason gently with China, not confront it. But we’ve been reasoning with China for years, as its surplus ballooned, and gotten nowhere: on Sunday Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, declared — absurdly — that his nation’s currency is not undervalued. (The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the renminbi is undervalued by between 20 and 40 percent.) And Mr. Wen accused other nations of doing what China actually does, seeking to weaken their currencies “just for the purposes of increasing their own exports.”
‘But if sweet reason won’t work, what’s the alternative? In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.’
I’ll be speaking to some analysts myself this week and will share their take on all this when I get the chance.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Concerned American
Niall Ferguson has made the same comparison to Pre-WWI. I’m not sure about how definitively we can draw parallels, but undoubtedly China poses a long-term strategic threat to American interests. And as an American, I grow tired of our forces fighting in the deserts of the Middle East. It’s time we find a worthy adversary that can serve to mobilize and unify our politics and nation.
So bring it on, China. Your hubris and disrespect to the global order will only alienate you further, while America slowly but surely moves troops from the Middle East to where they belong–in PACOM, off your coasts, watching your futile efforts to build a modern military force. Anyone who doubts this should feel free to research our recent buildup on the military colony of Guam. Why do you think we are placing 8,000 some Marines, along with another permanently stationed offshore aircraft carrier?
For if history is any indication, when America is pushed to shove, when you force our hand, we will respond with a force unlike any other. America didn’t work this hard to become global hegemon post-WWII to throw it out the window because some psuedo-Chinese communists think they have an idea how to rule the world.
Concerned Australian
I agree with you. People can no longer tell the good guys from the bad guys. China is an evil dictatorship, and the tree of freedom sometimes requires blood. Here we go again, trouble is they have little respect for life their own or others. Their leaders speak of losing 500 million of their own to win the global nuclear war with the US.
I value my Western Judeo-Christian Enlightenment values and would rather die than see our civilisation subject to them. Then again what did Patton say about winning wars and dying for your country ;-)
Concerned Australian
I am with my Concerned American colleague above, who seems alive to the dangers and future threats that the amoral, and brutal and illegitimate PRC regime presents to the civilized world. Consider the following.
1. Legitimate governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed (provided that that consent is not invalidated by lack of the four freedoms [i.e. Freedom of (1) speech and expression, (2) religion, (3) from want, (4) from fear.] The Beijing Regime might be technically (as per international law) legitimate, as was Hitler’s after his ascension to the Chancellory, but by moral and Jeffersonian standards they are illegitimate.
2. Just powers depend upon a judicial process free from political interference. (The Beijing Regime’s references to the “rule of law” within their country, do not acknowledge the fact that the courts are wholly beholden to the so called communist party, and such hypocrisy is typical of that regime)
3. More people have died under the Beijing Regime since 1949 than died in all of World War II (Think about this and what it means)
4. At their recent Party Congress, the Regime’s Head Wen spoke of the advantages of socialism in managing the economy. This is a gross distortion. Socialism involves the good of many, but in the Regime’s China, socialism involves a tiny minority (the party and its friends) getting mega-rich off the backs of the many. Land is stolen, people are silenced, the police are bought, and if you have friends in the party and therefore the police, you get rich at others’ expense. The Chinese branches of the Boston Consulting Group, on the Chinese government’s behalf, published an investigative report in 2006, which indicated the top 1% of Chinese population) owns over 70% of the nation’s wealth (compared with 40% in the US).
5. The disparity of income and injustice involved, is of course far, far worse and more ominous than even these figures suggest, because most large commercial enterprises are state owned and controlled. In the US and the free west, the Government, who has a monopoly on force (but lacks control of the Court) does not also, in effect own most of the nation’s wealth.
Caution should be exercised before welcoming the Beijing Regime’s to the World Economy and celebrating their economic activity as something good, however cheap the TV’s. A better analogy might be to imagine a-USSR-like regime where instead of collapse, the Kremlin insinuated itself into every successful business, grew extremely rich and powerful and re-armed while maintaining an iron fisted control, persecuting any church or religious group and anyone that complained loudly.
6. In the West, Stock Exchanges the private wealth of individuals and large corporations. The big players in the markets in China are, mostly controlled or owned by the government, that is the one-party state that owns 70% (and rising) of China’s wealth. This is a concentration of wealth and power unheard of anywhere in the world. We have monopoly controls in Western markets and recognise the distortions this causes. There is no evidence that this entity is committed to fairness or decency, in addition to this wealth they control the courts and “punish” anyone who doesn’t give them what they want (like a bandit or a stand-over man) by saying they “stole state secrets”. e.g. An American and an Australian executive are currently in jail indefinitely with this charge (“stealing state secrets”) when the offending material they had was freely available in the public domain.
It is really important to fully understand this. China is NOT a capitalist country, and NOT a communist country either. They are like nothing we have seen, except, perhaps the 3rd Reich. The ruling party is massively wealthy (perhaps, like the largest 40 companies in the USA put together) 1% of the country, who use force to get their way and who have no regard for their own laws, only their power and wealth. When the private sector suffers, the state owned publicly listed companies do very well – this suggests something unpleasant also.
7. On the international scene self-interest, which is a characteristic of all nations, is taken to a hideous extreme by the Beijing regime who have no decent morality and support the worst violators of human rights (Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma etc)
8. We are beginning to see their true colours (they were always evident if you understood what they were doing in terms of religious & sect persecution, Tibet Xinjiang, The Republic of China (Taiwan) and the jailing and beating of parents who protest about their kids being killed by corruptly built buildings killing schoolchildren, or when corrupt officials transmit HIV/AIDS to the innocent when buying their blood – YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE POLITICAL TO BE BRUTALLY SUPPRESSED – although anyone with a decent set of ethics and morality is recognised as an enemy by a regime that has none and who lies to the world and its people.
9. Unfortunately, we are making it easy for them, the Air Forces of the free west have not kept up and SecDef is asleep. 187 F-22’s will not deal with the proliferation of “anti-access” weapon systems around the globe and the development of Soviet era weapons to a point that our control of the skies and seas is no longer the sure thing it was. WE HAVE A sub-PEER competitor, time to launch the project for the New American (Western Enlightment) Century in Earnest.
10. When China takes Taiwan, it will be the Sudetenland, or Poland – and they boast of being tougher and truly more of a Master Race than the Germans once claimed.(Chi Haotian)
Concerned Anti-Jingoist
Hey Guys, that’s a really interesting tapestry of truth and deception you’ve woven there. But do you really think we should fight Jingoism with Jingoism? Fear-mongering half-truths with the same? If you guys are really interested in defending western Enlightenment principles, shouldn’t you be insisting on a more spartan delivery of the truth without the rhetorical crutch? Peace.
Concerned Australian
Regards fighting “jingoism with Jingoism” I agree probably not much value in it. But I am a feeling human being – a spartan delivery of the truth may be like talking about the holocaust in dry historical tones. As for “Fear mongering” – mate, if you there you are dealing with a psychopath, maybe it is appropriate to be wary of his motives and never put yourself in a position where your existence depends upon his mercy or generosity. If you are really comfortable with your well being being dependent on the good will of the Chinese you had better be ready to be their slave or their puppet. They do not have a good record of affording mercy or due process to anyone wh dares to challenge them, especially when they are strong – your partner had a second child? Sorry, give me the foetus! You worship a Christian God? – Sorry no job, you want me to pay market price for Iron Ore? – Sorry, That bus timetable is a state secret – off to gaol!, You want to meet the Dalai Lama in your own country? – How dare you insult us! You want us to stop selling arms to Mugabe and the Burmese? – How dare you infringe our sovereignty! You want us to stop stealing from Western Firms? – Prove it! You want us to stand up for human rights in the UN? – Sovereignty is our real concern – we don’t care about the lives of others?
As for your comment about “fear-mongering half-truths” I’m not sure I understand.
I am concerned that many lovely middle class people, with their short memories and good manners view it as utterly unthinkable that any other ethnic group might be a threat to them.
Describing anyone as a threat is not very nice is it?
Perhaps it matters that you and I can say what we think, protest about something and if one of our family is killed by government corruption or the land stolen which our families occupied for generations we can say something without being brutalised, and for scandals of that type a fairy senior head will roll (Respondeat superior) Before you get back to whatever comfortable world view you occupy, you might take a minute to reflect on the spirit and character of the rulers of a country where the number of brutally repressive situations, often occurring for minor or apolitical reasons, beggars belief. Our leaders are not responsible for all the bad in our countries, but the state does not exert the same control & influence or act as brutally. (Or are you so racist that the 60 million that died in China after WWII don’t really matter and we should not get all bothered, coz they’re really lovely and just a bit different to us? -I’m sure you are not)
None so blind as he who will not at least look. If you do look consider why it would matter if it happened to you? If it would matter, why doesn’t it matter that it happens to them? Then join the dots and reflect on what it means about the rulers of that place.
In my country I protested against the treatment of refugees fleeing persuction and locked up by the Government as well as what I thought was a war for oil. Many things are wrong and unjust, but when you consider the number and scope and underlying contempt for the rights and well being of others, AND the brutality they use to stop it, you can only have a level of concern that makes you at least express a view. You have probably had a view or two about your own country, no doubt based on some sort of logic or belief, I find it hard to beleive that if you applied your belief system to the actions of the Beijing Regime you would consider there was nothing to worry about or that concern was just fear mongering. (By the way I have a Chinese parent – this is not a race issue for me but a morality one)
(A lot of lovely gentlemen did not want to intervene to stop the Jewish pogroms across Europe)
Jacob Gerber
Hmmm… To respond or not? I think not. peace.
Leonard R.
The analogy to pre-World War I is pretty obvious, except to the Chinese government. That’s probably because they know very little about World War I.
There are other analogies throughout Western History though,
the Punic Wars for instance.
I’m a Conservative. Krugman is a Liberal. But I agree with everything he writes
about China. And I disagree with almost everything else he writes.
I think it is very possible for the partisanship in America to stop on the issue of China. It seems to be the one issue in America where Liberals and Conservatives agree. Neither group likes China. And I see a growing consensus in America against it.
That’s a good sign.