Dangerous to ignore Chinese ambitions

An article by Charles Emmerson in Foreign Policy Magazine makes the proposition that the international situation in 2013 has similarities to that of 1913 when, of course, the world was on the brink of the Great War.

He writes: “The leading power of the age [2013 the United States, 1913 Britain] is in relative decline…a rising power [2013 China, 1913 Germany] is jostling for position…democracy and despotism are locked in uneasy competition. A world economy is interconnected as never before by flows of money, trade, and people and by the unprecedented spread of new, distance-destroying technologies…”

Having built up the argument, Emmerson qualifies it, correctly pointing out that in 1913 Germany was a newcomer on the international stage, while China had been a global power in past centuries and is simply returning to the position it once occupied; in 1913 Britain’s decline was there for all to see – it had slipped behind Germany in industrial production some years previously – while, despite endless predictions of doom, the US is still far and away the world’s largest and most innovative economy.

However he then goes on to say that in 1913 Germany was actively seeking an overseas empire [correct - German East Africa, German New Guinea and elsewhere]  while “China eschews the idea that it is an expansionist power (though it is perfectly clear about protecting its interests around the world).”

It is quite amazing that Emmerson can lump Chinese expansionism under “protecting its interests”. In doing so he has acquiesced to the game China plays, which is to push its territorial ambitions under the guise of regaining areas and spheres of influence that it claims is its by historical right and was taken from it during its time of weakness in the last decades of imperial government. A few examples of the greater China policy:

Tibet: China invaded the country shortly after the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949, claiming it was historically part of China, even though at the time Tibet was clearly an independent, sovereign nation.

India: In 1962 China invaded India and captured large swathes of territory, although it later withdrew in the knowledge that with the end of the Cuban missile crisis, it would face pressure from both the Soviet Union (then allied to India) and the United States. The border between the countries is still in dispute and China has produced a map showing the entire Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Southern Tibet.’

Hong Kong: In initial negotiations in the 1980s, China rejected out of hand a proposal that Britain continue to administer the territory, although the island of Hong Kong and Kowloon had been ceded to the United Kingdom ‘in perpetuity’ and only the New Territories were subject to a 99-year lease.  While no referendum was ever held, it is quite reasonable to suppose that a majority of Hong Kong citizens would have preferred continued British rule and eventual independence.

Taiwan: Although the People’s Republic has never ruled the island of Taiwan, to which the defeated Nationalists retreated at the end of the Chinese Civil War, Beijing continues to insist it is a renegade province which it will reclaim one day.

South China Sea:  China simply refuses to concede ground on its claim to islands in the South China Sea, bullying smaller neighbours such as the Philippines and Vietnam with statements that they are ‘historically’ part of China because of long-standing Chinese fishing interests there.

The pattern is clear. Beijing makes claims on territory based on flimsy historical associations and then rejects all protests on the ground that it is interference in its internal affairs.

On this basis China might well feel it has a right to vast areas of Central Asia, while the 15^th century Chinese admiral, Zeng He, extracted tributes from most of the then kingdoms of south-east Asia and took his fleet as far as the Persian Gulf and the East Coast of Africa.

Emmerson’s claim  that 1913 and 2013 have much in common is really no more than a good piece of headline-grabbing journalism, but his suggestion that the West should not equate China’s pursuit of its own interests with territorial expansion is flawed and dangerous.