I have argued that the euro-crisis and the associated G20 meeting could be seen as opportunities for China’s diplomatic entrance into global politics as a smooth and sympathetic operator (“Era of Chinese soft power beckons,” Oct. 31, page 8). However, one element has always been that China was unlikely to be forthcoming as the principal financial donor in the face of G20 criticism of its economic system or, more particularly, of the exchange rate of the yuan.
Yet in an end-game of the G20 on Nov. 4, its leaders called for more “flexible” exchange rates globally, and named China clearly in this regard. Would the tone have been quite the same if China had been clearly leading a Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC)-styled bailout?
It seems likely that China withheld its fortune as a result of very unwise short-term thinking. In doing so it missed an opportunity at the more global levels of soft power. An extended euro-crisis might now become a clear loss for China.
Too underestimated were the discussions on Thursday last week among the BRICS (including South Africa) at their own meeting at Cannes, a meeting structured as global with a focus on the developing world, in which the euro-crisis would be the central, rather than the only, issue.
It became clear that any arrangement regarding the euro would be between them and the IMF as a joint route. India’s position seemed cautious, with genuine consideration of the financial viability of the euro system as the limiting factor.
This is not to say that diplomacy and soft power was not a major issue. Clearly the BRICS wished to make these meetings a platform for their role as powerful representatives and protectors of the wider developing world. On her arrival in France on the previous day, Wednesday, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff had said that any bailout must have as its chief aim the employment growth and development of the trading system more generally. Here there was real chance for Chinese leadership, and it appears that the opportunity was not taken.
In his Art of War (孫子兵法), Sun Tzu (孫子) posited that the general that loses a battle has made too few calculations. May China now recalculate and successfully play a longer-term game?
Much may depend on whether Chinese public opinion is more nationalistic and wise than communistic and dull. If it is something else, nationalistic and dull, then it may well resent any euro-bailing whatsoever, and Chinese leadership could use that to completely withdraw or to impose harsh political reciprocities on any future deals, and thereby risk friction with BRIC partners and the possible passing of BRIC leadership to India.
On the other hand, if the Chinese middle-class public is nationalistic but wise, it may take the longer view that global goodwill is a major asset. Goodwill may not be necessary, but it always eases any passage toward increased status and soft power. The 30 years of Chinese growth and the expansion of an educated and globally attuned middle class may well now make it possible for a newer Chinese leadership to see the deeper as well as the broader picture. This may well be the era in which the Chinese middle class begins to exert some global impact.
This latter element would mean that public opinion could be utilized by the Chinese leadership to help play the better global game. This might be even more salient with an eye on the US, whom may be in a similar position to that of Europe within months from now.
However, there are other factors that may work in this more liberal and optimistic direction. It seems very likely that the Chinese economy is approaching a crisis of productivity arising from core technological backwardness and institutional stagnancy.
Despite massive currency holdings and almost impossibly high ratios of investment to national income, there are emerging real issues relating to overall production efficiency, a possible structural turning point and a present need for technological renewal.
In China, political changes have often come with the need for improved technological efficiency, which has historically required adjustments in relations with major high-tech suppliers — first the USSR, followed by the US, followed by Japan, followed by a combination of the West and Japan with some important additions from the Asian newly industrialized countries in the more labor-intensive or routine part of Chinese manufacturing. Throughout its years of growth, then, China has been broadening its sources for high and medium technology transfer as an essential component of its economic tactics.
Continuation of this technological strategy might require a wiser commercial diplomacy than that suggested by those who believe China nationalistic, but dumb. The more conservative route through the problem would be to rely on the other BRICS nations for a sharing of technologies in complementary industries and export products. However, this will not in itself deliver the “best from the West,” which without any doubt continues to dominate core technological advances in all major industries — the total of all middle-income nations raise perhaps one-50th of the receipts on royalties and license fees of the high-income nations.
So, if Chinese leaders consider that very high-tech transfers are essential to the good health of the economy, if wise they should be very loath to unnecessarily rock the global boat. And they should by now have begun to play the euro-game more astutely.
Ian Inkster is a professor of international history at Nottingham Trent University in the UK and professor of global history at Wenzao Ursuline College in Greater Kaohsiung, and since 2000 has been editor of History of Technology.
Last week, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda Gates, said in a statement that they have decided to end their marriage. The news immediately caused a global sensation. When my daughter heard that I was going to write a newspaper op-ed to comment on the matter, she made sure to remind me not to focus on the divorce agreement or the handling of the world’s richest couple’s wealth. Instead of talking about how much money Melinda Gates would get from the divorce, my daughter wanted me to focus on the many sacrifices she has made, and on her many
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) expressed “deep concern” over the staggering rise of COVID-19 cases in India, and offered to supply medical equipment and vaccine doses to the country, but his overtures sparked debate in India’s academic and political circles about his sincerity to help, particularly as it was followed by a vulgar display of schadenfreude over the hundreds of thousands of cremations of deaths caused by the virus in the country. The vast majority of Indians were already angry and frustrated with Beijing needling the country on a number of issues, including imports from China, which were abruptly stopped
Explore within a 160km radius of central Taiwan and you would stumble across some of world’s most majestic mountains, breathtaking lakes and awe-inspiring valleys. You would also find 95 percent of the world’s most advanced chipmaking. While lacking the same postcard views as Yushan or Sun Moon Lake, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) is still a treasure. The company went from being the upstart of a government industrial think tank to the most crucial chip supplier in the world, but even as it has grown into a US$540 billion company, management has stubbornly kept all state-of-the-art manufacturing capacity at just three
Given China’s regional might, it is little surprise that the nation casts a long shadow across Asia — including in its media coverage. However, we are now seeing a disturbing trend of Western media casting a favorable light on China, right as it stands accused of suppressing democracy in Hong Kong, interning Uighurs and obscuring investigations into the origins of COVID-19. At the same time, important coverage of Asian democracies, such as Taiwan’s 20-place leap in the Democracy Index last year — in the midst of a pandemic that brought major constrictions of democratic rights in many places — gets