Please join the Foreign Policy Association in welcoming Mr. Carl Gershman, who was President of the National Endowment for Democracy from its foundation in 1984 until 2021. Mr. Gershman will be delivering the annual John B. Hurford Memorial Lecture titled, “Reflections on NED’s Past and Democracy’s Future”. If you are interested, please register for the event here.
In August, U.S. President Joe Biden announced his administration’s plan to host the “Summit for Democracy” with the first one set to take place from December 9th through 10th of this year, and the second to take place the same time in 2022. The summit will focus on challenges and opportunities facing democracies and will provide a platform for leaders to make both individual and collective commitments to defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad. With democracy around the world under threat, we are pleased to welcome Carl Gershman, who has championed democracy as the first president of the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. Gershman will share his story on the founding of the NED and his work for nearly three decades as its president, as well as the important role the NED serves in protecting and fostering democracy around the world.
BEIJING, CHINA – OCTOBER 25: Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks at the podium during the unveiling of the Communist Party’s new Politburo Standing Committee at the Great Hall of the People on October 25, 2017 in Beijing, China. China’s ruling Communist Party today revealed the new Politburo Standing Committee after its 19th congress. (Photo by Lintao Zhang/Getty Images)
Before getting into any of this, I feel that it is important to say that my intention here is to calm tensions between the United States and China, not to heighten them. I believe that the probability of direct military conflict between the United States and China over the next few decades is relatively slim – over the next few paragraphs I will explain why.
Yes, Chinese President Xi Jinping has begun speaking in a more aggressive, perhaps even Maoist tone. Some say that the attention being paid to Taiwan’s current vulnerability is exacerbated by America’s blunder in Afghanistan. Still, despite these potentially troubling indicators, a closer look highlights a string of mounting domestic problems that China must overcome before seriously looking outward. Xi’s famed Belt and Road initiative has resulted in mixed results at best, and the Evergrande real estate crisis highlights the ways in which China remains a developing economy- especially when partnered with the slowing of economic growth in China over the last number of years. Not yet mentioned are the Covid-19 pandemic, the horrific treatment of China’s Uyghur population, or the broad repression of China’s social and civil sphere.
Under domestic circumstances like these, it is no surprise that an authoritarian leader will use fiery rhetoric to inspire the domestic base. As Americans are well aware, even stable democratic nations are prone to this type of behavior. A careful observer should recognize the difference between outward facing rhetoric that is meant for domestic consumption and serious international messaging that can be understood as strategic signaling.
Certainly, China will look to establish itself as a diplomatically-influential regional power in Asia. However, even these more modest efforts will run into the challenge presented by the rise of a democratic India and strong American alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other nations in Asia. These partnerships short-circuit the idea that China might achieve a military victory without real consequence. With this context in mind, in order to establish itself as a well respected and influential power in the region, China will likely work to pursue diplomatic and economic options, both within Asia and around the world.
Over the last few years, polling shows that Americans have become increasingly skeptical of China- over 85% of Americans view China as an enemy as opposed to a partner. This, in part, is due to the common belief that the United States and China are on an inevitable collision course given China’s rapid rise to power. This idea is known as the Thucydides Trap– coined when Greek historian Thucydides wrote that, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.” This idea is strengthened by the important historical fact that twelve of the last sixteen cases in which global leadership has changed hands, armed conflict has occurred as a result. Notably, the Cold War is not one of those instances that resulted in direct conflict.
To get to the point, we need to consider what China’s prospective rise to global hegemony would actually entail.
First, China’s rise to power would mean that China is able to escape the notoriously sticky middle-income trap. Without getting too much into the weeds, the middle-income trap is the theory that “wages in a country rise to the point that growth potential in export-driven low-skill manufacturing is exhausted before it attains the innovative capability needed to boost productivity and compete with developed countries in higher value-chain industries. Thus, there are few avenues for further growth — and wages stagnate.” Unless China can transition its economy in a way that promotes the growth of a true middle class, the Chinese state might struggle to find the tax revenue to fund its global ambitions.
This obstacle is challenging enough to overcome in its own right – people were asking this same question of China ten and twenty years ago- but avoiding the middle-income trap while inching toward active competition with an entrenched global superpower is unlikely at best. To the extent that the Chinese government is fully dedicated towards supporting economic growth, it might be difficult to seriously expand China’s military capacity- and to the extent that China is focused on expanding its military capacity, the nation would be forced to ignore pressing economic realities domestically.
Second, China would need to overcome the United States as the chief diplomatic partner for many of the other significant powers in Asia. The United States is, however, actively, if somewhat controversially, working to strengthen military and diplomatic ties with Australia. Additionally, despite the occasional bit of turbulence, America maintains close ties with Japan and South Korea. Beyond that still, the United States has long maintained good trade andmilitary relations with India, and the two democratic nations appear much more likely to work collaboratively than competitively.
If we are willing to grant that military action against one of these close American partners is off the table, then China’s remaining route towards increased regional influence is through shrewd diplomacy and increased economic ties. If China is able to win the confidence of its neighbors, so be it. Doing so will likely require increased democratization and economic openness. If China succeeds in this way, it highlights a victory for the values that the United States works to endorse. Still, the United States could work to complicate these efforts by preemptively working to further enhance its relationship with existing American partners in Asia.
And third, China’s rise would mean overcoming the legacy of social and civic repression that has long been associated with communism. If economic growth in China stagnates, the long-standing unspoken agreement between the Chinese people and their government falls apart, perhaps resulting in serious domestic disturbances. On the other hand, if China is able to overcome the middle income trap and establish a vibrant and educated middle class, those increasingly worldly and educated individuals will become less tolerant of social and civil illiberalism.
Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman challenged readers to “find any example of a country that has achieved a large degree of political and civil freedom that has not also used private markets and capitalism as the major way of organizing its economy.” More modern research supports Friedman’s suggestion that nations that employ free markets tend to have more liberal political and civil spheres than nations that do not. In this way, China appears trapped between its aspirations to become a larger voice in the international community and its present unwillingness to liberalize the civil and political sector of Chinese life.
Put more directly- either China will need to adopt policies that are more in line with traditional Liberal values, and follow the proven pathway towards increased prosperity and full acceptance in the international community, or China will need to buck the trend and prove that communism and social illiberalism are capable of out-competing an entrenched global power with a generally free market and society. To the extent that a similar set of efforts failed in the post-WWII years, the spread of the internet and crowdsourced communication makes the burden of enforcing social repression even more costly.
From the perspective of a believer in free markets and democracy, real fear over China’s rise is filled with numerous contradictions. Either communism and social illiberalism are capable of providing a serious challenge to Liberal nations with market economies or they are not. It is my view that free markets and free people will win out. If China achieves global hegemony by adhering to Liberal principles, so be it.
George Kennan made a similar point years ago while writing the Long Telegram. The United States and its network of allies already has China reasonably well contained in Asia, and given the diplomatic authority that comes with being a leading democratic nation, the United States has already worked to insure that in order for China to rise to the status of peer power, China would need to prioritize its diplomatic efforts and open its economy. These two things would likely need to coincide with increased social and civil liberalism. In this way, China’s rise might ultimately be dependent on its ability to sustain economic growth while gradually adopting a more liberal and democratic state. Without development of this nature, China’s economic growth might stall, and civic unrest may follow in the pattern of the USSR in the 80’s and 90’s.
–
Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association
The are a number of increasing stories about how this Holiday season will be met with shortages of the things that make this time of year precious for many. Crucial things for the holidays such as festive foods and even children’s toys are predicted to be in short supply, brought on by many competing factors no one truly expected. In the UK, shelves and fuel supplies are already in short supply due to visa restrictions yet to mature in the post Brexit era, clashing with the tail end of Covid policies that limited the proper flow of goods and fuel.
The United States is also starting to experience many backlogs as well, with ports and shipping containers being queued longer than normal while waiting to unload their often prompt and measured deliveries. While already a matter of discussion in the UK for a few weeks, Americans are now starting to view the end of the year with some fears of a ruined Christmas. With the product driven Holiday season being driven by commercial backlogs at the time of year when retailers make a good portion of their yearly profit, the post Covid retail industry needs this season to return to profit after two years of shut downs.
Part of the problem for auto sellers as well as many other technological products is the shortage of semi-conductors needed for their production. Production of many items are now done overseas, and a strategic push to increase production cannot be done by one Government alone, nor is possible to coordinate many of these companies without their expressed consent to focus their efforts in improving one national economy. While the push by the US, UK and EU Governments enabled companies like Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca to produce vaccines in record time when needed, it was done inside many countries who coordinated these efforts and had local production located outside their windows.
With much of the semi-conductor market being dominated by producers in Taiwan, the recent military escalation with China may exacerbate these shortages even further. It is unclear why this strategic move by China is being done at a time when consumers in the US and EU depend also on Chinese goods for their markets. The negative affect it may have could finally focus public attention on China’s aggressive policies against Western interests while also limiting China’s own manufacturing sales of high end goods via chip shortages, and lower end goods via shipping delays.
Driving up the costs of everything, when the costs are already high, affects people personally. When you see the price of everything going up rapidly, as you likely do wherever you are in the world right now, you eventually start to ask questions and begin to notice who is pressuring you personally. With Covid still scarring many people’s lives after two unforgettable awful years of this disease, the only focus many have is to get out of a life of shortages and depression. While the messaging on who to focus on has become in a way its own industry, many now see politics as personal to limitations in their own lives.