Newsweek is running a long article about what many are calling an impending “clash of wills” between the US and China. The authors certainly give plenty of examples, but Polimom was struck more by the similarities. For instance:
… While Bush has spent the past five years fighting global terrorism, promoting the idea of democracy and threatening to topple oppressive despots, the unelected Hu has set a more pragmatic—some might say amoral—course for China’s foreign policy. In places where Beijing has sought to lock up natural resources, in particular oil, that’s meant China has adopted the role of kind uncle for many of the same rogue regimes that Bush loathes.
A kind uncle to rogue regimes? Why, the US has never adopted unruly nephews, has it? Noriega and Hussein were never friends to the US …right?
It appears to me that China is operating under the principles the US followed for decades, right up until 9-11 authorized a change in agenda. China is described variously as “amoral” and “morally neutral” throughout the article, but it remains pretty obvious that the biggest gap is the Chinese aren’t interested in a Global Democratic System – or any other “Global” system of government, for that matter.
Basically, they are following a “noninterference” policy, and as a result, they’re willing to do business and trade with anybody who has money. Given their huge need for oil, it makes the situation in Iran more understandable (although not necessarily helpful for the US, and others who are more than a little uncomfortable at the thought of a nuclear Iran – a group which includes me):
Iran is perhaps the pre-eminent example of China’s amoral pragmatism butting up against Washington’s “freedom agenda.” The Bush administration by its nature sees Iran as an “evil” regime. Beijing, long a scourge of human-rights advocates itself, views Iran mostly as a source for petroleum and natural gas, and has signed nearly $100 billion worth of energy deals with the country.
Bottom line: they don’t feel any obligation to support sanctions against one of their trade partners, because they’re not concerned about corrupt governments or rogue regimes.
Polimom finds this fascinating, not least because prior to five years ago, that’s pretty much how the US did business, too. We’ve “bedded down” with any number of people who later became problems too big to ignore.
Since 9-11 and the war on terrorism, of course, we can’t afford to do that anymore, but the reasons for that aren’t morally superior. As we all know, and Iraq demonstrated, many folks had been chafing to carry the banner of Americanism to the rest of the world for decades. However, had those planes not flown that day, Polimom thinks we’d still be blithely picking and choosing our allies in the childlike, economically carefree way the newly-emerging China is doing.
I think I envy them their naiveté.