SPEAKING FREELY China: Perils of a
US-dominated world By Haibin Niu and
Shixiong Ni
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
In the
post-Cold War era, the structure of world power has been
transformed from the old bipolar system to a unipolar
system. The United States became the sole superpower in
world politics, which has structural effects on the
behavior of other actors. To maintain their survival and
development, other states will choose a good or normal
relationship with the US, rather than confrontation with
Washington. However, the primacy of the US doesn't mean
it can do without respecting other actors' desires and
interests. A lonely superpower cannot go far or forever
go it alone in a more and more interdependent and
globalized world.
The September 11, 2001,
terrorism attacks on the US were a turning point. The US
constructed an anti-terrorism coalition based on its
primacy. To some extent, the September 11 attacks
provided a chance for big powers to improve their
relationships. Based on the consensus of the need to
fight terrorism, relations between China and the US, and
Russia and the US have improved and been consolidated.
However, we should note that terrorism is not an
urgent security threat for China and Russia, although
both of them face terrorism in their internal domains.
Thus, it is very apparent that both China and Russia
want to reconcile their relations with the US in the
aftermath of September 11. For both China and Russia,
achieving cooperation and improvement with the US is the
more important objective than the goal of
anti-terrorism.
After September 11, the security
concerns priority of the US began to change. To prevent
a potential big power challenge has been supplanted by
anti-terrorism on Washington's most urgent security
agenda. Terrorism, rogue states, and the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were then thought
to be the most dangerous threat to the US. Thus,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea became the focus
of American security concerns. The countries previously
considered as potential challengers to its sole
superpower status were marginalized by the security
threat from terrorism and the proliferation of WMD. Its
challengers and allies were united around America to
promote the mission of anti-terrorism.
But this
is not the whole scenario. Fighting terrorism is just
one impetus to promote cooperation among big powers.
Anti-terrorism is a single problem, which should not be
exaggerated too much. To agree with the US on the need
to fight terrorism together with the US is not to agree
on everything with the US. As we have witnessed, when
the war on terrorism extended to Iraq, different voices
and actions emerged, even from America's traditional
allies. Differences of attitudes and interests on the
Iraq war brought deep friction to the trans-Atlantic
relationship, a situation that had never occurred since
World War II. The trans-Atlantic tension is easy to
understand in a more and more interdependent and
globalized world, but it means more in the situation of
anti-terrorism and American primacy.
To some
extent, global terrorism is a product of globalization.
The global spread of information and technology, erosion
of national boundaries and weakening of national
governance provide the conditions for the growth of
terrorism, and make it difficult to fight terrorism. In
a globalized and interdependent world, anti-terrorism is
a common task for all inhabitants on earth and requires
comprehensive measures. Anti-terrorism activities should
extend beyond national governments. The nation-state is
just one governance unit among the global governance
system. The power of international institutions, global
civil society, and other super or sub-national actors
also should be emphasized.
American primacy
and power collaboration In an international
world, national government is the most reliable force to
combat terrorism. If national governments can provide
enough security and order to their citizens, there will
be less terrorism. The key factor is not whether one's
regime is democratic; legitimacy is vital to the
survival of its regime. A legitimized regime can improve
its governance ability and reduce its domestic sources
of terrorism. Thus, the war on terrorism should move
beyond war on rogue states. Rogue states should change,
but how to achieve change is another problem. In a
global governance era, we should depend on international
regimes, which have the biggest legitimacy, in adopting
actions towards sovereign independent national states.
The Iraq war was a great challenge to the
legitimacy of contemporary international institutions.
However, the effectiveness of the United Nations isn't
completely overshadowed by the unilateralism of the US
and its allies. In the period of post-Iraq war
reconstruction, the scandals of Iraqi captive abuse, and
the 2004 US presidential election campaign, the UN once
again regained its status in maintaining peace and
promoting development in Iraq. In dealing with security
threats, unilateralism might be more rapid and timely
than multilateralism, but it lacks sufficient legitimacy
when intervening or interfering with the domestic
affairs of other states, and mistakes and
miscalculations are easy to make.
Thus, in the
long run, multilateralism enjoys greater effectiveness
than unilateralism. Implementing genuine international
democracy is a good way to avoid making mistakes. And
when we emphasize domestic democracy, we should not
forget transnational democracy, although transnational
democracy is still in its early stages.
In the
context of US primacy, balancing power is difficult but
not impossible. When all other powers' ideas and
interests are damaged severely by the unilateralism of
the US and its allies, anti-unilateralism alliances
might be constructed in the near future. The ideas,
strengths and resources of other powers need to be
respected by the US and its allies, otherwise
international institutions will lose their ability to
act effectively. One of the founding principles of the
United Nations is cooperation among big powers. During
the long Cold War period, the efficacy of the UN
declined to its lowest point due to the confrontation
between the US and the Soviet Union.
As far as
international institutions are concerned, the
contribution and cooperation of the big powers is vital
to the survival and development of those institutions in
the globalization era. Although more and more non-state
actors began to act on the global stage, sovereign
states are the basic governance units. When we fight
terrorism, we will ask for help from and ascribe
terrorism to some country, which is a good example for
us to understand the state basis of international
institutions. Dialogue and negotiation are necessary to
bridge the differences between American policy
preferences and those of the rest of the world.
American primacy isn't enough to promote the
effective action of the United Nations until the US
respects other states' proper national interests.
Without the collaboration of other big powers, the UN
might come to be paralyzed again. Multilateralism is
beneficial to increase the legitimacy of transnational
governance. It provides a chance for us to express our
ideas and interests; negotiation and decision-making can
be accomplished in such a multilateral situation. The
unilateralist action will damage its legitimacy, which
might be thought of as a struggle for one's national
interests, not for our collective interests. Due to
their democracy and legitimacy, more and more developing
countries and relatively weak powers prefer to carry out
global governance through international institutions,
which were initiated by the big powers. Thus, the
freedom of a superpower might be constrained by such
relatively democratic multilateral institutions. But
such constraints are necessary, because no power can
overreach indefinitely, because this will definitely
damage its power in the long run.
China's
view In China's view, US primacy is a basic
characteristic of the contemporary international system.
China takes an active (and positive) attitude to a
constructive role played by the US in maintaining peace
and promoting development. China is not a revisionist in
the contemporary international system. On the contrary,
China has achieved great progress in more than 20 years
of fully participating in world affairs (it was
recognized by the UN as the sole legitimate government
of China in 1971). China will also promote the
development of economic globalization led by the US in a
direction conducive to common prosperity, draw on its
advantages and avoid its disadvantages. China's
strategic objective is to create a peaceful
international environment for itself and the world.
At the same time, China stands for establishing
a new international political and economic order that is
fair and rational, which doesn't mean opposing some
particular country. China is in favor of promoting
democracy in international relations and diversifying
development models. China also wants to strengthen the
role of the UN in peacekeeping operations and to make
them more efficient.
Unilateralism constitutes a
severe threat to the democracy of international
relations. With the rapid development of unilateralism,
more and more countries began to develop high technology
and strengthen their military power to safeguard their
sovereignty and security, which might increase the
danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
China is also a victim of
terrorism. China insists that the international
community should develop cooperation to prevent and
fight against international terrorist activities, and
make efforts to eradicate the root causes of terrorism.
Besides anti-terrorism, China faces lots of security
challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. To safeguard
regional peace and stability is the duty of China as a
big country.
Indian-Pakistani relations and the
Korean nuclear question are hot-spot issues of global
concern at present. The six-party talks (hosted by China
and currently under way in Beijing) have opened the way
to a peaceful solution, though the way will be long. For
a long time, China has made active efforts to urge peace
and dialogue between India and Pakistan. China is glad
to see that Indian-Pakistani relations are moving
towards less tension. At present, the highest security
danger is in the Taiwan Strait.
The Taiwan
separatist force is the biggest threat to peace and
stability in the Taiwan Strait. On the one hand, despite
increasing cross-Strait economic, trade, cultural and
personnel exchanges, the root cause of tension between
the two sides has not been eliminated. The focus of the
contradiction is the different attitudes of both sides
on the one-China principle.
On the other hand,
by continuing to sell weapons to Taiwan and elevating
relations with the Taiwan authorities, a handful of
countries have inflated the arrogance of the separatist
forces and intensified the tense situation across the
Taiwan Strait. China will not use force unless Taiwan's
separatist forces dangerously threaten the integrity of
the territory of the country. To stop separation and
realize complete unification of the motherland is one of
China's basic national defense goals, which should be
clearly conveyed to the countries concerned.
Haibin Niu majors in international
relations and is a PhD candidate at the Center of
American Studies, Fudan University. Professor
Shixiong Ni is the director of the center and PhD
adviser. They can be contacted at
blessniu@hotmail.com.
Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say. Please click hereif you
are interested in contributing.
