A_Sticky_Solution__on_United_States_and_Chinese_Relations

A Sticky Solution: On United States and Chinese Relations It is undeniable that China currently has one of the fastest growing economies and is quickly becoming one of the most powerful superpowers in the world. Political theorists, in particular realists, often point to a parallel between Britain/German relations leading up to World War 1 and current relations between China and the US. Before the war, Britain was the global hegemon while Germany was increasing in power hoping to find “a place in the sun.” Germany’s desire for increased power and internal unification was the driving factor for German involvement in World War 1. The events surrounding World War 1 are convoluted and do not perfectly mirror current US/China relations; however, they show how quickly chain reactions can produce catastrophic war among superpowers. Realists see China as a threat to the US as the global hegemon. From the realist perspective, this steadily increasing threat will inevitably lead to war. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that China’s increasing power alone is not enough to cause war and see certain causal mechanisms as the way to maintain peace. Both sides have strong arguments but tend to be overly pessimistic or optimistic. One thing remains clear: War between these two global superpowers would have devastating effects that should be avoided at nearly any cost. In order to prevent war, the U.S. should use the advice of Walter Russell Mead and strategically employ the use of sticky power. Sticky power is a term coined by Mead that uses trade as a conduit for peaceful relations. It combines the realist and liberal perspective to provide a more level headed solution to the situation. Sticky power uses the liberal ideas of economic interdependence, and democratization to avoid war. However, sticky power also accepts the realist possibility of war and prepares for war using historical precedent as a guide. Skillful use of sticky power could be the solution for the US in its relations with China. In order to understand the comparison between US/China relations and Britain/German relations, one must have a decent grasp on the unfolding of events leading up to World War 1. Much of the hostility that eventually led to war was created during Bismarck’s efforts to create the German empire. Bismarck, at the time prime minister of Prussia, set about creating the German empire by ousting Austrian control of many of the northern small German states. This was quickly achieved so Bismarck proceeded to unify the southern German states through war with France. This was also successful and thus was born the German empire. France, however, was only waiting for a chance for revenge. In order to strengthen its power, Germany created an alliance with Austria-Hungary. France, in turn, created an alliance with Russia who previously had failed alliances with Germany. Later in 1914, Austria-Hungary’s heir to the throne was assassinated by a secret Serbian nationalist group. This event gave Austria-Hungary an excuse to declare war with Serbia. Due to many complex alliances, this small war turned into a global conflict. Russia mobilized forces to fight for Serbia due to a previous alliance. France also joined the war due to its alliance with Russia. Germany, at the time, was in period of political unrest due to recent elections that divided the government between socialists and strong right wing military commanders. In order to avoid civil conflict, Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg attempted to unify Germany by coming to aid Austria-Hungary. He hoped for a short war that would unify the German people. Germany marched through Belgium who had a 75-year-old alliance with Britain. Germany assumed that Britain would stay uninvolved, but Britain came to the aid of Belgium and ended up tangled in this massive war. Today, there are also powerful alliances that would cause massive conflict if the US and China were to ever to go to war. The most powerful of which is NATO, which acts as a huge deterrent for China declaring war. Alliances, alone, are still not enough to stop war as evidenced by World War 1. There are, however, key differences between the pre-World War 1 era and today. Not the least of which, was the creation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons serve as a huge deterrent to war. Both the US and China have nuclear arms. Conflict between these two nations could potentially end in the use of such weapons. This is a result that neither nation wants to see and therefore serves its purpose in maintaining peace through deterrence. Again, this does always work as evidenced by the Cold War. The creation of the United Nations will also help to avoid war. The UN serves as a platform for dialogue in order to facilitate peace between nations. World War 1 would hardly have reached the same scale of violence had there been more dialogue and negotiations between all the nations involved. Germany would not have entered Belgium. They did so under the impression that Britain was going to stay uninvolved. Germany did not want a war with Britain and likely would have stayed uninvolved in the war altogether or at least tried to keep Britain from joining the fight against them. The UN would have decreased violence had it existed in the pre-World War 1 era and will lessen the chance of bloody conflict between the US and China. NATO, nuclear weapons, and the UN lessen the chance of war but do not eliminate it from possibility. Realists and liberals present differing ideologies that offer perspective on what may happen in the future between the US and China. Realism is a political ideology that focuses on security as the most important job of government. Realism is often associated with a somewhat pessimistic worldview. Realists look at, China’s increasing power, reinforced political aims, the security dilemmas China poses and see a violent outcome in the future of US/China relations. “For realists, it [history] is a vicious circle. The reason, most contemporary realists claim, is the persistence of international anarchy. In the absence of any higher authority to resolve disputes and impose order, peace has usually proved fleeting and conflict has been the norm. Under conditions of anarchy, it is the material power and, in particular, the military strength of the various units in an international system that has typically been decisive in shaping the patterns of relations among them” (Friedberg 17). Realists see the only way to be safe from other countries is to become and remain the global hegemon. Without economic military dominance, a state has no reason to feel safe. Realists look at the pattern of history. Quickly rising powers tend to cause troubles abroad as in the case of Germany in both World Wars. Since 1978, China’s GDP has been estimated to have grown by a factor of four (Friedberg 17). Due to China’s massive labor force, the potential for growth is huge. Some estimate that China’s economy will soon overtake the US economy. As the Chinese is increasing, their ability to produce more advanced weaponry is rapidly increasing as well. Similar to the way Germany tried to match the naval abilities of Britain pre-World War 1, China is quickly trying to catch up with the US in the realm of weapon technology. As China increases in power, Realists fear that China’s political aims will be refocused to become the preeminent power in East Asia. "The external expansion of the UK and France, Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States coincided with phases of intense industrialization and economic development” (Huntington 12). There is no reason to suggest that the pattern of history will change with China. As a country’s powers rise, it tends to challenge international institutions. “Like Germany at the turn of the twentieth century, rising powers tend to want their ‘place in the sun,’ and this often brings them into conflict with more established great powers, which are typically the architects and principal beneficiaries of the existing international system” (Freeman). This already holds true because of the way China has been and continues to violate human rights. The state enjoys its position of power and wealth and has no reason to change in the future. In 2003, the state made up 38% of the country’s GDP (Pei 35). People in with vast power and wealth have rarely ever peacefully relinquished power. China is no different and will not slowly reform itself as liberals claim. China also poses a security dilemma that cannot be underestimated. China has long wanted to regain complete control over Taiwan. Their steady increase in weaponry could be interpreted as preparation to violently overtake Taiwan. In response to increased Chinese threat on Taiwan, the US will likely increase its arms and protection in Taiwan. The constant back and forth could easily turn into a Cold War type situation. To make matters worse, China’s recent history has been humiliating. The Opium Wars and foreign occupation has heightened China’s alertness for threats. This poses a problem because it makes China more susceptible to act violently on misguided or misinterpreted information. Liberalism, in the context of international relations, is a political ideology, which places importance on security and prosperity. Unlike realism, liberalism tends towards a more optimistic worldview not dominated with concerns of global hegemony. To understand the difference more clearly, it is helpful to think of liberalism and realism in terms of zero-sum and positive-sum economics. Realism as discussed earlier sees the rise of one country necessitating the decline of another and therefore favors zero-sum economics. Liberalism favors positive-sum economics, which states that countries can rise without having negative effects on other countries. Liberals do not see China’s rise to power in and of itself as a threat to the US. Liberals “believe in the pacifying power of three interrelated and mutually reinforcing causal mechanisms: economic interdependence, international institutions and democratization” (Russet and Oneal). These three mechanisms are known as the Kantian triangle and from the liberal perspective will maintain peace in the future with China. Economic interdependence, from the liberal perspective, is the concept wherein bilateral exchange creates good relations between countries. For example, the US imports lots of goods from China and that is inherently good for Chinese business. Good business in turn makes for countries that see no need to interrupt business with violent conflict. US investors have directed many resources into China. These investors want to see Chinese businesses do well so they will see a return on their investments. This mutual interest helps to maintain peace. International institutions are another key factor that helps to keep relations on good terms. These institutions like the UN, APEC (Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum) and the East Asia Summit open communication between the US, China and other Asian countries. This communication provides a vital purpose to reduce chances of misperception of countries’ intentions. China’s increased involvement in the UN shows positive growth, which makes war less likely. When George W. Bush was still in office, Dick Cheney made strong statements saying China was trying to replace the US as global hegemon. Because of open communication, foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang responded by sharing China’s 8-point diplomacy plan. The first point was “first of all China will not seek hegemony. We are still a developing country. We don't have the resources to seek hegemony. Even if China becomes a developed country, we will not seek hegemony” (Washington Times 2007). China is trying, at least publicly, to maintain peace and is not attempting to rival US hegemony. Democratization is the last part of the Kantian triangle. Democratization is based on the democratic peace theory, which states democracies are less likely to go to war with one another. In China, there is an ongoing slow but continual process of increasingly democratic policies. “This process is being driven largely by economic development, which, in turn, is being accelerated by China's increasing openness to trade. Rising per capita incomes are creating a growing Chinese middle class. In Europe and North America, and more recently in Asia, those whose rising incomes allow them to do more than attend to the struggle for daily existence have been the prime movers behind progress toward democracy, and there is every reason to hope that they will play a similar role in China” (Rowen 63). The China of the past had huge gaps between the rich and poor, which were inherent consequences of their restrictive policies on the market and entrepreneurship. Economic reform has helped to create a middle class to bridge the gap. Though far from complete reformation, China’s growing middle class will serve a vital role in the future of Chinese politics. This ongoing process, combined with the other two causal mechanisms mentioned above, will steer US/China relations to peace. The realist and liberal perspectives are the two main schools of thought with regard to this issue. Neither perspective appears to be able to completely tackle the issue. The realist perspective appears overly pessimistic. It seems to ignore all the deterrence factors that come into play like nuclear weapons, alliances and the causal mechanisms in the Kantian triangle. Realism tends to focus on historical precedent, but seems to ignore over the idea of countries learning from history. No country wants to see another world war. Most of the countries involved in World War 1 would not have even joined had they been able to predict the snowball effect of their actions. Retrospect allows countries today to predict what would happen if they instigated war with countries who have powerful alliances. Realism also causes countries to act in a way that they end up causing the events they predicted. Alexander Wendt argues, “realism is a self-fulfilling prophecy” (Wendt 410). This is how arms races escalate quickly and turn into catastrophic situations like the Cold War. The liberal perspective, on the other hand, appears overly optimistic and nearly completely ignores the possibility of war. Liberals ignore the security dilemma in Taiwan that could potentially serve as a catalyst for war. Liberals also give international institutions a lot more credit than they deserve. The UN has been proven fairly useless in handling conflicts as proven by Rwanda and Darfur. The UN has also been completely incapable of improving human rights issues in China. China and the US do not share the same ideals. As China continues to increase in power, these differences will gain prominence increasing tensions between the US and China. Walter Russel Mead offers perspective on how to effectively combine these perspectives via use of sticky power to further the progress of democracy in China and maintain peace. Mead explains there are three types of power: soft power, sharp power and sticky power. Soft power relies on coercion and power of example to create change. In this situation, that would be completely ineffective as China has seen the example of the US and not done much in way of change. Sharp power uses military force to create change. Again, this would be ineffective because China will not be bullied. They have significantly more manpower than the US. Even though the US has superior weapon technology, it is highly debatable whether the US could even win in a violent conflict against China. Either way, whatever gains made would not be enough to counteract the tremendous losses that would no doubt ensue. The third type of power is sticky power. “Economic, or sticky power is different from both sharp and soft power--it is based neither on military compulsion nor on simple coincidence of wills. Consider the carnivorous sundew plant, which attracts its prey with a kind of soft power, a pleasing scent that lures insects toward its sap. But once the victim has touched the sap, it is stuck; it can't get away. That is sticky power; that is how economic power works”(Mead 50). Sticky power uses both liberal and realist ideas to effect change. The basic principle is that one country slowly increases trade with another country to the point that the latter becomes dependent on the former. This is similar to the liberal idea of economic interdependence. Mutual interests are created that make war less likely. The ideals of the first country slowly begin to infiltrate and create change. In US/China relations, effects of this can already be seen. As China has risen to power, it has steadily become more capitalistic coming ever closer to the free market system enjoyed in the US. Capitalistic nations traditionally have greater human rights and use democratic principles in governmental policies due to a rise in activism from a rising middle class. This concept is based on the liberal democratization principle, which proposes that China will steadily continue to become more democratic. The principles above show the liberal ideas used in sticky power, but sticky power uses a two-fold plan that also incorporates realist ideals. It is not blind to the possibility of war. If war does occur, sticky power can be used as a weapon. Removing trade and investments from China would effectively cripple much of the Chinese economy, which would give the US a strategical advantage should war break out. Sticky power is not a new concept. It has already been tested and proven successful in World War 1. Germany was heavily dependent on Britain and the Americas for various goods. Sticky power did not stop war, but it gave Britain the strategical advantage it needed to win. German was forced to deal with shortages during the whole war. Conditions became so bad that soldier morale plummeted, which depleted the efficacy of Germany’s fighting ability. “These conditions, not military defeat, forced the German leadership to ask for an armistice” (Mead 52). China is undoubtedly growing in power and will likely cause problems for the US in the future. Germany once was in a period of rapid growth and subsequently was at war with Britain in World War 1. This war was caused partially by miscommunication and an unchecked spiraling effect due to complicated alliances. Realism and liberalism offer perspective on the future of US/China relations. Realism sees war as nearly inevitable because of the historical precedent set by other rising powers whose success triggered the start of political aims, which later proved problematic. Liberals see war as unlikely due to the causal mechanisms in the Kantian triangle, which will help to maintain peace. Neither perspective addresses all sides of the issue, but the sticky power proposed by Walter Russell Mead provides an intriguing alternative that has already proven itself in history. “Sticky power was Britain's greatest weapon in World War 1. It may very well be the United States' greatest weapon in the 21st century” (Mead 52). Works Cited 1. Friedberg, Aaron L. "The Future of U.S.-China Relations Is Conflict Inevitable'" International Security 30.2 (2005). Project Muse. Web. 4 May 2010. 2. Samuel P. Huntington, "America's Changing Strategic Interests," Survival, Vol. 33, No. 1 (January/February 1991), p. 12. 3. Robert North and Nazli Choucri, Nations in Conflict: National Growth and International Violence (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975). 4. The Dark Side of China's Rise Minxin Pei Foreign Policy, No. 153 (Mar. - Apr., 2006), pp. 32-40 Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC 5. Bruce Russett and John Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001). 6.  "Beijing Likens Cheney Criticism to Nosy Neighbor - Washington Times." Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News. The Washington Times, LLC, 1 Mar. 2007. Web. 04 May 2010. . 7. Henry S. Rowen, "The Short March: China's Road to Democracy," National Interest, No. 45 (Fall 1996), pp. 61–70. 8. Wendt, "Anarchy Is What States Make of It," p. 410.