Rely on China for American foreign policy initiatives? Really?
The recent New York Times Week in Review column, "Look Who's Mr. Fixit for a Fraught Age," written by Steven Lee Myers, points to China as the most important partner in American international relations today. Mr. Myers is not wrong. Myers argues, correctly, that when both countries' interests are aligned much can be achieved. He points to China stepping up pressure on North Korea, successfully bringing the rogue nation -- which it had formally vehemently protected -- to the table ... and reaching a deal! (True, the deal only dictates that North Korea must cease and desist all nuclear manufacturing, but still allows Kim Jong Il to hold onto the weapons he has already amassed.) Myers acknowledges China's efforts to increase pressure on Sudan to stem the flow of blood in Darfur and to reach a peace deal with the major rebel parties. (True, this pressure comes years too late and only after hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions displaced). Myers goes so far as to mention the role China has played in the Association of South East Asian Nations' press release "strongly deplor[ing]" the Burmese junta's recent oppression of the pro-democracy protests led by monks. (True, the word "condemns" was notably absent in the release as it was too strong a word for China's liking, and the junta remains in place without any change in its behavior to date.)
When China agrees with us we can do a whole lot of good. After all, China's influence is gaining; ours is waning. But to rely upon China is a disastrous mistake. We have little influence over China; indeed, the contrary is true. China owns much of our ballooning debt and, thus, can wield the economic axe over our heads. We used to be able to turn international pressure on China through the strong and singular voice of American virtue on human rights. Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition -- even Hurricane Katrina -- have stolen away our strong, singular, virtuous voice and replaced it with a hollow shell issuing only wisps of morality.
In addition, China is loath to "condemn" any authoritarian regime, let alone the ones that keep bubbling up: China is following its economic nose, waiting years before stepping in to save Darfur because it had economic interests in Sudan, protecting North Korea for years by being its only trade partner, and ceasing to do so only after North Korea tested a nuclear missile -- an untoward provocation to the world, not to mention doing nothing about Iran, whose oil China's soaring economy needs to continue to propel itself forward.
China's permanent position on the UN Security Council makes it a crucial player in the game of geopolitics -- and one that can tip the balance between good and bad, democratic or authoritarian. Alas, China has so often waited until it is either too late -- North Korea already has nuclear missiles; Sudanese already died by the hundreds of thousands -- or has done nothing at all, paralyzed by its own economic self-preservation, as in the case of Iran.
Can we blame China? Sure. But one thing we can't be is surprised. China is an authoritarian regime. Our self-proclaimed number one foreign policy initiative is to spread democracy across the globe. How can we expect China to be our partner in that endeavor? To do so is to fall victim to circumstances, the easy path, and naivete. Do we need China? Probably. Can we rely on China? Certainly not.
At long last, however, the Bush Administration is beginning to understand that simply because we cannot rely upon a nation's support does not mean that we should not engage with that nation. Indeed, it is the only method for gaining mutual trust and perhaps even similar foreign policy goals. And it has borne some fruit. Just look at China's recent behavior: even with all its delayed half-measures, by simply pressing China as hard as we possibly could, it helped in the process of making North Korea disassemble its nuclear facilities, and fewer are dying in Darfur.
So the point in pursuing our national interest is not to expect all or nothing from fellow nations. We must be less Manichean in our viewpoint. We must act opportunistically with China, gaining what we can when we can. But we should always remember that we cannot yet rely upon China.
