The Bias Behind the US-Styled ‘Free Rider’ Theory

Not long ago, President Barack Obama revealed some of his inner feelings through a remark that China is a “free rider,” giving rise to considerable debate. One cannot help but ask: Exactly what kind of attitude does the U.S. take when dealing with the rest of the world?

Those with even a rudimentary understanding of the factors underlying the mayhem in Iraq will greet Obama’s comments with a derisive snort. After the Gulf War, the West crippled the once-affluent Middle Eastern country by sealing its economy with sanctions. The war in 2003, initiated on baseless accusations of possessing weapons of mass destruction, further laid the groundwork for the chaos, destitution and instability to come. Unable to fulfill its promise of “building Iraq into a democratic state,” the U.S. hastily withdrew its military presence, then watched and did little else as extremist organizations rose to power. Unable to salvage the situation and backed into a corner by its own rhetoric, the U.S. has turned a hopeful eye to China and attempted to parcel out the burden of its responsibilities, a sorry act in anybody’s estimation.

Saying that “China is a free rider” on problems in Iraq is, in essence, nothing more than the second edition of the “Chinese responsibility” argument that some Americans have propagated over the past few years. These individuals have made “regulating” China into a strategic objective. Regardless of how much responsibility China takes upon itself within world affairs, they remain poised to leap at the slightest perceived offense, without the slightest sliver of objectivity or rationality to speak of. As a certain phrase circulating on the Internet goes, “you’ll never wake somebody up who is pretending to sleep.” The U.S. persisting so in its folly is positive proof of this.

If the U.S. absolutely must argue that someone is “a free rider” in international relations, it should first tally up its own bill. Would it not be fair to say that the U.S. only became the dominant world power by “getting a free ride” in World Wars I and II? The International Monetary Fund recently estimated that Chinese contributions now account for over 30 percent of growth in the global economy. It further projected that over the next five years, China will import over $10 trillion worth of goods, and that its aggregate foreign investment will surpass $5 trillion, wherein should exist no shortage of opportunities for the U.S. to “get a free ride.”

A more pertinent question is not who is getting a free ride, but rather whether or not one can pair an attitude of responsibility with responsible conduct on international issues. Anybody with eyes can see that China adheres to the concepts of cooperation and mutual benefit, while rejecting narrow-minded exclusivity and the promotion of competition in international relations, a stance that stands in stark contrast to the various irresponsible acts of the U.S. Recently, Chinese president Xi Jinping expressed to the international community that China welcomes every country in the world to board China’s train of development to share in the opportunities therein. “Whether you board the express or ride for free, we welcome you all.” This sort of magnanimity and air of responsibility befitting a great power can create new openings for establishing relations between countries that are built upon mutual benefit and collaborative development, something that the international community universally desires.

A great power in particular must maintain breadth of thought, as bias and narrow-mindedness will only result in harm to itself and others. The U.S. became mired in this morass from the moment it launched a war in Iraq. There is a reason that these troubles are now returning to haunt it, and no amount of “free rider” finger-pointing will blind people to that fact. Indeed, the U.S. should deeply reflect upon how it coexists with the rest of the world. As John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in the U.S., wrote: “We are in the world, there’s no escaping that. Just as humans must reconfigure their relationship with nature, the United States must reconfigure its relationship with the world.”