There is a great deal of fear emerging in both the United States and East Asian nations such as Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam over a recently assertive China. Barring a fundamental transformation in the way international relations has always worked, the anarchical "state of nature" described by Thomas Hobbes and the theory of Realism indicate that conflict with China is virtually inevitable.
There are also those that dismiss these fears. They indicate China is unlikely to ever engage in overly dangerous behavior and that any current bellicosity will moderate in time as China becomes further enmeshed in the global economic order. These dismissals, however, miss a key point. The point is not what China will do in the immediate future. The real point is what will China COULD do in the future.
Fear is not based upon a certainty of what will occur, but upon the uncertainty of what might occur and make no mistake; fear and interest are perpetual drivers of human activity. They are the stuff of which history is comprised.
The fundamental problem of international relations is its anarchical nature. Whether one is a "classical realist" in the Morgenthau mould or a "structural realist" in the Waltz mould, anarchy is the core problem that frames how all states interact with each other. At the end of the day, there is no transnational, "global cop" or global Leviathan that can enforce international law. Indeed, force is the ultimate arbiter of international relations. Always has been and always will be.
Law and the "institutionalization" of law by embedding states into a legal framework is effective only so long as more interests are served than harmed and a real balance of power is achieved. When the balance shifts, institutions atrophy and become largely irrelevant from a practical standpoint. While they may manage to retain some amount of symbolic value, their inability to act in a concrete fashion fundamentally inhibits their usefulness. This is because law is an agreed upon code of conduct. When agreement falters and compromise is no longer possible for one side or both sides, what is left to enforce a given claim? As Mao himself bluntly stated, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." This is truly a Hobbesian State of Nature.
As a given nation's economic clout grows, interests inevitably expand and run into those interests of others once they become large enough.
China’s interests are now quite large. While it appears that it seeks to negotiate outcomes within the current global trading order for the most part, China’s aforementioned actions in the South China Sea showcase a more "Westphalian" as opposed to "Kantian" notion of international relations.
These actions are most likely taken for the same reason analogous actions have always been taken. Namely, because at a certain point, a once advantageous law will become a straitjacket. At that point, law takes the back seat and interest is pursued by whatever is the most efficacious means.
This process ALWAYS happens. It happened to Athens. It happened to Rome. It has happened every time a European power sought hegemony in Europe. It happened as the U.S. expanded its continental territory long before engaging in World Wars. It happened to a certain degree already with various previous dynasties in China.
This brings us full circle, for this same process is now happening (again) with China. The fears mentioned at the outset are thus not overhyped. It doesn't matter what the present leadership of China wants, or even the next generation. China’s capabilities are what count. As various military capabilities are enhanced, subtle hedging becomes essential. Fear begins to begat further fear and the vicious cycle of the past reasserts its seemingly inexorable logic.
History teaches by inexact analogies, so the future could be different, perhaps, amazingly different from the past. Yet, a reasonable statesman must, by virtue of their position, assume that the vicissitudes of fortune will impact them in ways similar to their predecessors.
China’s rise is but merely the latest rise to instill fear due to the very nature of the world we live in.
Greg Randolph Lawson is the Director of Communications for a US based political advocacy organization and is a life-long observer of political and foreign affairs.
- 12
July 14, 2011
Hans Reuther-Fix
Your call to arms against China is ill advised. You find comfort in Mao' s expression that
" political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", but you know he learned fast, that without a manufacturing base he was running out of ammunition.
You know you are not doing America any favors. Look at one US economist who once publicly
said referring to our trade deficit with China," China gives us goods and services and
we just give them paper and bonds". This was the beginning of our problem.
But let's have a reality check and take off our discriminatory blinders on China:
It is quite presumptuous to parade in front of people big name philosophers and philosophies
of the small band of a Judeo-Christian population and assume it's applicable to China.
The reason men find China strange, because it is the only large region of the earth where
Western man has never ruled. During the nineteenth century, China was semicolonized not by one, but half a dozen foreign powers. The country was exposed to endless profiteering.
China was not so much colonized as cannibalized by foreign powers, who were determined to
stake out huge and hugely profitable spheres of influence----at gunpoint if necessary.
However the dynastic lineage remained. The analog between state and the family is called the dynastic cycle and explains politics in terms of commonly observed facts of human society.
The Chinese have always been in China and have no tradition of migration or of
colonization of the country.-------
Mr. Lawson, we cannot continue and camouflage our quite serious problems.
We know how to fix them and China is willing to go along with us for the better of both
America and China. But military confrontation is no option.
It is very dangerous to keep on promoting functional illiteracy, especially in foreign affairs.
In addition, our diplomatic activities with disposable autocrats certainly does not help
our credibility.
It is not a football game where offense is the best defense.
HRF