tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320499219200491287.post4041842433337984470..comments2023-10-09T15:36:21.464-04:00Comments on Fairer Globalization: Reverse China HedgePolicy Innovationshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16579852959458521021noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320499219200491287.post-59581031699144193692009-04-03T14:07:00.000-04:002009-04-03T14:07:00.000-04:00It is certainly more subtle than "foreign devil."It is certainly more subtle than "foreign devil."Devin Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08510505316223549589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320499219200491287.post-47909434604319892222009-04-02T17:38:00.000-04:002009-04-02T17:38:00.000-04:00"nuanced" is a very nuanced way to say something. ..."nuanced" is a very nuanced way to say something. Or perhaps not to say something.<BR/><BR/>gAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320499219200491287.post-74327109997473528512009-04-02T05:34:00.000-04:002009-04-02T05:34:00.000-04:00Gawain, thanks for your great comments. Another wa...Gawain, thanks for your great comments. Another way to say what I am trying to argue is that China is getting more "nuanced" in its approach to the United States. This is from the Nelson Report last night, commenting on the DPRK's intention to launch a rocket as early as this weekend (according to the New York times). Here is Nelson:<BR/><BR/>...informed sources confirm that Russia, explicitly, and China, implicitly, have told the US they will not support the US contention that a satellite launch violates 1718.<BR/><BR/>That's because, both countries have argued, the DPRK has given the required formal notification of date, time, and planned path for the missile, to both international aircraft and shipping authorities...<BR/><BR/>...China's response, in private, is described as "nuanced", since Beijing has very clearly told Pyongyang that it does NOT want to see a missile of any kind, and that any such test would be "unhelpful" to the situation on the Korean Peninsula.Devin Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08510505316223549589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320499219200491287.post-91439452934192146882009-04-02T01:27:00.000-04:002009-04-02T01:27:00.000-04:00hi devin,thanks for this insightful piece. You're...hi devin,<BR/><BR/>thanks for this insightful piece. You're right, of course, that the US is pursuing a "hedged" strategy on china. although distinguishing between hedging and incoherence can sometimes be a challenge. and, even while there's some balance in actually policy, there's little in rhetoric and among the demogogues.<BR/><BR/>on the other side, I'm not sure you're right that china has hedged against the USA. there's lots of dark rumbling about Chinese military budgets, but I think there's a fair amount of interested alarmism in this. It serves military interests here to do scaremongering on china. i think that there's actually less there than meets the eye. Although big, china's army is smaller, per capita, than many countries, including the USA. And at $50b annually (officially) it's still a small fraction of ours. China's ability to project force beyond its borders and immediate neighbors seems very slight. <BR/><BR/>In fact, I think China hasn't hedged well against the US. To do a better job, they really ought to diversify away from the dollar - in a careful and orderly way. They should be identifying and cultivating potential counterbalances against US power - namely Europe, Russia, and India. And they might dabble in global solidarity politics (a la Chavez, or perhaps more elegantly like Lula). <BR/><BR/>Lastly, as you say, they should be articulating a vision for leadership and order that clarifies their intentions and reassures potential partners. <BR/><BR/>For each of these, you can find some movement from China, but surprisingly little. Instead, I feel like they've been running out the clock on a generally successful, but declining strategy work laying low politically, and growing - and developing - their economy. But that will have to change as the environment is changing.<BR/><BR/>They'll have to start hedging against the potential of poor economic performance in the US, against more volatile US attitudes toward China, and unclear US intentions militarily. <BR/><BR/>The US/China trade and finance interdependence has been enormously reassuring politically. They buy our Treasuries and we by their exports. It's quite evident that we need one another. This helps dampen our paranoid fears. But this can't last, and the sooner each takes steps toward hedging, the better. But there are risks in hedging. The game-theory outcomes are pretty simple right now - lose-lose/win-win. But there will be more possible outcomes when we are each pursuing hedged strategies, which will itself introduce more complexity and additional risks. <BR/><BR/>gawainAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com