Comments on: Niall Ferguson Displays His Dickishness on U.S.-China Relations

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:11:58 +0000

I think the only thing I’d want to add to that is some countries are ambitious and actively pursue empires, while others back their way into one, often to secure commodities or protect trade concessions. That being said, this does not mean that one is less reprehensible than the other.

While I agree on your characterizations of China’s current policy goals (and disagree with Ferguson), I wonder what will happen to the foreign policy of China, or Russia, or several other nations in the future when/if the US finally wakes up one morning and decides that it can no longer maintain a global military presence?

By: Huyu

Huyu — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:26:00 +0000

I used to admire Mr. Ferguson’s intellect. However, his recent selective readings of history is causing me to think twice. As a student of history, he should be well aware of Wilhemian Germany as well as Bismarckian Germany. The difference between the two is because of policy choices and Bismarck’s Germany had chosen wisely and managed its internal nationalistic aspirations in a positive direction; as a result, Europe had 50 years of peace after the Germany Re-unification. While there is always the danger of policy reversals in China due to personality change or other factors, all the indicators are saying resolutely that China is well aware of the dangers, and are managing personnel as well as its populations inspirations to ensure that there is peaceful transition in the next 50 years. At the same time, historical and cultural differences between teh two nations cannot be over-stated. While Germany never had the confidence in its corner of the world about its role, and strove for Weltpolitik, China never had much doubt about its role in the world, even in the darkest days from 1840-1949, and its ambitions are well limited to that of this corner of the world once the western boundaries have been pacified (as they are today by and large). Instead of asking for world recognition and a role, we prefer not to have one, and delegating that to Uncle Sam. Permeating throughout our society, we know that our goal is our most important task is to give our people a good life, comparable to those in the US, Europe, and Japan; for that, we need a peaceful environment. If we in China has any ambitions, it is commercial and nothing that contradicts mutual benefits. Let me close by emphasizing that we understand in our intelligentsia that Germany was a country that could have gained everything it ever wishes by just being the peaceful, prosperous, powerful neighbour of everyone, but it did not. After 360 degrees, and countless bloodshed, it achieved the same thing except it is today 1/3 smaller in its territory with the rest lost after 1000 years of Carolingian, Ottonian, Hohenstaufen, and Hapsburg German civilization. Our governments in today’s China is not perfect, but we think it is good enough for us in the present time and circumstances. Many of us speak of the US democratic system, and to a certain extent India’s, with admiration, including those at the highest of echelon of power. We just have to figure out the way to get their ourselves with as little bloodshed as possible and fastest learning that we can. So leave us alone. We are friends to all, that is, until our core interests are at peril.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:14:42 +0000

Fully agree with your post, Stan.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:14:06 +0000

Stan,
Thanks for this column. I am not a China expert, but I agree with you. I do not think major conflict between the USA & China is inevitable nor do i believe it will be productive if it happens–and this is coming from a career military guy. I think we can do many things to force a conflict, but after almost 30 years in uniform, I’ve yet to see a conflict that made things better, so I’m hoping our diplomats can keep people talking and avoid any shooting. I realize I’ll catch some flak from people who still remember WW II, but besides that mess, I don’t see any conflict in the 20th Century that wasn’t avoidable or just a tragedy, and you could even argue that without a lopsided Treaty of Versailles, WW II was also avoidable. Too much to argue about on that line, and this isn’t the place. Sorry for rambling. Thanks again–feel free to edit. Conflict should never be inevitable.

By: stevelaudig

stevelaudig — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:50:08 +0000

I lived in Changsha for 10 months teaching english at a university. for what it is worth. the daily life in china strikes me as normal. if anything it reminded me of the U.S. in the 1950s to early, mid 1970s [minus vietnam]. people say they are happy, optimistic though concerned about the future. and the country isn’t at war. the u.s. seems abnormal in that is has been at war more times than any other country and now is financial broke. If I were a country I think I’d rather have China’s problems than the U.S.’s problems because the political/economic forces in the U.S. are preventing the solution of the U.S.’s problems by vetoing need reform while the problems in china seem to be being addressed by the government and the population seems to believe that the government is addressing the problems. Few in the U.S. truly believe that the federal government will tackle the big problems in a meaningful way. Chinese are optimistic, forward looking. Not so, it seems to me, the U.S. but again this is just one person’s very limited experience. but look at infrastructure development and military spending. Hands down, China is in better shape.