Willam S. Lind writes:
Much is made of the analogy between the
relationship of the U.S. to China today and that of Great Britain to Imperial
Germany before World War I. Just as Germany had risen quickly to become a world
economic power, so has China. Germany, driven by nationalism, sought
commensurate military, naval, and diplomatic power, as does China. As young
powers, both Germany then and China now were sometimes brash in ways that were
not in their own interest. Both challenged the dominant power at sea, though
they had no pressing need to do so.
But there is another side to the analogy, one
that cautions Washington. Britain handled Germany’s rise poorly. She waged
aggressive war on the Boers, a people the Germans regarded as close kin, and
alienated German public opinion. The Kaiser was left in the awkward position of
being more pro-British than his people. In the Entente Cordiale, Britain
entered into an extra-constitutional and strategically unnecessary alliance
aimed at containing Germany. In 1914, while Kaiser Wilhelm II did not want war,
some important Britons did, including Churchill and, disastrously, Britain’s
Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey.
As Washington “rebalances” its military toward
Asia, we too are handling a rising power poorly. The Obama administration’s
resolve to build up American air and naval forces in the Pacific can be aimed
at only one country, China. Our recent offhand guarantee to Japan over the
disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands has a chilling echo of 1914. Like Britain
before World War I, we appear unwilling to countenance the natural rise of a
new power; we act as if foreign policy were merely a child’s game of king of
the hill. Elements in the Pentagon see a sea and air war with China as a way to
recoup their failures in recent land wars, as well as justify their budgets.
What would a conservative policy toward China look
like, one that proceeded from Russell Kirk’s politics of prudence? It would
arise from recognition of a paradigm shift of rare historic dimensions in the
grand-strategic environment. The rise of Fourth Generation war—war waged by
non-state entities—has made conflict between states obsolete.
As this kind of war spreads across the globe,
defeating one national military after another, it puts at risk the state system
itself. It also defines the 21st century as one in which the decisive conflict
will be between order and disorder. The state represents order, and order is
conservatism’s first objective. Conservatives are on the side of the state, and
a conservative foreign policy seeks above all maintenance of the state system.
That in turn requires an alliance of all states, including China, against
non-state forces.
It is difficult to imagine a conflict with
greater potential to damage the state system than one between America and
China. We are currently witnessing the consequences of the disintegration of
one small state, Libya. A defeated China, its central government delegitimized
by military failure, could fall into a new period of warring states. What would
be the fate of order in a world in which disorder ruled more than a billion
Chinese?
Avoiding this nightmare scenario and creating an
effective alliance with China requires that America accept, and indeed welcome,
China’s rise. A stronger China can and should assume primary responsibility for
maintaining order in a growing portion of the world. Such a relief of America’s
burden—one increasingly beyond our financial strength to bear—is in our
interest. Similarly, the maintenance of order is in China’s interest, as well
as congruent with fast-recovering traditional Chinese culture and Confucian
values.
Conservatives’ old friend realism offers a device
for bringing harmony to Chinese-American relations: spheres of influence. As
China’s expands, ours can contract, within the shared framework of upholding
order. One Chinese admiral jokingly proposed drawing a north-south line through
the Pacific, demarcating our respective spheres of influence. We should take
him up on it, and add that as China continues its rise, the line will shift.
If this proposal seems radical, it in fact
reflects the way Britain accommodated a rising United States. The possibility
of war between America and Britain was taken seriously by both sides well up
into the 20th century. But instead of clashing, as British power weakened after
World War I and, more dramatically, after World War II, London incrementally
passed the task of maintaining order to the United States. Britain eventually
did this even in areas she had long regarded as vital to her interests,
including the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.
Just as a return to spheres of influence can
replace conflict with alliance between the United States and China, so it can
harmonize relations elsewhere, again with the goal of allying all states
against the forces of the Fourth Generation. We should recognize Russia’s “near
abroad” as her sphere of influence. We should work actively to bring
Afghanistan into Pakistan’s sphere of influence. While contested spheres of
influence can exacerbate conflicts, agreed spheres reduce them. By acting as an
honest broker to facilitate such agreement—including between China and
Japan—rather than joining either side, the U.S. can do more for her real
interests, including her vital interest in maintaining the state system.
As the abominable snowman of foreign-policy
idealism, made up of Wilsonians, globalists, and moon-gazers melts in the sun
of serial failure, realism awakens from hibernation. The destruction of states
in the name of “democracy” and “human rights” may not be an unmixed blessing.
Results matter—not merely intentions.
Results have not been quite this important for a
bit over 350 years, since the Peace of Westphalia. The state system established
by Westphalia is under assault and may fall to non-state forces, ushering in
Old Night around the globe. Realism, spheres of influence, and an alliance of
all states against the Fourth Generation comprise the policy
prudence recommends.
No comments:
Post a Comment