Talking Fairness

Early Monday morning, President Obama gave a speech at the first Strategic and Economic Dialogue where he spoke of a number of things pressing both the US and China. The two nations are not only the most powerful countries in the world, they also have the biggest international trade relationship between themselves. But listening to President Obama speak, one cannot help but consider how his Chinese counterparts will react to his rhetoric as well as the items and issues that President Obama withholds in order to maintain a positive tone.

The speech covered just about everything one would imagine coming from a US foreign diplomat, which Obama is now the highest in the land, except for one major topic; Democracy. To understand the importance of Democracy to the US, think about this. The United States became a global super-power in the 1940s and has not had a bigger foreign issue until 2001. 64 years of global dominance in total, of which 56 of them had the US foreign policy centered on promoting Democracy and about 61 years where democracy was a bi-focal issue. Only the three years following the September 11 attacks in 2001 was promotion of Democracy not very important. Of course, all of this Democracy talk having a massive importance in US foreign policy is misleading to a degree. The US has never really mentioned Democracy in conversation with the Chinese government ever since Nixon’s 1972 trip. If it’s not known by now, China is not a Democracy and surprising to this author at first discovery. It is one of the only nations that is globally relevant that makes absolutely no attempt to feign democracy. Knowing this, it would indeed be foolish to bring up the issue with the Chinese government, but it really must be in the back of the minds of the men and women who have lived under Democracy.

The US, however, has tried to discuss the issue of “Human Rights” with the Chinese. And Obama’s speech was no different. And in this, an interesting principle arises. China is not Democratic yet the international community perceives that the nation can be kept in line by using trade relationships; a sort of international Democracy.  This idea may have importance but it seems clear that it would only have any weight with states already heavily involved in the global system, which by all means makes the policy nearly impossible to make credible. Nations like North Korea or Syria or Sudan, even, merely laugh at such ideas. Yet, states like Iran, which the idea would most likely have some effects, are nearly immune from being isolated from international trade. And that brings us back to China because another issue that President Obama discussed heavily was nuclear weapons or nuclear proliferation.

Anyone who’s been attentive to international affairs over the last decade knows that there are only two states that come up in every discussion of nuclear weapons; Iran and North Korea. And the Chinese, perhaps not so coincidentally, are major players in the foreign relations of these two states. This brings us to how the Chinese reacted to Obama’s speech that covered this issue of nuclear weapons. They nod and listen publicly, but laugh and mock behind closed doors, so to speak. The Chinese couldn’t care less about Iran’s military might. And in fact they have replaced the US as Iran’s biggest advanced arms supplier.

NOTE: Many would use America’s old relationship with Iran to justify or diminish China’s wrongness in having a pretty similar relationship now, but even just looking at it in a very narrow light… when the US supported the Iranians, Iran posed absolutely no threat to any other nation; in other words, the US stepped on the toes of no state by holding a relationship with Iran in the early 1970s, whereas China cannot make that claim.

China has one, perhaps two, large concerns about foreign military threats; Japan and partly, maybe, Russia (Other than the US, ironically). China’s fear of Japan is the sole reason the state doesn’t hold the same indifference about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal as it does with the Iranian ambitions to attain one. The more hostile the North becomes toward Japan and the US, the more interested Japan will become about developing a excellent military and perhaps its own nuclear weapons.  Not only is that bad for China  on a physical level because of the history between the two states (A little like Russia’s dislike for Germany having military might)… it is also bad for China  on an image level. Japan is the electronic powerhouse of the world and thus easily southeast Asia, but China is quite simply the powerhouse. It does not want to lose that role, which it fears it’ll lose, and rightfully so, if Japan undergoes serious military development.  This brings up the two ways that the US can further develop good relations with China.

One thing worth mentioning is that China is as indifferent about any state having nuclear weapons as it is indifferent about any state not having them. In other words, China does not care if the North or if Iran have nuclear weapons, except for the fact that they profit from the two states getting the technology from China, itself. So, now that the North has given to China all it can regarding payment in exchange for nuclear advice, it is actually in China’s interest to disarm the north because of Japan as well as the benefits it gets through the US improved relations as it helps in the process. But back to the two topics of improvement.

China, as should be clear by now, is mostly looking inward. Like every non-Democratic nation, the Chinese government’s biggest concern is revolt. On a minor note, this fact is something that makes the US and China unnatural political allies; unlike the US and India. But on a bigger note, the ability for China to force its population into cheap labor , makes the Chinese labor very attractive to US capitalism, which at first was a mutual relationship. But as technology separates further the poor from the wealthy, especially in weaponry, major revolution becomes nearly impossible within states that have any kind of wealth. As well as the more wealth that China acquires from the US, the less China will need the US for its economy, yet the more the US needs China for its. However, there are two sectors of economics that China will never have a comparable grip on like the US; Agriculture/Water and Medical Care. Because of its huge population, much of which is in need, China is heavily affected by viruses and disease. And here it is that its biggest trade partner is the world’s leading source of medical technology, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals. It seems a very nice fit, but there has not been much said about it. It may just be giving the Chinese government too much credit that it cares that its population is so severely affected to the point that it will spend its money on US preventions, especially if it can manipulate aid organizations to burden the costs. And the same problems arise with China buying US agriculture, which to some may seem backwards because the US actually purchases Chinese food, yet it would be best if this relationship reversed… 1) Because the US has excess food and only buys from China because its less expensive 2) China exports its food because of the profits despite having the 2nd largest number of people dying from starvation.

Even worse than food is of course water. And while the US is not in a position to trade water, it will be at the forefront of technological advancement, which China will be extremely interested in. Not for the health of its population, exactly, but because industry needs a extreme amount of water.

The reason it seems that discussing the discussion of Sino-American relations is this. It needs to stop. Gradually, of course, but ceased nonetheless. Why would this be? China’s need for the US in every aspect is decreasing. China sells technology it gets from the US to rogue nations. China is not a democracy. China shares no interest with the US, except the interest of its population getting US aid free. China is actually adversarial because of the power balance still in the very early stages. Our biggest trade partner will usually hold a great deal of our debt (as long as the US trades using debt) and that being in the hands of an adversary is unwise.  There is an excellent alternative who… 1)shares security interests 2) doesn’t have a history of selling military technology to US enemies 3)is a democracy 4)cares about its population it seems 5) is not militant toward the power of the US whatsoever 6) It’s likely that they’d be much more receptive to US requests about environmental reform if they were trading with the US as much as china 7) Most importantly, access to cheap labor is wide spread. These six and realistically seven elements make India far better to have with the biggest trade relationship the world’s seen.

There is one reason, and to be fair it is major, that this break from China is unlikely and somewhat inadvisable; China’s growing military presence. The closer an ally China is of the US, the less they pose a direct danger to America. Trade with China has made them more receptive, even if that isn’t to the military threats they’ve caused indirectly through providing the North and Iran with nuclear information.  So, developing a stronger tie to china is not utterly foolish, however, continuing to do it with a relatively blind eye as if China is the only option for labor when in fact, is not advisable. The only interest China has in the US is the revenue it receives and on a miniscule level China may need the US to keep Japan invenomous. And US foreign policy needs to keep that in hand.