How To Escape from the Dilemma of the US-China ‘Sandwich’

A great “sandwich” debate has engulfed us all since the question of our government’s dealings with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system contained accusations of incompetency. Even President Park Geun-hye had to draw the line in facing this criticism, stating that it was not “obsequious diplomacy,” and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Yun Byung-se emphasized that the decisions made by the government were made with our national interests at heart and with our own agency. The public, however, remains unconvinced.

The views on the government’s foreign policy largely diverge into two groups. One is the “get on the bandwagon while you can” view. Since the power struggle between the U.S. and China is de facto true, rather than “going down with the U.S.” we should get on board with “rising China,” this group argues. China stands out not only in terms of economy, but also because of its unique position to influence North Korea; therefore, this group argues, rather than being entangled by the U.S.-Republic of Korea Alliance, we ought to strengthen the strategic partnership we already have with China. From this point of view, the government’s decision to join the AIIB—despite U.S. disapproval—and maintaining the ambiguity on THAAD is something to be praised.

That is, however, not to say that there isn’t opposition to this view. Namely, the Pax Americana III school of thought argues that the power struggle is a thing of the distant future, and the U.S. will eventually reclaim a leadership role in the world order. This view claims that the U.S. will continuously make and maintain the world order of early and mid-21st century, emerging from the recent difficulties of the past few years, as it did in the post-World War II era and the post-Cold War era of the 1990s.

This group points out that the recent surge in the American economy by the shale gas revolution has saved the U.S. from the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers crisis of 2008*, and moreover, made the U.S. a new powerhouse for the energy resource. In addition, the U.S. still maintains its supremacy in the field of technology, not to mention that it has not fallen into the “high income trap”** which often manifests itself in the form of low birthrates and aging populations. In terms of national defense, while the U.S. has suffered budget cuts, its infrastructure remains solid and the improving economy will allow more tax revenue and more defense spending.

In contrast, China’s eight percent growth has slowed down,*** and the group (which does not favor allying with China) argues that the “New Normal” economy has already taken place in China, which exhibits low growth and high unemployment rates. China’s chronic issues of high income gaps, worsening environment, government corruption, separatist movements, and the people’s desire for a law-abiding and democratic society have made China the county that is actually facing a grave challenge, this group argues. They point out that the Chinese defense budget is still only a quarter of what the U.S. spends on its defense, despite the fact it has been annually increasing by double digits. In other words, the number of China’s allies is incomparable to that of the United States. This group warns against making hasty decisions, especially if it leads to “inappropriate” ones such as allying with China.

What should we do, in facing such an impossible task of “double playing” the U.S. (for security) and China (for the economy)? Harvard professor Joseph Nye offers some important caveats in his recent book “Is the American Century Over?” Professor Nye argues that the American century has been uninterrupted since 1941. He claims that no country on earth, including China, Japan, India, as well as Europe, will be unable to surpass the United States. He argues that U.S. hegemony is not based, for example, on its military, economy, or even its soft powers. Instead, he argues, the U.S., while it has served a central role in maintaining the balance of the world order and creating (international) public goods, has never truly enjoyed “Pax Americana.” Even in the 1950s, when the U.S. controlled the 50 percent of the entire world economy, its supposed hegemony was only limited to that 50 percent of the world.

Professor Nye judges that there is only so much the U.S. can do to influence the entire world via its ‘hegemony’. Other countries, including China, have grown more powerful and the cogs and wheels of international society have become extremely diverse and complicated. He worries that due to the nature of Washington D.C., where political partisanship is the rule of everything, the U.S. capacity for “power conversion” is being hindered severely. Considering the limitations imposed internally and externally, the U.S. is incapable of being the sole arbiter of international issues, he argues. In conclusion, he notes that the U.S. has no choice but to cooperate with other countries in dealing with any, if not all, issues of the world.

The point which Professor Nye is making is straightforward; The U.S. still stands strong for us when considering the possibility of hopping on another bandwagon, yet there is a limitation to its “smart power” in considering whether we should put all our eggs in one basket. In the end, we have to walk our own path. In the interest of harmony of national interests and common interests, we need to stand undaunted and redefine our relations to China and the U.S., and alongside them, we shall pursue our own paths in addressing the woes of the world, creatively, and leadingly.

The author, Professor Moon Jeong-in, is professor at Yonsei University, in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy.

**Translator’s Note: This is a reference to the “middle income trap.”

***Translator’s Note: This refers to the time when China’s economy was rapidly growing and showed an approximately eight percent annual growth in GDP.