Eagle and Dragon
G-2 — the U.S. and China. The American eagle and/or the Chinese dragon.
This is the enigma of the future. The greatest minds of the West and the East are trying to crack it. It is not easy to detect what the Chinese think about it, but the Americans’ ideas are wide open in front of us.
TWO OF THE MOST FAMOUS NAMES in American politics are linked to Sino-American relations. As a national security advisor for the Republican president Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger launched the well-known triangular diplomacy — a rapprochement with China aimed to corner the Soviet Union. In the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski took the same post in the administration of Jimmy Carter — another president from another party, but the security advisor kept on smiling towards Beijing.
I talked to Brzezinski a little before Christmas at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. His latest book, "Strategic Vision," will be published in Bulgaria soon. In "Strategic Vision," he advocates a new role for the United States in the near future: “It must be the promoter and guarantor of greater and broader unity in the West, and it must be the balancer and conciliator between the major powers in the East.” The East means India, Pakistan, Korea, but mainly China. The growing East is loaded with conflict potential. That’s why America shouldn’t oppose it, but should balance and soothe its passions — a vision of a world in which the United States are still on the top, but they have company there.
A FERVENT OPPONENT OF THE WAR in Iraq, Brzezinski shared with me that a potential war with Iran — an idea ignited by the presidential race — is equally dangerous. In his opinion, in order to strengthen its position on the international scene, the United States should apply wisdom and strategic analysis abroad and policies that would stimulate the economy and the educational system at home. On my question of whether Obama has the capacity to put that plan into practice, he replied: “If you look at the current political scene, the alternatives offered by Obama do not look very appealing or very intelligent.”
That may be true for all politicians. The Republicans, who once asked “What kind of name is Barack Hussein Obama?” have offered presidential candidates named Mitt and Newt along with exotic opinions including abandoning Afghanistan and confronting Iran. Some neoconservatives are determined to oppose China in regard to Taiwan and human rights issues and even talk about armed measures. Political analysts, though, rarely take a belligerent tone. Kissinger, the old time Brzezinski opponent, is with him on the subject of China.
The eminent professor today runs an international consulting firm, Kissinger Associates Inc., which offers services to companies willing to do business with China. Last year, Kissinger published "On China" in which he recalls his meetings with Mao and Deng Xiaoping. In the book, he warns that a Cold War between China and the U.S. “would arrest progress for a generation on both sides of the Pacific.” He also adds that a cooperation between the two is “essential to global stability and peace” and that “relations between China and the United States need not — and should not — become a zero-sum game.”
IF THE WORLD WERE ONLY POLITICS, there would be no barriers for good intentions. But how do you calm down irrational economic fears in a time when China produces and America outsources? The always vocal futurists often update their predictions about the exact date the Chinese economy will outpace the American and will become number one in the world. What will China reach for when this happens? Political domination? Economic servitude? The world's resources?
Today’s economic balance between the U.S. and China is more than delicate. Many books have been written about it. One of the most popular among them is "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, a journalist and political analyst of Indian origin. He illustrates that economic balance in simple words: “The Chinese-American economic relationship is one of mutual dependence. China needs the American market to sell its goods; the United States needs China to finance its debt.” This is the G-2 philosophy that the world stands on.
According to Zakaria, though, both sides are trying to get out of this “suicide pact,” as he calls it. To do that, China needs to refinance its economy while the U.S. must restructure its own through unpopular measures and to put an end to the accumulation of debt. With regard to the threat of possible Chinese expansion, like most American authors Zakaria relies on the fact that it does not correspond with Chinese tradition.
INDEED, A CENTURY AFTER ALEXANDER THE GREAT, the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang had overwhelming military power (that could be seen on the mosaics harbored by many world museums), but he did not make an attempt to conquer the world outside of China. Eighty-seven years before Columbus, the Chinese admiral Zheng He crossed seven times the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia gliding on ships much bigger than the European ones. The next Chinese emperor, though, said “no” to expensive trips, banned the expeditions and stayed closed in the Chinese world. If he hadn’t done that, America could have been discovered by the Chinese instead of Columbus.
Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t seek to impose its moral standards on a global scale. Just the opposite — reportedly, the Chinese intend to reform their communist ideology through the same gradual and cautious approach they used to reform their economy. China is not looking to conquer the world, Western optimists reassure us. It just feels good to believe in what they say despite of some signs of further ambitions from China’s side.
TOWARD THE END OF "STRATEGIC VISION" Brzezinski draws an interesting comparison, seeing U.S. as Rome and China as Constantinople. In the fifth century, the Western Roman Empire fought over every garrison and eventually perished under the strikes of barbarians while the Eastern Empire conducted commerce and negotiated and survived for another thousand years. According to Brzezinski, the future is not preordained — it is up to America whether it will follow the example of Rome or not.
To me what matters the most is where we are — the allies of the new West and the heirs of the old East. “Your role in the world depends on you,” Brzezinski told me. “The decisions you have to make will fall neither from the sky nor from the U.S.”
Honestly, I like the answer. In the G-2 world the choices we make are more than two.
This is the enigma of the future. The greatest minds of the West and the East are trying to crack it. It is not easy to detect what the Chinese think about it, but the Americans’ ideas are wide open in front of us.
TWO OF THE MOST FAMOUS NAMES in American politics are linked to Sino-American relations. As a national security advisor for the Republican president Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger launched the well-known triangular diplomacy — a rapprochement with China aimed to corner the Soviet Union. In the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski took the same post in the administration of Jimmy Carter — another president from another party, but the security advisor kept on smiling towards Beijing.
I talked to Brzezinski a little before Christmas at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. His latest book, "Strategic Vision," will be published in Bulgaria soon. In "Strategic Vision," he advocates a new role for the United States in the near future: “It must be the promoter and guarantor of greater and broader unity in the West, and it must be the balancer and conciliator between the major powers in the East.” The East means India, Pakistan, Korea, but mainly China. The growing East is loaded with conflict potential. That’s why America shouldn’t oppose it, but should balance and soothe its passions — a vision of a world in which the United States are still on the top, but they have company there.
A FERVENT OPPONENT OF THE WAR in Iraq, Brzezinski shared with me that a potential war with Iran — an idea ignited by the presidential race — is equally dangerous. In his opinion, in order to strengthen its position on the international scene, the United States should apply wisdom and strategic analysis abroad and policies that would stimulate the economy and the educational system at home. On my question of whether Obama has the capacity to put that plan into practice, he replied: “If you look at the current political scene, the alternatives offered by Obama do not look very appealing or very intelligent.”
That may be true for all politicians. The Republicans, who once asked “What kind of name is Barack Hussein Obama?” have offered presidential candidates named Mitt and Newt along with exotic opinions including abandoning Afghanistan and confronting Iran. Some neoconservatives are determined to oppose China in regard to Taiwan and human rights issues and even talk about armed measures. Political analysts, though, rarely take a belligerent tone. Kissinger, the old time Brzezinski opponent, is with him on the subject of China.
The eminent professor today runs an international consulting firm, Kissinger Associates Inc., which offers services to companies willing to do business with China. Last year, Kissinger published "On China" in which he recalls his meetings with Mao and Deng Xiaoping. In the book, he warns that a Cold War between China and the U.S. “would arrest progress for a generation on both sides of the Pacific.” He also adds that a cooperation between the two is “essential to global stability and peace” and that “relations between China and the United States need not — and should not — become a zero-sum game.”
IF THE WORLD WERE ONLY POLITICS, there would be no barriers for good intentions. But how do you calm down irrational economic fears in a time when China produces and America outsources? The always vocal futurists often update their predictions about the exact date the Chinese economy will outpace the American and will become number one in the world. What will China reach for when this happens? Political domination? Economic servitude? The world's resources?
Today’s economic balance between the U.S. and China is more than delicate. Many books have been written about it. One of the most popular among them is "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, a journalist and political analyst of Indian origin. He illustrates that economic balance in simple words: “The Chinese-American economic relationship is one of mutual dependence. China needs the American market to sell its goods; the United States needs China to finance its debt.” This is the G-2 philosophy that the world stands on.
According to Zakaria, though, both sides are trying to get out of this “suicide pact,” as he calls it. To do that, China needs to refinance its economy while the U.S. must restructure its own through unpopular measures and to put an end to the accumulation of debt. With regard to the threat of possible Chinese expansion, like most American authors Zakaria relies on the fact that it does not correspond with Chinese tradition.
INDEED, A CENTURY AFTER ALEXANDER THE GREAT, the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang had overwhelming military power (that could be seen on the mosaics harbored by many world museums), but he did not make an attempt to conquer the world outside of China. Eighty-seven years before Columbus, the Chinese admiral Zheng He crossed seven times the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia gliding on ships much bigger than the European ones. The next Chinese emperor, though, said “no” to expensive trips, banned the expeditions and stayed closed in the Chinese world. If he hadn’t done that, America could have been discovered by the Chinese instead of Columbus.
Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t seek to impose its moral standards on a global scale. Just the opposite — reportedly, the Chinese intend to reform their communist ideology through the same gradual and cautious approach they used to reform their economy. China is not looking to conquer the world, Western optimists reassure us. It just feels good to believe in what they say despite of some signs of further ambitions from China’s side.
TOWARD THE END OF "STRATEGIC VISION" Brzezinski draws an interesting comparison, seeing U.S. as Rome and China as Constantinople. In the fifth century, the Western Roman Empire fought over every garrison and eventually perished under the strikes of barbarians while the Eastern Empire conducted commerce and negotiated and survived for another thousand years. According to Brzezinski, the future is not preordained — it is up to America whether it will follow the example of Rome or not.
To me what matters the most is where we are — the allies of the new West and the heirs of the old East. “Your role in the world depends on you,” Brzezinski told me. “The decisions you have to make will fall neither from the sky nor from the U.S.”
Honestly, I like the answer. In the G-2 world the choices we make are more than two.
Previous article![]( "Does George Washington Sell More Than Souvenirs?")
