What exactly America, China fighting about? Analysis by South China Morning Post

South China Morning Post has published an article saying that having helped provide the ladder on which China has climbed to the commanding heights it has reached today, it’s too late for the US to take it away, but try it will. Caliber.Az reprints the article.

Frequently, the most basic question about a heated topic is also the most intellectually disarming. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times asked just such a question the other day: “What exactly are America and China fighting about?”

The famous columnist and author has been travelling in China and the island of Taiwan asking important people the question. “A lot of people hesitated when I asked,” he wrote. “Indeed, many would answer with some version of ‘I’m not sure, I just know that it’s THEIR fault’.”

I can understand their reaction. I suffered a brain freeze for several hours. How should one answer it or even begin to do so?

But, as luck would have it, I have been reading “The National Security Strategy of the United States” (NSS), which was put out as a grand vision of US foreign policy by the White House of George W. Bush in September 2002. I know, I don’t have a social life.

The NSS seems as good a place as any to start looking for an answer. Even though it was released almost exactly one year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there was no sense of tragedy or sadness, but rather enthusiasm, even exhilaration and self-aggrandisement at the supposed historic opportunity presented to the United States to reshape the world in its own image as the world’s sole superpower. And that opportunity was presented by 9/11.

As a mission statement, the NSS feels so obsolete, like reading something from another era, as indeed, it was. Practically all the assumptions and beliefs that were set out to be the basis of Bush’s foreign policy have been reversed, superseded, or proven false by subsequent events. But, as they say, you need the past to understand the present.

Newspaper surveys have shown most readers don’t make it past the lead paragraph, so I am already pushing it. Let me now state the lessons I have taken from the NSS so you may skip the rest of the column.

The US believes all countries must follow the path of “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise” after the defeat of communism. Countries may be helped, encouraged or even forced militarily to do so by the US. Free enterprise, however, is history’s true locomotive. Therefore, so long as a country is willing to commit to market reform, it is acceptable to the US, even if it is a non-democracy, as it will necessarily make the transition to democracy in future.

In a word, it’s all economics, stupid! The economic determinism was almost Marxist. All these conclusions and assumptions have now been turned upside down. Today, it’s all politics, all the time. But why? In a word, the rapid rise of China. Well, not just China, but it is a very big, perhaps the biggest, factor.

Everyone knows that, of course. But what is perhaps worth reminding ourselves is this: all those assumptions and conclusions in Bush’s NSS inadvertently enabled China’s economic rise. Having helped provide the ladder on which China has climbed to the commanding heights it has reached today, it’s too late for the US to take it away, but try it will!

The NSS, from Bush to Biden

Let’s consider the three big buzz terms in the NSS: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.

Thus the paper begins: “The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom – and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise. [My italics] In the twenty-first century, only nations that share a commitment to protecting basic human rights and guaranteeing political and economic freedom will be able to unleash the potential of their people and assure their future prosperity. People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children – male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labour. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society – and the duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.

“Today, the United States enjoys a position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to create a balance of power that favours human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.

“We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.”

There are many aspects of this key document that are worth analysing in retrospect. Among these was the extraordinary intellectual consensus and certainty that the US embodied the highest human purposes and goals as well as having the economic and military means, along with the unprecedented national prestige, to achieve them. That means helping – or forcing – others to follow the same path. Economically, it was the neoliberal creed to bring about free markets everywhere around the world; politically, it was the neoconservative faith in military intervention, if necessary, to realise universal human values or those values and outcomes favoured by Washington, anywhere around the world.

It’s essentially the same argument as that of Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, and ironically, Friedman’s own bestseller, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. “Unfortunately, this Golden Straitjacket [of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism] is pretty much ‘one-size fits all’,” Friedman wrote then. “It is not always pretty or gentle or comfortable. But it’s here and it’s the only model on the rack this historical season.”

I wonder what Friedman thinks about that passage now.

However, in terms of priority, sequence and positioning, freedom, democracy, and free enterprise are not to be understood on the same equal footing. As the NSS makes clear, freedom can only be realised in a democracy as understood to be based on “small” government, which means giving free rein to economic enterprises with minimal or non-existent regulations and other restrictions.

This is, in the long history of Western political and economic thought, a very peculiar conception of liberty. That’s because the authors of the NSS thought they had learned, finally and definitively, from history: “The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies – industrialised countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.”

And, of course, that meant China and Russia too. Back in 2002, almost as a friend, the NSS wrote: “We are also increasingly united by common values. Russia is in the midst of a hopeful transition, reaching for its democratic future and a partner in the war on terror. Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness.

“America will encourage the advancement of democracy and economic openness in both nations, because these are the best foundations for domestic stability and international order. We will strongly resist aggression from other great powers – even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement.”

Ideology, it turns out, is no substitute for a deep understanding of other countries such as, or especially, China and Russia.

Today, Washington has gone into a complete reversal; it’s all about “friendshoring”, decoupling, re-industrialisation and industrial policy, disrupting and re-routing global supply chains, and deglobalisation; and telling your friends who they can and cannot trade with.

For sure, these are not all about China, but they are mostly because of it. Not everything in the NSS was jettisoned, though. There is one constant, that is, every presidency inherits an ever-expanding military.

“The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the US commitments to allies and friends,” the NSS said.

“Through our willingness to use force in our own defence and in defence of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favours freedom. To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of US forces.”

With close to 900 known military bases around the world, criminal activities and war crimes are inevitable. US military personnel must be protected – always – from international justice.

The NSS explained: “We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.

“We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect US nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of US personnel and officials.”

So much for the West’s celebration of the ICC’s latest charges against Vladimir Putin!

Going from one policy extreme (Bush) to the other (Biden) does not guarantee success. It shows US policies, both foreign and domestic, are moribund. Alternatively, it may be argued that Washington is capable of course correction when necessary. Take your pick.

I don’t pretend to have answered the big question. This has merely been my humble attempt to unfreeze my brain.