"Smart Power, Chinese Style"

On "Smart Power, Chinese Style"



I enjoy that the author begins with the observation that there is an ancient and epic struggle between existing power and an emerging power. It is hopeful to note this because it is then easier to see that if these powers work together, a peaceful submission into the future for all parties and those whom will be effected is possible to achieve. Unfortunately, I think the American way of thinking is more along the lines of, "They have more power. They are a threat. How can we remain #1 immediately?"

I agree with Mahbubani, although this was not objective as he had proclaimed it would be, on some of his important points. China is going through their recovery process in a globally beneficial way by strengthening ties with the world around them. In result, they are not only improving other countries domestically, but inevitably gaining power for themselves along the way. They are looking with an eye to long term success in the future surrounded by allies which makes them the most notable growing power today. America, on the other hand, has become distracted by its power.

He states that, "each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for the advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes." When we need something, we ignore everyone else and use force to obtain it instead of figuring out an intelligent solution that will not only get us what we want, but improve conditions around the world as well by strengthening our ties internationally. In other words, while we are only looking to help ourselves at any short term costs, China is carefully seeing what players it needs for long term effects. 

In addition, China began beating us out by "helping" us in 2003. They helped us join a war that wasn't good for international relations. This decision was a win-win for China. While allowing America to dig its own grave, China has been off continuing to make beneficial ties with other global economies. As a side note: How blind was America to this? Or did we just want to go to war so bad, we looked the other way at this realization? It's not to say that China is there yet, but not only their progress is worth paying attention to; the way in which they are progressing, to me, is almost more important.

When one continues to act solely in their own, immediate favor, they end up in position where even their own favor is not favorable. Why? Because you begin in a position that is equal to its end. If you start off taking what you want and giving nothing in return, you're going to end up alone and with enemies. Instead, China is being an active geopolitical acumen creating deals for the good of the publics they mean to associate with. So they are gaining allies as well as revenue. Sound familiar? The irony here is that America is known for these actions. But in the past few decades, we have grown from this practice by ignoring others' needs to focus on our own problems. Yet where's the progress? One step at a time, they are providing the exact example we historically exemplified, while, one step at a time, we are burning bridges along our path to recovery when we should be building them. In this way, China's progress is a reflection of not only where we were, but where we need to be. 

Power Shift: From US to China?

China: A "smart" (or sneaky) power but not a super power -- yet (do they want to be one?).
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-china-to-overtake-us-as-worlds-biggest-assh,17277/
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/01/exclusive-eric-schmidt-unloads-on-china-in-new-book/

Side note: What does the super power do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2m3bI52dww  (In Korea)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhDSoAGoJJE (In Taiwan)

On the other hand, conservatives seem to be paying more attention to "Obama's bowing to dictators"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/04/13/conservative-media-continue-tired-obsession-wit/163106

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-bowing-to-foreign-dictators--and-his-golf-game/2011/12/08/gIQAvANkfO_blog.html


More from Mahbubani on the West's Own Undoing: Inability to recognize the "structural weaknesses in the core value systems and institutions" --

• Budgetary discipline is disappearing
• Low savings and investment rates
• The work ethic is eroding, while politicians delude workers into believing that they can retain high wages despite becoming internationally uncompetitive.
• Leadership is lacking -- any politician who states hard truths is immediately voted out.
• Individual freedom -- great idea -- e.g., slavery ended. "But freedom does not only solve problems; it can also cause them." Since 1960, the US population has increased 41% while violent crime has risen by 560%. 

The U.S. public opinion on foreign policy
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/01/28/is-obama-out-of-step-with-america-on-foreign-policy/

Reflection on his view about China being "smart": It is a "good" or "bad" government?

There's still hope.

The New China = ?

http://cn.nytimes.com/article/opinion/2013/01/30/c30tijuana/en/

Smart power, Chinese style

I thought the author made the United States seem almost childish in the beginning, noting how remarkable it is that there is little tension between the US and China and and still back-handing the Americans, saying this is a product of China, which has overcome Washington's "tendency for incompetence."

What's funny is right before that, the author suggested this may be an "objective study."

Smart Power, Chinese Style

This essay was anything but objective.

It makes America look like a selfish, incompetent child in relation to other nations and then tries to make us feel better by stating during the very last few lines that we can change for the better. The latter hardly seems like the point of anything when all the while, the essay glorifies the Chinese and their steady rise to fame and fortune. Very, very rarely does the author offer America any sort of positive feedback throughout the essay, if at all.

While I can agree that a lot of times, America doesn't always seem to have the best interests of anybody other than itself in mind, the examples didn't seem to take into account the issues America was facing at the time with terrorism and war. America was under pressure. A few missed meetings sure put up a bad front, but there were other priorities at home to consider. Any other nation would have done the same to protect its people.

The quote from Stephen Johnson of the Heritage Foundation, however, well highlights how America is a tad bit paranoid with its diplomacy, making contracts and restrictions so that if anything goes wrong, it will be in a position of power to act upon it. China, being able to "bargain on the spot without a lot of caveats" sort of just tells me that China rushes into things quickly and, in a sense, leaves itself vulnerable to unfavorable circumstances when dealing with other nations.

Throughout the entire essay, China is painted as a hero while barely touching upon any of the negative qualities that run as rampant there as they do here. This can be seen when the Sino-Japanese relationship is discussed and yet still the author tries to pass the strained relationship as something bad, sure, but something that the Chinese have at least striven to keep under control for the oh, so pure purpose of inter-connectivity.

Perhaps I'm taking all of this a little too personally.

Smart Power, Chinese Style

"It is odd: America is one of the most open societies in the world, yet when it comes to listening to the rest of the world or understanding the views of others, America instead resembles a closed society."

On our own land, we still struggle with understanding other cultures and accepting them into our lives and our invented realms of the "American world." On a global scale, then, I think it is only fitting that we still have trouble listening and understanding the rest of the world.

One thing I found very interesting was China's rendition of the word "crisis", the combination of the Chinese characters for "danger" and "opportunity", while the English definition doesn't hint at the positivity of opportunity in these moments. The Chinese interpretation may also explain why "each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for the advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes."

Although Mahbubabi's criticism of America's faulty geopolitical and decision-making competence was accurate in many ways, I believe we make some decisions that proud citizens agree with and think are very necessary.

China and the U.S.

-->

I think there are a few reasons why China is seeking a larger global presence but is not seeking to become a world superpower. Firstly, it is human nature to want to improve and continually move forward. I feel that in order for China to grow as a country, improving their environment and working conditions of their people, they would do well to be put on a metaphorical “global pedestal”.

China has made an effort to learn from the mistakes of other world powers. Part of China’s goal to become a world presence has made them focus extensively on analyzing other countries' failures and learning from them. Thus, within the past decade China has gone from being a closed society to being a global helping hand, improving their image around the world, including with the U.S.

“Each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes. America believes the opposite.”

Mahbubani argues that “the international political of the 21^st century will for the first time in human history constitute a system that is simultaneously global in scope and less than wholly western in character. The decisions that affect the world can no longer be made in a few Western capitals, as new cultural and political perspectives are entering the scene.” I think this is a reflection of how technology has brought the world together and brought third-world countries into consideration. More and more, geopolitical decisions will be discussed by world powers other than the U.S. An eastern influence will become present. I also think that as our generation grows into a group of professionals who are more socially and globally aware than their baby boomer counterparts, they will be more comfortable making these decisions overseas as new cultural and political perspectives come into play.

And while the chapter was decidedly biased in its assessment of the U.S. during 9/11 and the crisis-swept years that followed, I don’t think Mahbubani is completely off-based when he criticizes the U.S. for its foreign affairs policies during those years.

“American never misses and opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

I think it is natural for a country that wants to improve their image to take an opportunity to do so if they can.

The United States and China with Japan in Between

This article touched on and/or hinted at something that I think will manifest itself boldly in the future; Japan will be the middle-man between U.S. - China passive aggression as the two economic bubble begin to butt against each other all across the world.

My understanding of the situation is something like this:

As the article described, Chinese-Japanese relations are about as bad as any two global powers could have it. Contrary to Western perception (as embodied by our classification of people: Asians), Chinese people are about as different from Japan in their culture, identity, and way of being as they are from Americans. At least, that's what I think. On top of that, Japan has a pretty lengthy history of murderous crusades into eastern China. Both sides are deeply instilled with a profound distaste for the other.

And, on the other side of the ocean, Japan-U.S. relations are defined intensely by the outcome of the second World War. I don't want to discount the more than half century of unique Japanese development after the American occupation ended, but I do believe that much of modern Japanese foundations are laid upon terms enforced during the years of American occupation.


Just in case your curious, here's the American Occupation of Japan on Wikipedia

The United States maintains a huge military presence in Japan and still receives war reparations. The point: Japan is firmly on the American side by force of forced tradition.

Even if China's soft power buys the all hearts of Southeast Asia, the United States will never lose Japan. As Chinese hegemony surges over its borders (as seen in the last months of East and South China Sea territorial disputes), Japan will be one of the main instruments of the United States.

Here are some examples of  news headlines:
US and Japan Carry Out Joint Air Exercises
China Assails U.S. Over Alliance With Japan
China Warns Japan on U.S. Defense Pact
Japan - US Stage Military Drill
China Questions US Role in Koreas

Etc...

China vs. U.S.

I think this chapter was quite one-sided and harsh toward to the U.S. But, I also haven’t agreed much with our choices in regard to foreign policy. I remember tweeting the Presidential Debate, and both candidates kept saying how they are going to go after the bad guys and make sure that the U.S. is a strong global power. Romney at one point said that he didn’t see our influence growing and that he sees the Middle East as a rising tide of chaos. Both candidates said they wanted to promote freedom. At the same time though, we like to be the police of other countries. This attitude is demeaning and patronizing. It is very inward thinking.

Therefore in this light, I agree with Mahbubani when he says the political planning in the U.S. is for four years or the next presidential cycle, whereas the Chinese make long-term plans, 50+ years down the road. It does concern me though, how China was the country that helped the U.S. gain the UN resolution, making the invasion of Iraq legal…

The U.S. seems to always have short-term self-interest in mind when it comes to agreements and trade. I think we do put too many restrictions and stipulations that it causes the opposite of economic sovereignty for countries. So, in this regard, we should be more like China and really look out for other countries’ interests. However, I think China is too soft in this regard by not demanding environmental policies and human rights.

However, if China doesn’t want to be a superpower and seek global interdependence, then why are they choosing to become so powerful and influential? Like Mahbubani said, China is a closed society with an open mind. Granted I don’t know much about the life of a typical Chinese, but I feel that China should focus on taking care of their own people in terms of freedoms and pollution more than geopolitical influence. Also, what about China’s control over Tibet? 

Smart Power, Chinese Style

• Mahbubani says that there is surprisingly no tension between America and China. I'd have to agree with that, I suppose. But there is, I believe, tension (or at least some type of rivalry) between American and Chinese people. Americans typically believe that Chinese = genius, and this creates a divide between the two cultures. Also, this may be a completely ignorant comment, but I think Chinese people are sneaky! They don't express themselves like Americans do, Facebook is banned in their country (what?!) and they're Communists (which, historically, automatically means that they are untrustworthy). I also had a really bad roommate experience with a Chinese girl, so I'm probably biased.
• Three of Xiaoping's seven guidelines are: "conceal our capabilities and avoid the limelight... keep a low profile... strive for achievements." This basically sums up my view of Chinese people in general, so they seem to be doing a good job! I agree that these are why it is  "difficult to describe Chinese successes, because the Chinese themselves say so little about them."
• When Mahbubani talks about how American diplomats aren't the best and brightest (like those of China), I immediately connected. There are way too many jobs in the United States that just have the "wrong man for the job," but there is one in particular that I have a problem with. I love my future-teacher friends, and most of them are adequately prepared, but there are a lot of teachers who really confuse me as to how they were ever qualified to teach children, the future of our country. I blame these problems on our poor public education, but how are they going to get fixed when bad teachers are constantly being put into classrooms?
• "American diplomats live and work in fortress-like compounds" - Well, especially now after the attack on the U.S. diplomacy in Benghazi, Libya.
• "Obtaining any kind of assistance from the US requires compliance on a battery of restrictions." - It would be nice to just help countries out, but we live by "If I do that for you, then I have to do it for everyone else, too." We believe in contracts because we like rules and don't want to get jipped. What's wrong with that?
• "Western incompetence has provided significant opportunities that China has been able to exploit without paying any serious political price." - Ouch.
• "It is amazing how solid and stable the sino-american relationship has become" - I will refer back to an earlier statement: Chinese people are sneaky! I think I may just be a conspiracy theorist, but if I were China, I would play nice with America (my biggest threat) for the time being, at least until I've gotten strong enough to be the world's absolute superpower. Because if I'm not nice to America, they'll get suspicious, and I can't have them snooping around. (Maybe I watched too many Scooby-Doo cartoons as a kid...)

*Most of what I write has a sarcastic undertone, so please don't think I'm anti-China!