zenpundit.com

MORE PNM: COMMENTING ON THE THEORY OF A PEACEFULLY RISING CHINA

Recently on his blog, Dr. Barnett posted his key observations regarding prospects for a ” Peacefully Rising China “that he delivered to Chinese academics in Beijing. His original points are in bold, my observations follow each of his points:

“o The biggest fear I have about China is a collapse of its internal banking system. In fact, that is the biggest fear I have right now for globalization as a whole.”

No argument here. If you look at the economic problems nearby Japan has had since the collapse of their ” bubble ” you will see as one cause the cozy relationship that Japanese banks had with Keiretsu partners and the bureaucratic administrators at the Ministry of Finance. Decisions regarding investment too frequently revolved around personal obligation and loyalty relationships and prestige than the cold-eyed objectivity of the market. As a result, the Japanese economy has been saddled with mountains of bad debt that their political system, with it’s diffused authority by consensus paradigm, cannot muster the will to tackle forthrightly.

China’s still opaque political economy makes that situation worse than in Japan where decision-making is far more transparent by comparison. Networks of CCP cadres, endemic corruption and the overriding and very real political need to transition the dinosaur-like ” Iron Rice Bowl ” industries to the modern world prevent rational liquidation of bankrupt enterprises. Hanging over this mess is the ultimate need to make the Yuan a fully convertible currency on par with the Yen, Dollar and Euro – the only way China will become regarded as a fully fledged world power is when it gives up the advantage of running their economy on fiat ” funny money”. The world economy weathered the market discipline imposed on the Thais and Malays but a drastic devaluation of the Yuan – something that is probably inevitable – will be a tremendous shock.

o It makes sense for China’s 4th generation leadership to focus more on China’s rural poor than the 3rd generation did. It will keep China from destabilizing over the near term far better than any saber-rattling on Taiwan.”

Agreed. My caveat remains that a dip in economic growth and the uncertainty and status anxiety that will be spurred in China’s urban new middle-class might tempt the regime or nationalist elements within the PLA and CCP to use Taiwan as a distraction. That’s not troublesome so long as the hardline elements are only cheerleading the tough but empty rhetoric on the fringes of power; if they gain real inside political leverage over modernizing moderates we could have a very serious problem. Obviously, Taipei’s behavior can also effect this equation – a flagrant provocation, like a snap declaration of independence that embarrasses Beijing will get a response. China doesn’t have the logistical ability to mount an invasion, at least a successful one, but they can inflict catastropic damage on Taiwan.

o “I fear that the 3rd generation leaders still clinging to their last vestiges of power (Jiang Jemin especially) are seeking to push the Taiwan issue in order to record that historical notch on their belts before they leave the stage, and so I hope that this temptation will pass without incident, because I believe that China’s vision for economic and political integration in Asia needs to be so much bigger than simply trying to get Taiwan back in the fold.”

There is a real power struggle going on in China between Jiang and Hu that should not be mistaken for a simple clash of personalities between two men. Jiang’s refusal to leave the scene gracefully is a violation of the retirement policy of former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. Deng wanted China to avoid repeating the turbulence of his own power struggle with Hua Guofeng and the Gang of Four. Reliving the mad dotage of Mao’s later years or the decrepit public senility of the USSR under Brezhnev and Chernenko was another concern of Deng’s. Jiang is hanging on to power because lots of similarly placed 3rd generation cronies are also loath to leave the perks of power and office to their juniors.

A ” Confucian Economic Community ” is a real possibility, at least on paper since the economies of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Maylasia and Thailand more than balance out China’s. However, being asked as geopolitical mice to lay with an elephant is probably a bit much to expect. Balancing China out with the eventual inclusion of India, Australia, the U.S., Canada and key Latin american states in a ” Pacific Rim Common Market ” might be more reassuring to the smaller states sense of security – just as tying in Japan can reassure Beijing.

o I said that China’s biggest challenge externally comes in the form of Beijing progressively enunciating a political and economic unifying concept that’s larger than “China” but that is based around China’s rising economic power. In short, Beijing needs to present to Asia and the world a vision of regional integration based on something bigger (and less threatening) than just “rising China.” That is why I think the Theory of Peacefully Rising China is so important; it corresponds to the “happy ending” story that China needs to be telling the world right now, just like the U.S. needs to be selling some vision of a “happy ending” regarding the GWOT. Otherwise, fear will prevail, and China cannot afford the friction generated by that fear.”

The medium is the message in international relations and this is good advice. To use the GWOT example, America under the Bush administration has used ” hard power ” too exclusively when there are other arrows in the quivver. I’m all for using force with shocking ruthlessness against ” the bad guys ” but we have been neglecting the positive memes and diplomatic-economic policies that need to accompany military force to win the GWOT. China too scares it’s neighbors whether Beijing cares to admit or not and these countries can see China more easily as the New Germany circa 1900 than the new U.S. circa 1900 unless China begins a policy of engagement.

o “I pushed the notion that China needed to keep up its relatively swift pace of economic, social and political reforms because if it did not, then gaps would open up between the rest of the Core and China regarding security issues such as Taiwan, North Korea and the Middle East in general. Specifically on those three issues, I said that nothing that Taiwan could do or say would really change the reality of its progressive economic (and ultimately political) integration with the mainland, so China needed to find its confidence level on that one and not let the talk out of Taipei rattle it so. On North Korea, I pushed the notion that an Asian NATO should logically arise out of the “victory” that should soon end the horrific regime that is Kim Jong Il’s leadership of that nation. So China needs to define what is a win-win for everyone on that score, and begin that dialogue with the U.S. as soon as possible, because it’s eventually going to happen and it should happen on our preferred timetable rather than on Kim’s crazy one.”

No real disagreement here. What Dr. Barnett is asking for though is as revolutionary in terms of Beijing’s foreign policy as his realistic call for two operative Rule Sets – one for within the Core and one for within the Gap – is in international law. China has always championed ” noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign states ” no matter how ghoulish the regime. China went to war with Vietnam in 1979 mostly over power politics, Vietnam being a Soviet client, but in part to punish Hanoi for their intervention in Cambodia that toppled Pol Pot’s psychopathic genocide state. China knows Kim is a troublesome nut but unfortunately they will not be interested in regime change unless the DPRK does something so stupidly provocative that Beijing can feel secure in washing their hands of Pyongyang.

“On the Middle East, I repeated my usual notion that China was inevitably coming militarily to the region over the next couple of decades, either because the U.S. does a good job of exporting security to the region and China wants to help, or because the U.S. does such a bad job of it that China comes out of fear. Either way, China needs to get its security head straight regarding this inevitable long-term reality, so again, thinking beyond the myopic focus on Taiwan is crucial. o My big point throughout both presentations was that China needs to stop asking itself what the world “owes” it and needs to start asking itself “What the world needs from China.” In short, Beijing itself has the most say over whether or not the Theory of Peacefully Rising China comes to fruition or not. But that future worth creating will only come about as China learns to think more non-zero-sum about global security in general.”

I really like the non-zero sum comment. Dr. Barnett has a more extensive commentary in his book on how much energy China’s economy will require in coming decades will be driving this outcome. On the other hand, if Russia modernizes it’s energy sector to harness Siberia’s riches in a rational way and the Central Asian states begin to exploit their vast oil and gas reserves China’s interests in Mideast oil will be moderated ( Dr. Barnett is correct that their interest will grow regardless – so will India’s).

UPDATE:

Dr. Barnett will be having several of his talks televised on C-span.

AN ALLIANCE OF NECESSITY ?

This is a passing thought more than a substantive post but it seems to me that increasingly America’s alliances will become dissected by the diverging legal and military realities of the Core and the Gap.

Our political allies will remain the Europeans and Japan – the Kantian Rule set Old Core – that have essentially made the economic choice to eschew the ability to project much military power. Great Britain is currently an exception as they retain substantial military capability and political will to tackle Leviathan type interventions. This however will change when the British begin integrating some of their key combat ready units with those of the French, gaining nothing for British interests but giving Paris an effective veto over British participation in future interventions. As the last few years have shown, if the French have a veto, they will obstruct because they are a status quo power deeply invested in maximizing the spread of Kantian Rule sets in the Core. The world is changing, moving ” backwards” from their perspective and the French are doing their best to yell ” halt! ” ( or ” s’arrêter! ” ).

America’s military allies, and I use the term ” ally” loosely because we are less likely to be bound by formal treaty than by mutual interests, will be the New Core states of Russia, India, China and Israel plus always reliable ” old Core” Australia and the odd opportunistic regional power. Sort of a “Coalitions of the Willing and Able ” scenario. What we have in common with these states is that all of them face potential threats- often from militant Islamists or ethnic separtists- that require real and robust military responses with rules of engagement written by field generals instead of lawyers working for Amnesty International. It is to these states that America will increasingly look to for military cooperation. Indeed, many of the interventions are apt to take place on the Gap borderlands of these New Core states.

UPDATE: No sooner do I write this but I get a report from the Belmont Club regarding the EU reaction to the slaughter in Russia that basically proves my point with greater eloquence than I can muster.

COLLOUNSBURY COMMENTARY

Collounsbury has an excellent deconstruction of the Peter Galbraith review of the American Occupation of Iraq as it was horribly bungled in most every respect by the CPA. The military often performed superbly, particularly in liberating Iraq from Saddam’s megalomaniac despotism but where it needed good civilian direction, advice and support, it received none. Some of what I have received via email from personal reports on the ground in Iraq struck by someone involved on the military operation side of things struck me as both ominous and bizarre at the time. Iraq would never have been easy but done correctly, competently, more ruthlessly with sufficient resources it would not be a country today about to limp off a cliff.

By mishandling Iraq the Bush administration has jeopardized their entire strategy of dealing with the interrelated problems of terror, rogue state behavior, weapons proliferation, radical Islamism and boosted those who want to return to a policy of studiously ignoring the whole mess and papering over strategic problems until the next 9/11 arrives.

ISLAMISM IS BARBARISM

UPDATE – 322 DEAD…MOSTLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN – go here.

The ideology of political Islam, of building an authoritarian dictaorship based on a harsh and selective interpretation of the Sharia has revealed itself as a addicted to pointless nihilism and oriental cruelty. The actions of the Jihadis in Russia, murdering some children and torturing others with stifling confinement and denial of food, water and perhaps worse is simply barbarism. It is also the logical conclusion of the hate-filled, brainwashing doctrines preached in the Madrassas and Mosques, funded by Saudi money and manipulated by agents of Pakistan’s ISI.

The White House spokesman announced support for Russia as a matter of course but a presidential speech might be more appropriate. A gesture that indicates genuine solidarity and support for those who have been victimized by radical Islamists is an important diplomatic signal to send. As would a change of policy to immediately expedite the military tribunals to speedily try suspected terrorists and where found guilty, sentence them to death.

Intelligence is important but so is the power of example. The clerical command and control of terror groups which show little interest in martyrdom for themselves, the spiritual leaders, blind sheiks, would-be Amirs, Saudi millionaire check writers and other gurus of terror, should simply be reclassified as military targets. We need to curtail the production of jihadis by destroying the political support systems that finance and indoctrinate terrorists instead of waiting until they vomit forth small armies that burrow into mid-sized towns or cities in the Muslim world. Better a few thousand dead Madrassa zealots scattered over the globe than thousands of civilian noncombatants every time when we have to dig out some bitter-end Islamist terror cell. Or our own citizen’s bodies from plane wreckage or blown up buildings.

Moreover the case should be made openly, without apology, from the President on down to the humblest second lieutenant that so long as the Jihadis adhere to no precept of humanity, no standard of international law or laws of war, that no quarter will be given since they themselves give none. Transnational Progressive international law scholars and NGO activists want a double-standard where the U.S. is accountable to the most restrictive standards of military operation but our enemies are bound only by the limits of their reach. Let’s give them a single moral standard where lawful foes who themselves respect Geneva are treated as POWs with full rights; those who do not are simply outlaws, on the same dead-end road once trod by pirates, slave traders and the Nuremburg criminals to the hang-man’s rope or the firing squad.

TWO MUST READ POSTS ON TWO GREAT STRATEGIC QUESTIONS FACING THE WORLD

There is a rare conjunction of strategic turning points in world affairs today, any of which will have consequences that will matter a century from now. Globalization is one. The ultimate political form of the European Union is another. The third is the Rise of Radical Islamism. The last is the Rise of China. I recommend two posts on the third and fourth of these questions.

In the first, Dr. Thomas Barnett has blogged on the outline of the talks he gave in China to Chinese academics specializing in foreign relations and security policy. Go read the whole post but here is a critical excerpt:

“o The biggest fear I have about China is a collapse of its internal banking system. In fact, that is the biggest fear I have right now for globalization as a whole.

o It makes sense for China’s 4th generation leadership to focus more on China’s rural poor than the 3rd generation did. It will keep China from destabilizing over the near term far better than any saber-rattling on Taiwan.

o I fear that the 3rd generation leaders still clinging to their last vestiges of power (Jiang Jemin especially) are seeking to push the Taiwan issue in order to record that historical notch on their belts before they leave the stage, and so I hope that this temptation will pass without incident, because I believe that China’s vision for economic and political integration in Asia needs to be so much bigger than simply trying to get Taiwan back in the fold.

o I said that China’s biggest challenge externally comes in the form of Beijing progressively enunciating a political and economic unifying concept that’s larger than “China” but that is based around China’s rising economic power. In short, Beijing needs to present to Asia and the world a vision of regional integration based on something bigger (and less threatening) than just “rising China.” That is why I think the Theory of Peacefully Rising China is so important; it corresponds to the “happy ending” story that China needs to be telling the world right now, just like the U.S. needs to be selling some vision of a “happy ending” regarding the GWOT. Otherwise, fear will prevail, and China cannot afford the friction generated by that fear.

o I pushed the notion that China needed to keep up its relatively swift pace of economic, social and political reforms because if it did not, then gaps would open up between the rest of the Core and China regarding security issues such as Taiwan, North Korea and the Middle East in general. Specifically on those three issues, I said that nothing that Taiwan could do or say would really change the reality of its progressive economic (and ultimately political) integration with the mainland, so China needed to find its confidence level on that one and not let the talk out of Taipei rattle it so. On North Korea, I pushed the notion that an Asian NATO should logically arise out of the “victory” that should soon end the horrific regime that is Kim Jong Il’s leadership of that nation. So China needs to define what is a win-win for everyone on that score, and begin that dialogue with the U.S. as soon as possible, because it’s eventually going to happen and it should happen on our preferred timetable rather than on Kim’s crazy one. On the Middle East, I repeated my usual notion that China was inevitably coming militarily to the region over the next couple of decades, either because the U.S. does a good job of exporting security to the region and China wants to help, or because the U.S. does such a bad job of it that China comes out of fear. Either way, China needs to get its security head straight regarding this inevitable long-term reality, so again, thinking beyond the myopic focus on Taiwan is crucial.

o My big point throughout both presentations was that China needs to stop asking itself what the world “owes” it and needs to start asking itself “What the world needs from China.” In short, Beijing itself has the most say over whether or not the Theory of Peacefully Rising China comes to fruition or not. But that future worth creating will only come about as China learns to think more non-zero-sum about global security in general.”



I’m going to comment on each of Dr. Barnett’s points in a subsequent post but for the moment I’d like to move to the next subject, a post at Caerdroia on the Islamist terrorists taking Russian school children hostage near Chechnya. Jeff Medcalf has grasped the gravity of the Islamists adopting a tactic designed to create the maximum amount of horror and anxiety throughout a civilized society:

” As long as the jihadis are adopting the tactic of attacking children by the hundreds (hat tip: Belmont Club), it’s only a matter of time before we are fighting not against the jihadis, but against all Muslims. Protection of the children is a fundamental aspect of human behavior, and people will not long abide absolute monsters. Between the slaughter of noncombatant adults and the attacks on children, the jihadis are bringing us closer to genocide .”



The Russians have an element of fatalism, sort of a long-suffering political melancholy and civic alienation, regarding their own authorities that will direct some of the public anger at this outrageous attack on school children against the Russian government itself for incompetence. Or send some people into hapless despair. Russia is also not as media dense as the United States with 24/7 500 channel saturation news coverage, over which the Putin government has amassed a preponderant influence in any event. The spin will go in the direction that Vladmir Putin wants it to go.

( Incidentally, assuming the perpetrators are in fact Chechens, this attack demonstrates the lethality of mixing a ritualistically violent tribal code – the Chechen Adat – with the ideologically refined memes of Islamism that break down the restraints of that code and widen the potential targets. Even after the first Russian-Chechen war, it would have been preposterous to expect that a Chechen steeped in Adat would take indiscriminate vengeance against children unrelated to his enemy. We have seen this phenomenon before in Afghanistan where the Taliban imposed a hideous hybrid of Qutbist Islamism and the Pushtunwali code)

However if this move is attempted in the United States by al Qaida – and to an extent a tactic like this is a confession of strategic impotence – the fury of the American public might well exceed that of 9/11. Recall the effect of the Columbine massacre . Now add in Radical Muslim terrorists as the perpetrators.

There are over fifty million k-12 American students. They all have parents who will react to that kind of potential threat to their children with the irresistible weight of a political tsunami.

UPDATE:

Winds of Change has a briefing up with extensive links to the Russian hostage situation.