China’s economy is growing incredibly fast and, at this rate, their standard of living could be similar to Western countries in 20 - 30 years. This is very desirable for several reasons. One is simply a matter of justice: the Chinese have no less right to an affluent lifestyle than we do.
OTOH, this will present us in Western countries with several problems. Right now China has roughly twice the population of the USA, Europe and Japan combined and a higher birth rate, in spite of government policies. If China were to have the level of comsumption of western nations it would put a serious strain on resources and, since we cannot deny them this right, we will have to adjust our own level of consumption downwards.
Other problems that will come along is with having China being an economic and military world power. In principle I have no problem with anyone becoming powerful and, in fact, whatever my personal preference, I believe a balance of power is the best way to keep countries in check. I do not believe having a sole super power is a good thing, no matter who that superpower is. In that sense, China becoming a powerful military power is a good thing but any country with a strong military likes to throw its weight around and China can become quite dangerous if it would start doing that. They do not have the tradition of western countries in respecting international law (which is mostly a western invention) and the disregard for international law which the USA has demonstrated lately might come back to haunt us 25 years from now when China starts doing the same.
I have very mixed feelings about China bocoming economic and military powerful. We cannot deny they have every right and that it is desirable as a matter of justice. . . and yet it is unsettling in a certain way.
So the question is, what, if anything, should the USa and other western countries do about this? How can we best assure the peace and well-being of a world where China is a major economic and military power? Because I do not think trying to prevent it is an option.
Excellent forum, sailor - my proposed attempt at a similar discussion would not have been nearly as well posed.
Well, if we set an example by acting solely in our own national interest then we cannot utter a squeak of dissent if China decides to do likewise (eg. by pulling out of World Trade agreements or simply violating patent/copyright/trademark law at will and further boosting its economy by exporting cloned drugs/clothes/DVD’s etc.) Obvious statement of the day: The only way to curb any deleterious effects of states acting in their own national interest is by international agreement: Protocol
Convention
Treaty
These words are presently rather unpopular in right wing circles, particularly in the ultra-right US, but they offer the only realistic hope of stopping runaway trains like China’s economy from jeopardising *** our own national interests***.
I suspect this isn’t right. Our “level of consumption” can be achieved in a variety of ways. The world probably can’t afford China to have that level of consumption if it were achieved by producing the same way as now. But efficient pricing of environmental goods would allow a greater volume of goods to be produced from existing resources. There are significant policy challenges (like the ones SentientMeat mentions), but it’s not clear that consumption levels in Western countries have to fall or that there will be environmental catastrophe if China gets rich.
The miltary question is kind of out of my area, but I doubt that the centralised power structure in China can hold out another 20 years if growth continues. That’s not to say that the totalitarian state will wither away - a forced return to islolation and stagnation is still IMHO possible.
One big problem I see is the use of parts from endangered animals in traditional Chinese medicine. There is already a great deal of pressure on animals from Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong. I would imagine that consumption patterns among mainland China wouldn’t be much different…wealthy people creating a huge market for animal parts, and inefficient and corrupt law enforcement.
There are only so many tiger penises on planet earth. A huge increase in demand could be big trouble for tigers.
Just a WAG, but I’d suggest: stay on their good side, be “good neighbors,” and try to steer the planet collectively towards a compromise situation that satisfies everyone involved. China’s star may be rising, but it won’t reach the heavens overnight. Whatever changes happen will be at a gradual, incremental pace, and each step is an opportunity for the US and other nations to accomodate it without severely compromising themselves. Of course, this is at odds with the current Administration’s unilateralist policies, but that’s a different can of worms.
One thing to keep in mind is that even if China wants a Western-level of living, it’s not the same as saying it will get a Western-level of living, if only due to practical limits. If everyone in China wants cherrywood furniture, and there are no more cheerywood trees left, then what? I doubt they’re going to invade Europe and the US and plunder all our cherrywood furniture; more than likely, before the supply is exhausted, the populace will desire other, more attainable things.
Nor should it be; as your OP points out, the Chinese have no less right to an affluent lifestyle than we do.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that world economics are a zero-sum game. And that consumption of resources will either increase unsustainably, or the ‘rich’ companies will suffer losses at the hands of China as it consumes more.
I believe both of these assumptions are flawed. If China becomes wealthier, it will increase the world aggregate wealth. If China buys resources, it will have to buy them at a price other countries are willing to sell them at. If China becomes more efficient, it will produce more and better goods to sell to the world.
A rich China can help invest in things like space exploration, research into alternate energy sources, etc.
The main way we could be hurt by a rich China is if it causes us to divert resources into non-productive activities such as a new arms race. Let’s hope we can avoid that.
Well, why shouldn’t they act in their own interest? The Chinese gov’t is obligated to protect the interests of the Chinese people, not those of EU citizens or Americans or anybody else.
Furthermore, I a growing economy in China will probably be a major boon for us. The more economically developed they are, the better will be world trade, as long as we stick with free trade and don’t resort to protectionism. If they went protectionist, it would restrain their economic growth, so they are likely to endorse free trade policies.
And if China succeeds economically in a climate of free trade, then they deserve to reap the rewards. It would mean that they are producing things better, more efficiently, or more cheaply than we are. I see this not as a threat, but as their right to explore the world marketplace and flex their productive power. We will have to respond by being more competitive, by becoming better producers ourselves.
As for the resources argument, I’m not worried. Resource scarcity will simply drive up prices, and that will balance it all out in the long run. Also, necessity being the mother of invention, I suspect that if we get to that point there will be a flood of innovative methods for increasing efficiency, and new inventions that reduce the demand of the scarce resources.
The richer China gets, the more they will buy from us (and everyone else).
The sort of “static thinking” in this UN statement is just silly. The law of supply and demand will work fine handling a rich China. If demand for oil outsrips it’s supply, the price for fuel (the generic resource) will go up. Technological solutions will come on board that are too expensive to be practical now, but will be economically feasible in a richer world.
I’m sure the Medieval equivalent of the UN would have predicted that a world population of 6B people would be impossible because there would not be enough wood to burn as fuel.
The first settlers in California died of starvation. The idea that California could have support tens of millions of people would have been scoffed at by the kind of people who think China becoming wealthy is a big problem for the world.
Paul Erlich was telling us in the 1970’s that by 1990 millions of people in the developed world would die of famine, and that there would be huge shortages of oil, steel, and many other non-renewable resources.
The people claiming that China’s wealth will destroy the world are cut from the same cloth.
What’s with this guy from the U.N.? “So-called developed countries?” He’s a certifiable nut case if he really expects rich countries to “radically change their consumption habits to free up scarce resources for the world’s poor,” especially by some sort of government fiat. Chinese economic advancement will take care of itself.
Fifty years from now, neither the world economy nor the goods it produces will look very much like it does today. It’s quite true that the world economy can’t support an additional 1.3 billion people who live like they do in the U.S. or even in Europe but so what? If there is more competition for resources and goods, the prices of those goods will go up. More to the point, the increase in price will bring substitutes on-line as well as more efficent technologies. Many of these technologies already exist but aren’t deployed because there is no economic case to do so.
China as a major military power is an entirely different proposition. Chinese political culture is very different than Western political culture. For one thing, there is a deeply held belief that China is the center of the world and that everyone else are barbarians. You sometimes negotiate with barbarians and, sometimes, even need to propitiate them. But they remain barbarians. You don’t respect them and you don’t propitiate them any longer then necessary.
In other words, deep down inside, Chinese political leaders regard China as the only true superpower and consider everyone else, including the U.S., as upstarts who will eventually need to be brought into line. This is a real problem, because as Chinese economic and military strength grows, you can expect them to exercise it more and more aggressively, especially regionally.
There are already many disquieting examples of this. Tibet for one, China’s continuing fixation with Taiwan for another and Chinese claims in the South China Sea.
Apart from long-standing cultural attitudes, there is another serious reason to be concerned about future Chinese militarism. Due to China’s attempts at population control, there are projections that there will be something like 100,000,000 more Chinese males than females in the coming years. This presents an unprecedented problem for China domestically with enormous scope for serious unrest, especially in times of large-scale unemployment. Think what it would mean to have 100,000,000 unemployed, sexually frustrated males between the ages of 18 and 35 rampaging through the streets. Worse yet, think what it would mean to have 50,000,000 sexually frustrated males between the ages of 18 and 35 in the Chinese army!
If there is going to be a major world conflict in the next fifty years, it will almost certainly involve China and the U.S. IMO, the best way to prevent this, is to begin “socializing” China as quickly as possible. This can only be done by integrating China into world institutions and by coming down on them like a ton of bricks when they step out of line. The idea that the West should “tread carefully lest they wake the dragon” is a short road to disaster. The only thing to do is kick the dragon awake right now and deal with it while you still can do so with a minimum of world-wide disruption. You start training a Rottweiler when it’s just a puppy and you can still handle it, not when it weighs 50 kg. If there’s going to be a confrontation with China – and there will be if the West does nothing – then best get it sorted now.
Speaking in terms of realpolitik, probably the best way to confront Chinese territorial ambitions is to force a confrontation over Taiwan. At the moment, there is every reason to believe that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail. A public failure like this – and the economic collapse that would follow such an attempt – would almost certainly result in the collapse of the current power structure and could very possibly result in China breaking up into a couple of separate states. Of course, the Taiwanese would not appreciate the devastation even an attempted invasion would cause and the break-up of China would, at least in the short term, cause immense chaos in China, but it would certiainly benefit the West!
Yeah, but aren’t they people who claim that we can accomodate almost any population levels and almost any level of wealth in the world the very same people who were telling us back in the late 90s that the dotcom boom would never end because we were in a “New Economy”?
I’ll grant you that new technology may permit greater levels of wealth than we currently have, but the way some people talk about it, technology and capitalism are some sort of magic wand we can wave over problems of the environment and population growth and solve them: ta da!
Riiiiiight. My suspicion is they’re just as short-sighted as Malthus, in their own way.
“Yeah, but aren’t they people who claim that we can accomodate almost any population levels and almost any level of wealth in the world the very same people who were telling us back in the late 90s that the dotcom boom would never end because we were in a “New Economy”?”
The theory cited in he OP is pure Malthusian–and like other such theories, completely forgets about disribution of goods and improved farming being able to support a higher standard of living.
I read in a report called ‘what the world thinks in 2002’ that Russians, by a 2 to 1 margin, want to live in a world with only 1 superpower. THe world has advanced alot (in regards to democracy) ever since the US has been the sole superpower, at least in regards to democratic reform. i’m having trouble finding the exact quote, but according to Freedom house, the number of democracies on earth was about 65 in the mid 80’s, and stands at about 124 now. Democracies, according to research by R J Rummel, have stronger economies, less wars, less human rights abuses and more scientific achievement. So that is a 100% increase in about 17 years, most of which had the US as the sole superpower. I don’t know if/how the 2 are interrelated though.
In my opinion, 2 superpowers that are carrying out opposite goals where one has great domestic human rights abuses would be a terrible outcome. If there were 2 superpowers, i’d rather they both be liberal democracies that support things like human rights and economic development. The US vs EU, for example.
Probably because a new cold war might ignite. And because Freedom house regularly rates china as one of the 10 most oppressive goverments on earth annually. Even though the US can be evil on a foreign level, its domestic policies are pretty liberal. A government that mistreats its own citizens would probably be horrible to people in other countries. You also have to remember that governments like Pol Pot or North Korea had/have Chinese support.
There are 121 electoral democracies in the world today, out of 192 states (63 percent). In 1987, 66 countries were electoral democracies out of a total of 167 (40 percent). However, only 89 of today’s 121 electoral democracies have an environment in which there is broad respect for human rights and stable rule of law. The remaining democracies fail to provide systematic protection for all basic civil liberties.
While China has every right to properly earn a higher standard of living for its citizens, all of this must be done in an ethical fashion. So far, China has frequently shown an unwillingness to play by accepted rules. Using prison labor to produce goods for export is a sterling example of their misconduct. Permitting thinly veiled government or military wings to run major corporate interests is another important issue. Certain property speculation deals have also been shown to be a complete farce.
Factors like these should be of the greatest concern. Already, China has begun to throw its weight around over Taiwan’s continued independence. Not one nation is willing to accept an American let subcontract for sale of conventional submarines to Taiwan due to fear of ruffling China’s delicate tail feathers. China has also exacerbated the crisis in North Korea by selling them critical weapons development technology. There are many other ramifications to China’s conduct as well.
Let’s examine the recent SARS outbreak that originated in China. Disregarding whether this virus was the result of poor sanitation or substandard farming practices, the fact remains that China intentionally concealed or misled the world community and international health organizations about the outbreak’s severity until such a time where it could no longer be hidden. This in turn, caused a larger epidemic to happen because travel restrictions were not put in place quickly enough. China was acting in a most putrid sort of self interest by trying to avoid a tourism downturn while putting many other populations at risk. How many billions of dollars did the SARS epidemic cost? How much of it might have been prevented if China had been more transparent about the issue? As an example, Canada’s Asian tourism has been off by almost one third for the first half of this year. It was down by almost one quarter for the month of May alone. How many millions (if not billions) of lost dollars does that represent?
The SARS epidemic pales in comparison to another more severe and fatal plague that is just now coming to light. An Associated Press report details how impoverish Chinese peasants have had to rely upon selling blood just to get by. Corrupt aldermen and mayors turn a blind eye to unsanitary and outright dangerous collection practices, while taking bribes for permitting this to happen in their districts. Since the “bloodheads” are only collecting human plasma, there remains a large amount of red blood cells after centrifuging. It had been a common practice to pool this blood and divide it back up into a number of portions equal to the donors. Thereafter, it was reinjected back into the donors to prevent anemia related complications.
The result has been a massive epidemic of AIDS in some of the poorest districts. While China has finally taken measures to prevent this despicable enterprise, it is too late for many thousands of people. How many billions of dollars in WHO funds will be funneled into China as a result of this? Will the Chinese government take responsibility for turning a blind eye to the unscrupulous practices local governments engaged in? What sort of burden will this place on the developed countries and their contributions towards combating AIDS in other third world countries?
China’s pattern of corruption has hatched a whole flock of chickens that are just now coming home to roost. How should this be taken into account as China begins to flex its economic muscle? Should the outside world permit China to maintain such corrupt practices when they have a direct impact on progress being made elsewhere? Should the global community disregard the tremendous economic burden that will be placed upon it due to China’s unwillingness to publish health statistics or enforce transparent business practices? Should China be permitted to expand its economy at the expense of both its people and the quality of aid other nations provide? Should there be a form of excise tax placed upon China’s exports until such a time when they more amply comply with eradication of corruption within their own borders?
There is soon to arrive a tidal wave of repercussions arising from China’s underhanded policies. The major economic beneficiary will be China. They will have avoided spending money on law enforcement and yet been rewarded for this selfsame laxity by increases in medical and rural development aid to its ailing population. This sort of parasitic conduct must be thwarted and its costs must be reverted to China’s account books. Until such a time, China should not be allowed to fully participate in global markets. It’s slipshod law enforcement causes crimes against humanity and negatively impacts the global economy. Few nations seem willing to point this out for fear of incurring China’s economic blackmail. There needs to be a concerted effort by the developed nations to force a proper accounting for China’s misdeeds and their unwarranted diversion of funds badly needed elsewhere.
Many have argued against the Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” theories from the 60s/70s that claimed to demonstrate that industrialization would kill everyone on earth. We haven’t seen movements in that direction, though much of the world has industrialized enormously since then.
China is a large country with a huge population. With known resources, China probably can’t reach the same level of industrialization/consumption as, say, the US or Canada. But they can probably see a level comparable to much of souther Europe, which is pretty darn good.
The theory outlined by the UN viz China here also forgets China’s extra-terrestrial ambitions, wanting to secure the resources of the moon and outer space for all mankind (but China first, no doubt). Nearly limitless energy and stunning raw materials and resources are available form space and China want 'em.
I worry enormously, however, about the priorities Chinese culture seems to have set on individuals, though. However, I really hope that a wealthy culture may change that in a basically oppressive society like China’s.
in this article, you can clearly see new economy theory and hand-waving about new tech leading to environmental salvation in the face of worldwide development. I swear, when neocon economic theorists get cranking on this stuff they get so sappy that you wind up just waiting for them to join hands and sing “Kumbaya.”