China has the largest population in the world, one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and a national government that is stable (no matter what you think of their policies). They are almost always the first country mentioned in any discussion of who might compete with the U.S. for world economic and military dominance in the next century. Indeed, the total Gross Domestic Product of China will pass that total GDP of the United States within the first decade or so of the 21st century, giving China the biggest economy in the world. Will the 21st century then be the Chinese century? Are we due for a series of conflicts or even wars in which China flexes its muscles, and seeks to wrest world domination from the Americans?
Well, first, I have no doubt that this is in the minds of the Chinese leaders - at least at the back of their minds. China has a history of militarism, it’s leaders believe in the “manifest destiny” of China to lead the world, and based on their short, sharp conflict with Vietnam in the 1970s, they have no compunction about spending Chinese lives in battle. They have a large and still-rapidly growing population coupled with a shortage of arable land - a historic prescription for war. They have a rapidly budding technological sector, and a large cadre of bright, well-educated, capable people to perfect and invent new weapons. And they seem to have the patience to talk when that will get them farthest, to negotiate if that’s the easiest way to get what they want, to smile for the television cameras when that’s the right PR move, and to fight when it serves their interest.
Accordingly, I fully expect that China will work at becoming the dominant superpower of the 21st century. They will seduce countries like the U.S. and Japan with the prospects of opening their large and potentially lucrative markets for investment and trade. They will engage in border disputes with neighbours, starting with disputed territories like the islands in the South China Sea, plus fishing and ocean floor mineral rights. They’ll nibble away at territories, asserting historical rights to territories not currently under their control, and daring anyone to fight them over small plots of land. They will exert political, economic, and diplomatic pressure over other, smaller, non-aligned nations, switching between threats, offers of aid, and diplomatic horse-trading, as best suits the circumstance, in order to extend their influence.
They will, in short, probably use a “salami” tactic, taking small slices of what they want at a time, always grabbing, but never grabbing enough to make it worthwhile to confront them. The notable exception might, of course, be Taiwan, where they might one day just up and invade, and damn the world to stop them. This might, in fact, be a test case for them: assert control over a territory to which they have long staked a claim, and see what kind of reaction they get. If they have to send in the negotiators, and give some back, they will probably get some kind of bribe in exchange (as witness the way the U.S. is attempting - probably unsuccessfully - to bribe North Korea to abort it’s nuclear weapon program.)
And what will the American and world reaction to all this be? Well, let’s assume, for purposes of illustration, that China invades Taiwan - or perhaps Vietnam, a historical enemy. Let’s further assume that they are more or less successful (although a seaborne invasion of Taiwan would not be easy, and Vietnam has a history of turning back large foreign invaders). What would the United States, Europe, and others do? Do they want to commit troops to a war with China, which not only has a bigger army, but is more prepared to accept casualties? The allies in general, and the U.S. in particular have lost their taste for military casualties. Pictures of body bags being flown home on the NBC Nightly News are not popular at home. Would popular opinion support a major war to preserve the independence of Taiwan or Vietnam? I doubt it. Could the western powers intervene merely with military aid, or sophisticated technology to over come Chinese invaders, as they did in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded? Probably not.
I suspect that what would happen is a lot of huffing and puffing in the U.N., lots of diplomatic initiatives, but that the end result is that China would end up with more than they started with. They could then sit back, wait, and pick another target, then take another slice of the salami.
Does this mean the 21st century will belong to China? Not necessarily. First of all, they are not the only large, populous, rapidly-growing, or ambitious country in the world. Both India and Indonesia fall into that category as well, as does, to a lesser extent, Malaysia. Moreover, all three of these countries are in the same neighbourhood, will be rivals with China, and might well wind up in a war with China, openly or secretly. China knows this, and accordingly, I suspect that China has probably been supporting Pakistan in its conflicts with India, seeing Pakistan as a way of striking at India without having to get involved directly. So China will have to contend with competing not only with America, Europe, and their allies, but also with local competitors interested in many of the same things that China wants.
But at the end of it all, I think that China’s biggest problem is China. While it’s true that China’s economy is growing very rapidly, it is creating a real dilemma for the Chinese government. Most of China’s population still lives in the countryside, making their living by farming. Historically, peoples have worked themselves up a ladder of affluence by moving to the cities, taking jobs in factories for more money than they could make on the farm, and gradually using their greater affluence to buy the output of those factories, creating a virtuous cycle that creates rising affluence and a large middle class.
There’s a historic problem now, though. This ladder to affluence may no longer work because factories are automating, and don’t need all those workers off the farm. In fact, old-fashioned, labour-intensive manufacturing is no longer competitive in the world market in which China must compete. The quality of the products are not as good, and cheap labour may not be enough to allow Chinese products to be priced competitively against the steadily improving cost-effectiveness of automation.
What, then, does China do with the mass of people down on the farm? They don’t know, and it is probably their biggest problem, and their greatest nightmare. This problem would worsen dramatically if manual farming techniques were to lose out to automated farming, such as is used in developed countries, because it was more expensive. (This issue will affect many other countries as well, including developed countries like ours, and will be the subject of a subsequent column.)
When you have a majority of your population unemployed or underemployed, you have a prescription for first unrest, and then revolution. That is one of the reason why China is trying to hard to prevent its population from leaving the farm and moving to the cities.
Yet staying on the farm may not be an option either. Not only is manual farming steadily losing ground to automated farming, but the only way a peasant knows how to secure their old age is by having lots of children to support them. This is happening right now in China, despite China’s “one family, one child” rule. Children are also an asset on a farm, representing cheap, captive labour. The combination of the need for old age security and child labour means more mouths to feed - and no more arable land on which to grow the food, which leads us back to imperial aggression.
So, to sum up, I believe China will seek to expand its borders and its influence. It will engage in hegemonic adventurism, using whatever tools it feels will give it the best result. But it will be plagued by economic and political instability, which may make its central government weak and irresolute, like the Russian government, or provoke it into warfare in order to divert attention from domestic problems. Whichever happens, China will be a problem for its neighbours and the rest of the world.
© Copyright, IF Research, March 2000.
|
|