An analysis of Charles Hudon
On 21 December the Telegraph of London ran a headline: "We need China to act in 'Power Manager'. "Responsible Authority" ... this is a promising concept for the future of international relations. In retrospect, we soon came to wonder about the ins and outs of such an idea. Who defines the criteria to qualify as such? Are there, in the world, a country that does not feel responsible? I guess it is matter of perspective and priority.
In relation to China, speaking of responsibility did not start yesterday. The idea was apparently first brought in December 1994 by the Minister of Defense under the Clinton Administration. Conference at the Defense University of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, the man was then observed that the greatest challenge facing the United States and China in Asia Pacific was to ensure that the region remains prosperous and stable. To this end, the two giants should "demonstrate a deep sense of responsibility."
Today, two schools of thought are competing for the international future of China. The first is that China will use its rising power to forge a place at the expense of weaker nations. The other, however, believes that China's development will lead to the integration of major international institutions are playing a legitimate and constructive role. The latter school of thought emphasizes the need and relevance to welcome China as a new important actor on the international scene, in exchange for China should behave responsibly.
While the Bush administration had avoided taking a clear decision in favor of either of these theories, the Obama team has been much more explicit. If more could have doubts about the position was going to adopt his administration following his swearing, his recent trip to Asia was able to definitively clarify this issue. Central theme during his visit to China, Obama reiterated his desire to see China play a growing role on the international scene, acting as a responsible power. According to strategists in the White House, it would take fewer than 30 years to see China play a leadership role within the international system, however, was mainly created by the United States. This realization led America to believe that China would have the responsibility to protect that system, not to confront in order to weaken it.
The concept of "Power Manager" interested in China. Since the Korean War, which was followed by putting forward a strategy of containment of communism in Asia, China has a bad press in the West. More recently, the tragic events in Tiananmen Square and the Taiwan missile crisis of 1995-1996 have not helped the situation. More isolated structures such as the Clash of Civilizations Samuel Huntington, in which he introduced the Confucian culture as a natural enemy of the West, or other works alarmists, such as Dragon awakening , have only put oil on the fire. Crowned by a new fear of an invasion of "Made in China", these designs are now negative aspects of one whole, the "China Threat Theory", a term which China would like to discard.
Master slogans in politics Internally, however, Beijing is having trouble finding one that would be useful in the long term on the international stage. One of the latest discoveries was the concept of 和平 崛起 ( heping jueqi , "peaceful rise" or "peaceful rise"). Very popular for a few months, a professor of diplomacy at the University of Yunnan, however, confessed that the government had recently issued a memorandum that recommended professionals to abandon the use of this slogan. Although combined with peaceful 崛起 the term ("up") would tend to frighten rather has comfort. The
和平 崛起 being obsolete, the "Responsible Authority" may well come fill this new gap in the international public relations in China. The name has many qualities. At first, it confirms China as a power, which does not fail to flatter the egos of China. Second, by stressing its "responsible," the term could help China to do more listening and respect in the conduct of its affairs.
Ideal, is not it?
Not necessarily. This new term is facing Beijing a major dilemma. China dream for many years to see its status elevated to world power. This title is in some way to confirm this new reality. Beijing should be pleased, but rather concerned that the theory of China is responsible for a theory "Made in U.S.". China would like to see "China Head" is limited to a public relations campaign designed to project its influence internationally. This would retrieve the word in the emptying of its content, have your cake and eat it too. China is however aware that, for Washington, the granting of a flatterer also does not come without a number of concessions.
For Washington, will be considered "responsible" one that will support a number of responsibilities. Not just that. For the ideologues in the White House, responsible leadership should:
-Economically: Open market, liberalize the economy, float its currency in order to review the trade surplus it enjoys with the United States,
- Politically: Accelerating reforms to democratize its political system as the U.S. model, grant more rights to its population, protect intellectual property rights and work together to resolve issues of common interest such as environment,
-Diplomatically: Take a stand against rogue states (North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Burma),
-Militarily: Minimize expenses while showing greater transparency.
The sight of these criteria suggests that, under the guise of an attractive name, the idea of a "China Head" is actually a strategy for modeling, control, direct and constrain the development of the China according to the wishes of Washington. The Chinese are aware, but do not seem so far determined to abandon the concept. In rebuttal, Beijing is working to divide it.
Locally : With nearly a fifth of the world's population living on its territory, China emphasizes that its responsibilities "international" in fact begin at the local level. According to the World Bank in 1991, 66% of mainland Chinese lived below $ 1 a day. At the same time, only 40% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa shared the same fate. Since 2004, less than 10% of Chinese are in this situation. In Africa, for cons, the ratio remains unchanged. While the Millennium planned precisely to address the problems of poverty in Africa, one might be tempted to believe that the West is stagnating where China has increased dramatically. Responsible? Simple matter of point of view. Despite these results, in Washington, it always complains that the development with Chinese characteristics is still as pure and simple development, not sustainable development.
Regionally : If more responsibilities must be taken, they should be limited to the circle of direct Chinese influence. China is ready to accept the title of "Power Manager," but puts caveats about the extent of his power. Faced with many internal problems that it faces, the scale of its responsibilities should be limited as much as possible, at regional level. As the economic engine of the region, this redefinition of the concept gives beautiful game in Beijing. In a highly questionable, China may well argue that what is good for her, is actually for the entire region. Use his influence to secure military zone in order to provide a stable environment conducive to sustainable economic maximized becomes a kind of responsibility that China must take charge.
In the West, however, the legitimate objective to work to maintain a zone of peace is seen rather as an attempt to counter Washington's influence in Asia. These maneuvers may threaten to destabilize the balance of power on a global scale, a result inconsistent with the objective of maintaining stable international system.
Internationally: Internationally, China is even more shy. Aware that in the near future, the title of "Leader of the Third World" may quickly become "the leading developed countries," China is reluctant to put in motion the reforms sustainable democratization in the international system. Its operations will remain very selective and that Beijing does not get involved only when it wants to. A golden rule remains: when in doubt, abstain. It is now much easier for China to do nothing than to embark on the tasks it would be unable to complete. This lack of initiative does not mean to as long as China does not consider itself internationally responsible.
At the height of the Cold War, for example, while most countries chose to ally with the United States or the Soviet Union, China preferred to stay neutral. Ideological differences as well as cultural prevented from coming too close to these two superpowers. In fact, they were rather regarded as potential enemies. From the perspective of Beijing, the non-alignment seemed then the most responsible choice to make internationally. Even today, China sticks to this principle and refuses joining alliances that oppose openly to one or other of the superpowers.
To be honest, the whole of Chinese foreign policy is considered responsible by Beijing. The "five principles of peaceful coexistence" would guarantee that noble spirit. The guidelines, put forward by Zhou Enlai and Indian leaders and Burmese in 1953, are summarized by mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in the affairs other countries' internal, by a principle of equality and mutual benefit and as peaceful coexistence. On paper, in fact, it seems difficult to find more responsible. Across the Pacific, however, we regret that China adheres to these principles when it is convenient and ignore them when deemed necessary.
More recently, acquisition by China extraction rights to one of the largest copper mines in the world, located in Afghanistan, sparked heated debate in the colors "responsible." Many analysts stressed that, while the West was paying with his blood the price of world security, China pocketed.
Again, China other eye sees a responsibility in Afghanistan. If China refused to take part in the war effort in Afghanistan, because its national policy forbids him to get involved militarily outside its borders in other ways than the participation of forces of peacekeeping. For China, safety is rather by trade. In acquiring right of extraction of Afghan mine Aynak, Beijing has found injecting the largest amount of money ever invested in Afghan history, becoming the largest tax payer in the country . Beijing promised to create thousands of new jobs for the people of Afghanistan in addition to a commitment to build a power plant, an oil refinery and a railway. If one accepts the premise that there is no single definition for responsibility (the U.S. definition), the Chinese point of view wins once more credibility.
At the heart of this war of terminology, it is clear that the usefulness of the concept of "Responsible Authority" is very limited. Beyond the rhetoric, one thing is certain. China will prove more capable of accumulating in her success, more we require to show it internationally. At present, although located at the antipodes of the Western definition of the concept, the Chinese version of "Power Manager" defends itself. This finding suggests that the West must, sooner or later, stop acting so patronizing towards China while trying to dictate what she should and should not do. He must accept Beijing's agenda may differ from his.
The uproar caused by that Chinese responsibility highlights the fact that the world is presently in a transition period. A world unipolar, where the interests of the dominant group representing the interests of all, the world looks today towards multipolarity. Mode of trial and error, the international community attempts to establish new standards that would enable it to manage the arrival of this new player who bothers.
The "Power Manager" should have little impact, however, and a limited lifetime. Put forward by a world that refuses to take its own responsibilities, this concept might too easily be turned against him. It would not be surprising to see one day China require that countries such as Canada, is behave responsibly internationally. The Copenhagen summit has once again demonstrated that while Canada talks, China, she acts. Although he refused to join treaties binding, China has already done more to reduce emissions than any other country in the world. She has already made a dramatic advance in wind, solar and replacing its old coal-fired power plants cleaner at a breakneck pace. As already become an economic powerhouse, China is now making real efforts to green up this power. Who says better?
Whatever the future of the concept of "Power Manager," it seems clear that as China grows and gain confidence in the international arena, the areas where its interests diverge with those of the United States will more numerous. Remains whether it will be for the better ... or worse.
Charles Hudon, Kunming
0 comments:
Post a Comment