The prophetic statement that Sino-American relations would be the most important bilateral relationship of the twenty-first century comes from the ex-champion of international politics, Henry Kissinger. Despite concerns regarding the jihadist and terrorist threats and the propagation of weapons of mass destruction, keeping an eye on this particular relationship between the world’s fastest emerging power and the already established superpower should be of the utmost importance.
So far one thing is quite clear: It is crucial for the world that this relationship, despite oscillating between cooperation and mistrust, curiosity and dark threat, should never cross the line over to open conflict. So the question is as follows: What does Kissinger’s prediction have to do with the current excitement regarding Tibet and the Olympic Games in Beijing? What does it have to do with western indignation in the name of human rights and China’s revolted response in the name of frustrated nationalism and a first attempt at retaliation? The answer is: a great deal.
Bush recommends “silent diplomacy”
The Bush administration, of all governments, advises its European partners to soften their stance towards China and to not ask for confrontation - something they would symbolically achieve by going through with the boycott of the opening ceremony. The Bush administration recommends an approach of silent diplomacy, which should incite the Chinese authorities to conform to the West’s request for a guarantee of human rights in Tibet.
In other words, President Bush, being a Wilsonian Republican who wants to overturn the Islamic authoritarian milieu in the Middle East and replace it with exported freedom and democracy, turns once again into a true Realpolitik when it comes to China. He also does not belong to the harshest critics with respect to Putin’s neo-authoritarianism and the dismantling of democracy in Russia. Presidential candidate McCain has quite a different take on the subject. Is the President smooching up to the showmen of Beijing and the winners of globalization by allowing the Chinese to blame Europeans, thereby tarnishing their games with cries of “values, values”; thus taking the risk that Beijing begrudges them for as long as they possibly can? Is he publicly remaining quiet regarding Tibet, so as to encourage dialogue behind closed doors?
Sticking to convictions
Whether by way of politics or the economy, many, even in America, believe it is unwise to severely criticize China. Indeed, Beijing’s cooperation for instance, is necessary to prevent Iran or North Korea from developing nuclear weapons – it is important for America to maintain its inclination to further American state securities. This readiness would compromise those who either disavow the regime or do not take its interests into consideration. On the other side, there are those who consider values as being worth more than decoration in foreign policy; those who believe partnerships can only blossom on the basis of common convictions, as it says in the Asian Papers of the Christian Democratic Union. The West and China therefore follow different regulatory political concepts. Why is there any need to discuss this at length? The question is, whether and how it would be possible, generally, to make China go down “our” political regulatory course and concretely make China adopt a different policy in Tibet.
This debate, on whether the West’s foreign policy is dictated by better values and better interests, is anything but new. In essence, it is also an apparent contradiction. Since a policy that neither takes its own values seriously nor clashes with the dictatorial character of other regimes (be it in the name of business), ultimately reveals its own cynicism and elements of self-denial. On the other hand, whoever turns leaderships such as the Russian and the Chinese into objects of permanent reproach by demanding democracy, may not be expecting too much, but may lack a proper justification, thereby running the risk of getting the bill later on. Interests and values belong together. Interests or values –this is not something between which one must choose.
This is why it remains important to work towards an order in which minorities are respected, human rights are regarded, and democratic forms are observed. There is no other basis for business. Of course we sometimes have to cooperate with undemocratic states – where it is made possible and especially, where it is necessary. To do so we will surely have to swallow our pride. Above all, we should not give up our convictions. In the end, self-intimidation is hardly a step further in the right direction.
Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger is the foreign affairs editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany. He is also a member of the Atlantic Initiative Advisory Board. He has been a congressional fellow at the US House of Representatives and as a Marshall fellow at Harvard University. Mr. Frankenberger is a member of the Trilateral Commission and serves on the advisory board of the German Institute for European Politics.
Originally published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Republished in English by permission of the author.
Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:
- 11
May 5, 2008
Lukas Vitalijus, Institute for European Studies, University of British Columbia, Silver Contributor (54)
Moreover, despite of all talk over how 'much' international system has changed in general and the way international affairs are managed (assume 'better' today than few decades ago) in particular, political landscape speaks for itself. True, contemporary world might be indeed safer from destructive military conflicts involving Atlantic and Pacific (at least in Western Northern part) but it does not mean that the political nature and behavior have changed dramatically.
The underlaying issue is thus not whether the West (US, Canada, EU) has or has not to deal with re-emerging powers such as China or Russia applying values over interests and vice-versa. The real dilemma faced by many governments in the West is how to make their own models work (build on liberal democracy) and continue to occupy the positions of global leadership in the face of ever pressing global competition (strategically, politically and financially) coming from countries like China and Russia (autocracies).
The debate is obviously just about to intensify. However, as the author of the article rightly observes, in order to lead one first and foremost needs to decide where and what to stand for. The West might be loosing willingness and leadership, but whether emerging powers can replace it is questionable.