American deaths in the Middle East have long stopped being headline news. Yet still, occasionally, there will be a blast large enough to warrant comment. In China, news of the war causes a few raised eyebrows and a lot of heads shaken. My family, at the dinner table, will talk about how terrible it is. The conversation goes something like this: “See? This is what happens when you interfere with other countries’ internal affairs.” Followed by a rhetorical question, aimed in my general direction: “So why do you suppose the US invaded Iraq? If they just knew enough to mind their own business, they wouldn’t be having this problem.” And finally the smug suggestion: “America should learn from China. China makes friends wherever it goes, not enemies. That’s because we don’t try to tell them what to do.”
I am not a flag-waving patriot, but I do feel a certain amount of sentiment for my adopted home country. Statements like the ones above annoy me, but I have long since stopped attempting to justify America’s actions to my family. In truth, they’re right: The United States, through the Bush administration’s policy of unilateralism and a one-track focus on terrorism, has made many enemies throughout the world, and alienated many of its friends. What sets my nerves on edge, however, is the sense that the People’s Republic will never face the same problems.
A year ago, I saw a newspaper headline about a raid on an oil field in Ethiopia where 74 people were killed and the oil field was destroyed. Seven foreigners were also kidnapped. What made this headline particularly noteworthy was that the oil field was Chinese, and the kidnapped foreigners were Chinese nationals. More recently, 5 Chinese hostages were killed in an incident in Sudan.
Before Nixon’s historic 1972 visit, China had no interests overseas. It maintained diplomatic relations with only a few countries and was focused entirely on itself. China was self-sufficient but hopelessly backwards. With Deng’s reforms and the opening of the market came an increase in the amount of international trade and the rise of consumerism. China has gone from having no possessions abroad to holding over $1.9 trillion in foreign currency, much of which is starting to be invested back overseas. China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 integrated it into the world economy, making it vulnerable to many of the problems of globalization, not the least of which is a strong dependence on foreign resources. While the PRC is the largest country in the world in terms of population, it is poor in terms of resources. The standard of living has increased dramatically and with it the demand for resources, all of which have to be obtained from overseas. It is estimated that if China reaches first-world standards of living, it will approximately double global resource consumption and pollution. 1.3 billion people require a lot of resources and produce a lot of trash. Most people in the West see China as an immense opportunity, a huge untapped market of possibilities. What I see, however, is a mass of people hungry for resources who feel that they deserve to consume.
As China grows increasingly dependent on foreign sources for critical resources, it will increasingly invest in the global market. Already Chinese companies have made many moves to achieve better supply security, especially in oil. But as can be seen from the case of Ethiopia and Sudan, Chinese investment means Chinese nationals abroad. China is investing heavily in third world countries, competing with Western nations in order to be the first to exploit those resources. China’s lack of an imperialist history and its status as the world’s largest developing nation gives it a lot of influence with these countries. One of the cornerstones of Chinese foreign policy is the idea of noninterference, and Chinese aid comes with none of the demands for transparency, accountability, and political reform that Western aid comes with. For the moment, China truly is making a great number of friends in the third world.
This trend, however, cannot last forever. Already there is some degree of disenchantment with the way the Chinese do business—it is usually Chinese companies that benefit directly from Chinese aid; local companies are often left in the lurch. China’s low cost of labor often directly competes with developing economies in third-world nations, causing factories to shut down. As China develops, it falls into the classic pattern of developed nations—importing raw materials from underdeveloped nations, exporting the finished products back to them, and pocketing the difference. Chinese overseers are often very poor with following through on promises of development—companies will often promise to build infrastructure and pay for clean-up but renege on benefits, insist on long hours and low pay, and leave the cleaning up to someone else. As Chinese companies frequently do this domestically, it’s no surprise that their track record is similar overseas. Where Chinese interests are concerned, China comes first. For example, China is building a series of dams upriver that could dramatically impact the Mekong river delta, causing unimaginable environmental and economic changes downstream in countries like Vietnam. Despite protests from environmentalists and local officials, China continues to build its dams. While situations like this are admittedly uncommon and there are many exemplary Chinese companies, it only takes one mistake to give an entire country a bad reputation.
The developing world is an unsafe place. The Chinese promise noninterference, but as its assets in the developing world increase, so does the risk of losing them. China has shown itself to be committed to regional stability, preferring multilateral talks to action. However, if war breaks out, it will have to choose between protecting its citizens and investments or losing both.
Many of the problems that the U.S. has internationally can be seen as a legacy of the Cold War, where it propped up certain regimes in order to contain Communism and protect its own interests. Vietnam, Korea, Panama, and Nicaragua are all examples of this. The U.S. often deliberately supported unsavory regimes in order to try and maintain stability. When regime change came eventually, it was accompanied by a backlash of anti-American sentiment. China’s avowed statement of noninterference can be a bit selective when it comes to its own interests. They insist that the matter of Taiwan is a domestic issue. They support the U.S. war on terror, in part to help contain their own problems with transnational terrorism, especially separatists in Xinjiang. It notably has avoided using its veto on the UN Security Council, preferring to abstain. One notable exception is the case of Darfur. Ethnic violence on the scale of genocide has been occurring for several years, and the UN has done nothing even to censure the Sudanese government for its actions because China has made it clear that it will use its veto to shoot down any “interference” with Sudanese domestic policies. The reason for this is the heavy Chinese reliance on Sudanese oil fields, a partnership significant enough to warrant visits from President Jiang Zemin in the past and President Hu Jintao recently. While this kind of covert support wins them friends now, in the future, it will perhaps make them just as many enemies.
On the other hand, however, China has done many positive things to improve its soft power. While Chinese foreign aid does not even begin to approach the scale of Western foreign aid, it is usually better publicized. China has also begun to show a very adaptable and practical foreign policy when it comes to regime change, preferring to sit on the sidelines rather than referee. It signs bilateral goodwill agreements and promises aid. While cheap Chinese labor does directly compete with local industries in many third-world countries, it also makes certain items, such as TVs, computers, cars, and other high-end goods much more affordable to the people in those countries.
It would be naive of China to feel that its place as the champion of the developing world is secure. A more conciliatory and cooperative American foreign policy could greatly undermine its advances, especially if China continues its track record of promising big but delivering small. It would be a good idea for Chinese citizens to not be complacent in the knowledge that a Chinese passport makes one a low-profile target in most countries, but to realize that it will take careful maneuvering by the government and China’s companies in order to maintain the current status quo.
“Before Nixon’s historic 1972 visit, China had no interests overseas. It maintained diplomatic relations with only a few countries and was focused entirely on itself. China was self-sufficient but hopelessly backwards.”
China was mired in the cultural revolution, with the self-destructive GLF before that. China simply did not have the ability to project itself overseas. It did manage to invade Vietnam, India, southern Mongolia (now “inner Mongolia) and prop up the Kim family in NK (hooray for Chinese non-interference!).
Now, Chinese workers have been kidnapped and sometimes executed not just in Ethiopia, but also Sudan and southern Pakistan. China’s oil companies are taking advantage of the US invasion of Iraq to set up shop and China’s organizing of its overseas students as a rebuff to pro-Tibet protests during the Olympic torch run are examples of China interfering in everyone else’s internal affairs.
I’d take the long view on interventionism. At the time the world was in an uproar over US imperialism in opposing Soviet communism. Today most wax nostalgic.
Its important China offers ideals and hope along with money.
China did help spread communism and funded the Tanzania railroad and exported Grain, (this in the midst of a famine in the 60s.)
Many of Africa’s leaders received training in China and North Korea including Mugabe in Zimbabwe as well as others.
China’s no strings attached loans usually come with string of mining mineral rights concessions and the use of imported Chinese workers to do much of the work.
However China like some of the powers before and the second tier lenders Libya, Iran, India are learning corrupt African leader don’t always pay their debts and thus I think like the burned western agencies will re-invent the wheel again in putting in conditions of transparency etc..
China’s practicality and investing in African infrastructure is impressive. (even if the quality detracts from it.)
There are so many strong men and weapons in Africa it seems strange that even China can do business with them.
If the west doesn’t want to keep colonial ties to these countries China can make new ones.
Comments..
Simon
Thanks for your comments.
nanheyangrouchuan:
While it is true that China lacked the air/naval power in order to project itself overseas, that overlooks the fact that China borders 15 nations–it is not a Pacific or East Asian power, it is also a Central Asian power. China’s lack of overseas projection has more to do with the internal political mindset than military capability–note that China used to have aircraft carriers, but now has none in active service. Aircraft carriers are classic examples of force projection.
While Chinese may be organizing overseas, they do not do it with explicit government permission. The kind of interference that I am talking about is hard power, not soft power. I’m talking about sending troops in, making requirements of foreign governments, etc.
Bill:
The ideals that China offers is the idea that a totalitarian government can still preside over an economically successful country. I’m not sure that it offers hope… while it has built substantial infrastructure in places like Africa, the local African industries (such as textile production) are in direct competition with China’s greatest strength–a large, low-cost labor force. The result of China’s offerings has been, at best, mixed.
Simon Laing:
China has always had some overseas connections, even through its most isolationist phases, but the focus of the population and the leaders has traditionally been internal. Noninterference has been enshrined as one of the central tenets of the Chinese diplomatic system–the whole Taiwan issue rests on the contention that it is an internal affair and that no other country has a right to butt in.
China’s large reserves of foreign currency allow it to not need to put in conditions of transparency. China has just plain forgiven much of the debt that foreign countries owe, counting it as the cost of their cooperation and goodwill. It is exactly because China does not fear being burned that it is willing to deal with corrupt African leaders. It is considered the cost of doing business there. Note a headline from last year: China offers interest-free loan to build Sudan Presidential Palace.
Perhaps that is a result of the way Chinese businesses are often run–substantial amounts of money are offered under the table, in the form of bribes, expensed meals, etc. While the idea of paying money in order to be considered for a favorable deal sounds repugnant to most Western governments, the Chinese government has always taken a more pragmatic approach. If it takes a massive bribe for a foreign government to allow a potentially mutually beneficial deal to go forth, then just pay out the bribe.
[...] 5 months ago, I posted an article about The Loss of Soft Power, talking about how China’s rise in soft power would eventually meet the same problems that [...]