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

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 5 September 2014
by Zhong Sheng (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Emily France.
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."


  美国总统奥巴马不久前抛出所谓“中国免费搭便车”一说,暴露了不少心迹,引发了不少议论。人们由此不禁要问,美国究竟在以怎样的态度同世界相处?

  稍微了解伊拉克乱局背景的人都会对奥巴马的“搭便车论”付之一笑。海湾战争后西方对伊拉克的经济封锁与制裁,让这个曾经富庶的中东国家一落千丈;2003年以“大规模杀伤性武器”这等莫须有的名义开战,更是为日后伊拉克积贫积弱、乱象丛生种下祸根。无力履行“将伊拉克建成民主国家”承诺的美国匆匆撤军,眼看极端组织坐大却无以应对。自己无力挽回颜面,下不了台阶,就采取将视线转移到中国的方式,试图给中国摊上点责任,这在谁看来都显然是说不过去的。

  在伊拉克问题上说“中国免费搭便车”,其实质不过是近年来美国一些人鼓吹“中国责任论”的翻版。那些人以“规制”中国为战略目标,无论中国在处理国际事务时如何尽责,都会让他们产生无事生非的冲动,毫无客观、理性可言。互联网上流行着这样一句话:“你永远叫不醒一个装睡的人。”美国一些人执迷不悟即是印证。

  如果美国非要在国际关系问题上立一个“搭便车论”,那倒应当首先算算自己搭了多少“便车”。人们是不是可以说,美国因为搭了一战、二战的“便车”才一跃成为世界强国的?国际货币基金组织不久前预测,中国对世界经济增长的贡献率目前达到30%,未来5年中国预计将进口超过10万亿美元的商品,对外投资规模累计将超过5000亿美元……这其中也不乏美国“搭便车”的机会吧?

  问题的关键,并不在于谁搭了谁的“便车”,而在于能否在国际关系问题上以负责任的态度做负责任的事情。有目共睹的是,中国坚持合作、共赢理念,在国际关系中摒弃狭隘的排他性、竞争性主张,这与美方的种种不负责任截然相反。近日,中国国家主席习近平向国际社会表示,欢迎世界各国搭乘中国发展的列车,共享机遇,共同发展。“搭快车也好,搭便车也好,我们都欢迎”,这样的大国胸襟、大国责任心,能够为搭建互利互惠、共同发展的国家关系打开局面,也是国际社会普遍的冀望。

  大国,格外需要大思路,偏颇狭隘的结局只能是误人误己。美国因当初对伊拉克发动战争而深陷泥潭,如今麻烦缠身自有其因果,不是其“搭便车论”可以障人耳目的。美国真该深刻反思它同世界相处之道,正如美国外交政策聚焦研究计划主管约翰·费弗所言:美国是世界的一员,这一点无从逃避;如同人类必须改造与自然的关系一样,美国也必须改造与世界的关系。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Topics

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Related Articles

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle

Poland: Calm in Iran Doesn’t Mean Peace Yet

India: US, Israel and the Age of Moral Paralysis