Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
Every US President of the post-Cold War unipolar world has been wrong about China and has, thus, facilitated its phenomenal rise. The premise of their China policy is flawed at its core.
Senior Bush’s favorable position on China despite the Tiananmen Square massacre; Clinton’s push for a China-US trade agreement and endorsement for Chinese accession to the WTO; George Bush’s high profile Shanghai visit within a month of 9/11 (president with the maximum number of visits to China) – were all fruitless efforts in the name of strengthening ties.
More recently, both Trump and Biden have continued Obama’s ‘Asia pivot’ to counterbalance the increasing threat to “freedom” from an authoritative China (e.g., Trump’s India focus or Biden’s revival of Quad). Trump’s protectionist trade war had the same end goal as Obama’s free trade TPP (China not invited). Over time US has increased its maritime influence in Asia in response to China’s growing militarization (e.g., the first ASEAN-US maritime exercise under Trump and Biden’s nuclear submarine fleet for Australia under AUKUS).
There is clear strategic concurrence on both sides of the aisle regarding China.
But where have they gone wrong?
First, they assumed integrating China will allow the world to unlock its full economic potential. This ‘mutually beneficial’ argument (most notably presented by Clinton) would be valid if China was willing to travel this 2-way street – a clear miscalculation!
The Chinese state has a unique Marxist-Leninist governance style – achieving economic outcomes through a state-controlled apparatus. In a pure Marxist approach, all foreign investments delivering economic growth would be welcomed. However, with China’s authoritarianism, Lenin’s preference for ‘state control’ is incorporated as well. The state would thus also control the nature of these investments, ownership of related IP (prominent in technology and pharmaceutical sectors), Chinese ownership in joint ventures (albeit private) etc.
This philosophy made ‘one sided’ integration possible. While foreign investments grew rapidly (from $47 billion in 2001 to $124 billion in 2011); China used protectionist policies to take on the position of ‘world’s factory’ and cost 2.4 million US jobs in the same period.
Second, they assumed that as Chinese become better off they will demand freedoms; making democracy inevitable. Access to China’s markets (through trade), and people (through internet and social media); will also result in ‘Chinese import of democracy from US’.
This belief was rooted in Western histories. But the Chinese society is very different – it respects hierarchy, trusts intrusive state-controlled systems (eg. social credit scores) to enforce social contracts etc. The citizens attribute their economic development to this same state defined and controlled order – 95% of Chinese citizens are satisfied with their government as opposed to only 38% of Americans being satisfied with their federal government.
Moreover, the Chinese Govt. is cognizant of its citizens’ demands. For instance, it alleviated concerns about capitalist excesses (top 1% Chinese own 30% of national wealth) by adopting policies for equality and social cohesion. Thus, the recent crackdown of internet giants (from Alibaba to Didi); the three hours per week ceiling for under 18 gamers to manage ‘social opium’; or simply encouraging private companies to spend on ‘common prosperity’ (e.g., Alibaba donated $15.5 billion) or restrict the debt that companies are allowed to take (e.g., default by property giant Evergrande) etc.
In short, the Chinese experience contradicts the concept of free trade and the human need for democracy (and freedom) at its very core.
In dire need for a reset
China will remain unfazed with the superficial hurdles it faces on the world stage. Accusations – its treatment of Uyghurs, its intrusion in citizen’s privacy, its control on internet access, its various land and maritime border disputes etc. – will not change the status quo. They will merely reinforce Chinese opinions that US wishes to ‘contain’ China and maintain its own hegemony.
To bring about real change, US will have to take a 2-pronged approach– current incremental deterrence policies (e.g., ban on Huawei, Xinjiang imports) should be accompanied with Govt. led strategic transformations and investments e.g., in Quantum AI, DeFi. Most recent game changing innovations in US, have been anchored by private entrepreneurs (eg. from internet to Tesla, Blue Origin etc.) – it is time the state defines strategic national interests (eg. NASA during Cold War) and guides their development.
US also needs to recognize that unipolarity is not an option in today’s world. Given, America’s unique position, it should ensure that the new world multipolarity is convivial and tightly knit. It should thus help prop up benevolent vibrant democracies (like India) which could not only be positioned as dominant powers but also help contain China (and other non-representative states) at a geopolitical level.
Neha Baid
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.
Also read: SubscriberWrites: US has lost its place as a world leader after Afghanistan pullout