Simplistic World
For a smart guy, Fareed Zakaria is mystifyingly naïve. Take his article “Adrift in a turbulant world,” he seems to think that country should have clear and enounciated attitude towards each other. What is more puzzling is that he seems to think the attitude consists solely of the choice between friend and foe. This is the position of either a simpleton or an ideologue. I do not think Zakaria is trying to be either but he does play the roles quite well sometime. The relationship in question in the article is between China and the U.S. These are two countries that live in an almost infinitely complicated internal and external world. Both governments have to work very carefully to navigate a course that would be practical both for their perpective countries and the contiuation of their domestic power. Their diplomatic relationships with other countries are no less complicated. All these contribute mightly to the relationship between the two countries. Both are taking a practical approach right now—in some areas they fight and in some they coorperate. The U.S. must rely on China's support in most of its diplomatic initiatives; and China can ill affort to make an enemy of the U.S. If either express a clear cut friend or foe position regarding the other, we will surely head toward a much more chaotic world than it already is. It is to neither's interest to go anywhere near that. I do not know what is Zakaria's objective in asking for this clarity. Is he nostalgic for the cold war? Or is he just too lazy to deal with issues seperately?
posted by Unknown at 1:59 a.m.
4 Comments:
I believe Zakaria is trying to say that China and U.S. governments need to come to a better understanding of each other. Sure, to some degree, they agree on many issues, especially within U.N. security council. However, the difference in policy and government does not justify the inbalance in peace between the two. If China is having a debate about War with the U.S., and the U.S. with China as well, then there is no secret here. It would be naive to not discuss the tensions between them. Certainly, Donald Rumsfeld is a negative influence on the relationship between these countries. The Secretary of Defense is the last person who should be focusing on China at this point; they have not shown a sign of hostility towards the U.S. yet, and not to mention the countless other issues he should be focusing on. We cannot afford to look at China as a threatening growing military power; actually, nobody can. What if Great Britain tried to halt American military growth in the 1940's? Or now?!?! It is a very similar situation. Military power is not a threat, but the suggestion to control and limit a country's growth is. The American viewpoint of China needs to adjust. A progressive elimination of "rumsfeldian" thoughts and notions would clear up the heat between the two countries in my opinion. This would also promote cooperation on other global issues such as terrorism, research on diseases and treatments, peace in the middle east, and forming an even stronger U.N. security council, free from tension between core members. If we don't stop treating them as a foe, then they will act as foes. We could be looking at U.S. (and associates) vs. China (and associates) in WWIII. That is a much bigger threat than terrorism.
Umm, I think you don't seem to have read the piece. Zakaria's praises Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick for formulating just the mixed position you want -- "an intelligent middle ground." His point is that neither China nor the US is thinking through their basic posture towards one another and figuring out how to make it productive an cooperative. The result? We're drifting towards confrontation.
I am not arguing that one should not know what one is doing but a clear enounciated position would just tie one down ideologically and expose ones "flank," so to speak, to opponents domestically or internationally. There are places where the two countries will inevitably confront each other, but that must not be allow to overwhelm the rest. A flexible approach is much better than even the "middle ground" when the ground is shifting continuously. Understanding leads not to anything clear but negotiations what does not lead to any clear cut overall resolution but a lot of shifting give and takes. Only then can the two increasingly equal countries not drift towards confrontation. Particularly with China where being lock into dangerous ideological position is the tendency. Just look at the relationship with Japan, once the government let the anti-Japanese sentiment get out, they cannot get it back into the bag. For the US, the problem is more its congress where single issue can easily overwhelm everything else. Even if the leaders of the two countries come to an agreement to divide the world, they should not let anyone know about it.
I agree with the nuanced policy you are calling for, yet I also agree with the 2nd commenter who pointed out that Zakaria extols Zoellick's middle ground. I read from Zakaria that we need to formulate a strong middle ground, instead of the lurching back and forth between two extremes as we are doing now. If I am reading Zakaria correctly, I agree.
I just posted today (here) at the frustration I felt after appearing today as a guest on a BBC show discussing China where it seemed that the guests split right down the middle on whether China is or is not a threat. China is hugely complicated and ascribing easy answers to it will only cause trouble.
China Law
Post a Comment
<< Home