The Eagle And The Dragon
Jean-Pierre Lehmann
The Times of India
Jan 18, 2011
When President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao meet in Washington DC tomorrow, they should recognise that generally when a new big power rises, war ensues.
The 20th century narrates a bloody tale of the rise and fall of empires. Luckily, 20th century-type wars are unlikely to occur in the 21st. But there are many other types of conflicts that could be just as devastating.
There was a time when it was assumed that things could be different. In 2005, the leading Chinese intellectual and reformer, Zheng Bijian, coined the term "China's peaceful rise".
There was an underlying assumption among international policy makers and thought leaders that globalisation had transformed the paradigm: geopolitics is zero-sum, the new age of global economic interdependence is win-win. Unfortunately, that has never been true.
As the financial crisis of 2008-09 has shaken the confident foundations of a new global economic order and caused considerable havoc, relations between China and the US have deteriorated.
On virtually any issue one can think of - trade, finance, investment, intellectual property rights, security, morality, human rights, climate change - we are seeing what has been termed "escalating reciprocal demonisation."
This combination of economic havoc - especially stubbornly high unemployment - and geopolitical tensions between the rising and the established powers is cause for alarm.
There are mechanisms in place for confidence building - notably the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. While, however, there can be no doubt that Churchill's dictum that "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" is true, there was a lot of jaw-jaw in the past that did not prevent war-war from breaking out.
While war-like conflict between the US and China (in whatever form) is not inevitable, it is better to assume that it may well be possible rather than bask in the complacent illusion that it is impossible. This perspective also focusses the mind on how to prevent the conflict.
We take the view that the most secure means to prevent US-China conflict is to strengthen and upgrade the international rule of law and multilateral institutions. International criminal tribunals, international environmental organisations, the World Trade Organisation, and the UN's human rights and labour organisations are all regimes that need reinforcement.
That, however, is not the current situation. Along with the deteriorating global economy and the escalating Sino-American tension, the international rule of law and the multilateral institutions have either been outright flouted, as was the case when America invaded Iraq - or have been wallowing in paralysis - as is the case with the WTO Doha Round and with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The G20 summits have somewhat attenuated matters, though they still remain mainly talking shops that do not have powers of enforcement.
The weakness of the international institutions and international law necessarily results in a growing number of areas that remain outside the boundaries of law. These in turn are leading to further deterioration in US-China relations and are further escalating reciprocal demonisation.
As President Hu is due to visit Washington, the US secretary of defence has visited Beijing amid reports that China is constructing its first aircraft carrier and a stealth fighter prototype. There are worrying signs of the outbreak of an arms race in the Pacific.
Likewise, China's recent move to cut export quotas on vital rare earth minerals is also a cause for concern and may lead the US to launch its second trade dispute against Chinese export restrictions.
We are not so naive as to believe that strengthening the international rule of law and multilateral institutions is in any way a guarantee against conflict. Yet, we do see this is where lie the greatest chances for long-term peaceful relations between the US and China.
These institutions that, in spite of their many imperfections, have served the world well in the last 60 years were set up after World War II. It seems definitely worthwhile to try strengthening and enhancing them and the rule of law before the breakout of another global cataclysm. There are also, no doubt, reforms and adjustments that need to be made. The revision of IMF quotas is a small yet positive step in the right direction. More reform and more adjustments are necessary.
Since the most probable and imminent escalation of conflict between the US and China is in trade and the possible outbreak of protectionism, we are convinced that the first major step towards strengthening the global legal and institutional framework would be the successful conclusion of the WTO Doha Round.
If Presidents Obama and Hu could commit to concluding, along with the other members of the G20, the Doha Round at the latest by November 2011 (when the Round will reach its 10th anniversary), the world will be a more lawful hence safer place and the prospect of a US-China conflict will have diminished.
The writer is professor of International Political Economy at IMD.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-Eagle-And-The-Dragon/articleshow/7305837.cms
The Times of India
Jan 18, 2011
When President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao meet in Washington DC tomorrow, they should recognise that generally when a new big power rises, war ensues.
The 20th century narrates a bloody tale of the rise and fall of empires. Luckily, 20th century-type wars are unlikely to occur in the 21st. But there are many other types of conflicts that could be just as devastating.
There was a time when it was assumed that things could be different. In 2005, the leading Chinese intellectual and reformer, Zheng Bijian, coined the term "China's peaceful rise".
There was an underlying assumption among international policy makers and thought leaders that globalisation had transformed the paradigm: geopolitics is zero-sum, the new age of global economic interdependence is win-win. Unfortunately, that has never been true.
As the financial crisis of 2008-09 has shaken the confident foundations of a new global economic order and caused considerable havoc, relations between China and the US have deteriorated.
On virtually any issue one can think of - trade, finance, investment, intellectual property rights, security, morality, human rights, climate change - we are seeing what has been termed "escalating reciprocal demonisation."
This combination of economic havoc - especially stubbornly high unemployment - and geopolitical tensions between the rising and the established powers is cause for alarm.
There are mechanisms in place for confidence building - notably the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. While, however, there can be no doubt that Churchill's dictum that "jaw-jaw is better than war-war" is true, there was a lot of jaw-jaw in the past that did not prevent war-war from breaking out.
While war-like conflict between the US and China (in whatever form) is not inevitable, it is better to assume that it may well be possible rather than bask in the complacent illusion that it is impossible. This perspective also focusses the mind on how to prevent the conflict.
We take the view that the most secure means to prevent US-China conflict is to strengthen and upgrade the international rule of law and multilateral institutions. International criminal tribunals, international environmental organisations, the World Trade Organisation, and the UN's human rights and labour organisations are all regimes that need reinforcement.
That, however, is not the current situation. Along with the deteriorating global economy and the escalating Sino-American tension, the international rule of law and the multilateral institutions have either been outright flouted, as was the case when America invaded Iraq - or have been wallowing in paralysis - as is the case with the WTO Doha Round and with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The G20 summits have somewhat attenuated matters, though they still remain mainly talking shops that do not have powers of enforcement.
The weakness of the international institutions and international law necessarily results in a growing number of areas that remain outside the boundaries of law. These in turn are leading to further deterioration in US-China relations and are further escalating reciprocal demonisation.
As President Hu is due to visit Washington, the US secretary of defence has visited Beijing amid reports that China is constructing its first aircraft carrier and a stealth fighter prototype. There are worrying signs of the outbreak of an arms race in the Pacific.
Likewise, China's recent move to cut export quotas on vital rare earth minerals is also a cause for concern and may lead the US to launch its second trade dispute against Chinese export restrictions.
We are not so naive as to believe that strengthening the international rule of law and multilateral institutions is in any way a guarantee against conflict. Yet, we do see this is where lie the greatest chances for long-term peaceful relations between the US and China.
These institutions that, in spite of their many imperfections, have served the world well in the last 60 years were set up after World War II. It seems definitely worthwhile to try strengthening and enhancing them and the rule of law before the breakout of another global cataclysm. There are also, no doubt, reforms and adjustments that need to be made. The revision of IMF quotas is a small yet positive step in the right direction. More reform and more adjustments are necessary.
Since the most probable and imminent escalation of conflict between the US and China is in trade and the possible outbreak of protectionism, we are convinced that the first major step towards strengthening the global legal and institutional framework would be the successful conclusion of the WTO Doha Round.
If Presidents Obama and Hu could commit to concluding, along with the other members of the G20, the Doha Round at the latest by November 2011 (when the Round will reach its 10th anniversary), the world will be a more lawful hence safer place and the prospect of a US-China conflict will have diminished.
The writer is professor of International Political Economy at IMD.
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-Eagle-And-The-Dragon/articleshow/7305837.cms
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét