China Redux

Elizabeth Economy, director of Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, published a hawkish op-ed in the Washington Post Thursday morning casting considerable suspicion on China’s foreign policy motivations and arguing for increased vigilance on the part of the US and the world. Economy argues that China’s “peaceful rise” is nothing much more than a protracted PR campaign:

Chinese rhetoric notwithstanding, China’s rise will be as disruptive and difficult as that of any other global power.

To which “other global power” does Economy refer? Germany after World War I? Japan in the sixties and seventies? Both were disruptive.

And more:

Yet the truth is that China, with its rapidly growing economy and large population, already exerts an unsettling and often negative impact on the world.

Economy makes a lot of fine points that stay away from the blather about trade deficits and currency manipulation. She points to China’s growing responsibility for global environmental problems and its backing of unsavory regimes in Sudan, Burma, and Zimbabwe as two reasons for serious concern. But it was last week’s anti-missile test that has Economy throwing down the gauntlet:

If there is a silver lining to this missile strike, it may be that we can finally stop talking about China’s peaceful rise or the Washington Consensus vs. the Beijing Consensus. The only consensus that matters is one rooted in a clear understanding of China’s rise and the urgency it brings to the need for real U.S. leadership.

Was China’s anti-satellite test a sort of tipping point among policy wonks? I think it certainly pushed a lot of centrists into a decidedly more aggressive position on China. Liberal internationalists and even realists who take more of a wait-and-see approach on the issue of the China “threat” were put in an awkward position. But that does not mean that they are wrong.

In point of fact, the world is always looking for “real” U.S. leadership. For Economy, this would seem to mean publicly castigating China in hopes of forcing her into changing various policies deemed harmful by the US. In Economy’s view, “we can and should condemn China for not respecting the international rules governing these issues….”

I believe this is the wrong tactic. The US led in a very subtle, but very effective, manner in the wake of last week’s disruptive test. The Bush administration demonstrated restraint and trust, and it paid off. Now, the US should continue with that style in order to strengthen communication with Beijing, and use the accrued goodwill to push for dividends on space issues and beyond. In the long run, that will prove to be the most productive way to manage China’s ascent.

At the same time, that does not mean that the US should not be implementing policies to counteract the disruptive forces resulting from China’s rise. There is much work to be done at home. We could start with investments in education and infrastructure to strengthen US competitiveness; fixing America’s health care system; restoring America’s global reputation to bolster our ability to lead effectively; and creating a global framework for responsible environmental and energy planning.

Economy is obviously correct in pointing out that China’s ascent will be disruptive. But we should not resort to outrage in the face of another’s growth. Instead, we must pursue the paths that will help sustain our national interest — and that of the world. For now, strategic cooperation is still far more important than demagogy.